Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 2 Mar 1999

Vol. 501 No. 3

Adjournment Debate. - Tax Reliefs.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I thank you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, for the opportunity to raise this question this evening. I want to highlight a specific case and to make a general point.

I tabled a question to the Minister for Finance on 16 February to ask him if a tax or duty concession to purchase a car will be given to a person in Dublin 12 who has two artificial eyes and whose wife drives for him – a simple, straightforward and clear case. This man is unable to drive because of his disability.

The reply I received was that the disabled drivers and disabled passengers tax concessions scheme provides tax relief for the purchase of a vehicle whether for use as a driver or as a passenger, and six different types of disability were listed. The reply stated that the scheme targets relief at persons who are severely and permanently disabled with regard to physical mobility. It stated that the scheme is operated on a day to day basis and that visual impairment is not a disability which comes within the scope of the specified criteria laid down.

In all honesty, if someone has two artificial eyes and does not qualify for assistance for the purchase of a car as a passenger because they do not have the required disability, what disability must one have to qualify for this benefit? The answer, according to the six categories the Minister listed, includes persons who are wholly or almost wholly without the use of both legs; persons wholly without the use of one of the legs and almost wholly without the use of the other leg such as they are severely restricted as to movement of their lower limbs; persons without both hands or both arms; persons without one or both legs; persons wholly or almost wholly without the use of both hands or arms and wholly or almost wholly without the use of one leg; persons having the medical condition of dwarfism and who have serious difficulties of movement of the lower limb.

Since I raised this question in the Dáil last week, and since publicity was given to the gentleman concerned – a very good natured man who copes with his disability with good humour – I have been contacted by a number of organisations and individuals who pointed out the hardship they are experiencing, including a couple whose son has a condition called hemiplegia, a cerebral palsy condition where the child is literally, at the age of nine, like a stroke victim on one side, and who have been denied this benefit. There is a general application in this case, but there is a very specific one in the case of the person I mentioned.

I ask that this man be given this concession, to which he is clearly entitled if any sense of justice has been applied to the Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers (Tax Concessions) Regulations, 1994. I want it specifically for this man because it is justified. I want the Minister of State to confirm that this man, who has two artificial eyes and who is sitting with his wife in the Public Gallery waiting to hear the reply, is entitled to the disabled persons tax concession as a passenger. Is there any clearer case than this one to illustrate the unfairness of the regulations as they are drawn in the six categories listed?

This is not a case of someone who has a slight impairment. This person has no eyes, he has two artificial ones. He cannot get around in a car without being driven. If the 1994 legislation was passed for anybody, it was passed for my constituent.

I ask the Minister of State to confirm that my constituent will be given his due right under the law and that the scheme will be reviewed and extended to include people like the child I mentioned earlier whose parents are also sitting in the Gallery and who have a right to expect that the law of the land, in the way it is regulated, is applied fairly, evenly and justly. I hope the Minister of State will not give me the sort of reply I got to the parliamentary question last week because I am not going away. I am determined to see that changes are brought about to this scheme.

Mr. Treacy

Section 43 of the Finance Act, 1968, introduced an exemption from road tax for vehicles adapted or constructed for and used by disabled persons who in the main would have been confined to wheelchairs. The scheme was later extended to allow relief from VAT and from vehicle excise duty on the acquisition of a vehicle and from excise duty on the fuel used. Vehicle excise duty was replaced by vehicle registration tax – VRT – with effect from 1 January 1993. Medical certification was by the disabled person's own doctor and required that the person be "wholly or almost wholly without the use of each of his or her legs".

A framework for a new consolidated scheme of reliefs was provided for under section 92 of the Finance Act, 1989. The regulations made under that Act set out criteria for eligibility for the reliefs as well as specifying their scope and various procedures to be complied with to qualify for benefit. The resultant Disabled Drivers (Tax Concessions) Regulations, 1989 came into operation in December of that year.

A comprehensive review of the working of the provisions set out in the 1989 scheme was carried out in 1993-94 and resulted in the adoption of the Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers (Tax Concessions) Regulations, 1994. The tax concessions have never been available to persons, such as this category of individual, who fail to meet the basic requirement of the regulations.

The specified medical criteria apply to persons who are wholly or almost wholly without the use of both legs; persons wholly without the use of one of their legs and almost wholly without the use of the other leg such that they are severely restricted as to movement of their lower limbs; persons without both hands or without both arms; persons without both legs; persons wholly without or almost wholly without the use of both hands or arms and wholly or almost wholly without the use of one leg; and persons having the medical condition of dwarfism and who have serious difficulties of movement of the lower limbs.

Mr. G. Mitchell

The man has no eyes.

Mr. Treacy

A person must satisfy one or more of the medical criteria laid down in the regulations. The fundamental requirement for qualification for relief is that the person is seriously and permanently disabled with regard to physical mobility. Medical certification is provided by the senior area medical officer in the local health board. If a person is refused the required medical certificate, the case may be appealed to the Disabled Drivers' Medical Board of Appeal – an independent board whose decision is final. As was pointed out in reply to several parliamentary questions on this topic, many persons appeal who do not meet the basic scheme requirements.

The benefits which apply under the disabled drivers' scheme are relief from VAT and VRT up to a maximum of £7,500 in connection with the cost of both the purchase and adaptation of a suitably adapted vehicle for the use of a qualifying disabled driver. Further relief is available in respect of a replacement vehicle every two years thereafter; relief from VAT and VRT up to a maximum of £12,500 in connection with the cost of purchase and adaptation of a suitably adapted vehicle by a family member residing with and responsible for the transport of a qualifying disabled person. Further relief is available in respect of a replacement vehicle every two years thereafter; repayment of excise duty on up to 600 gallons of fuel per annum for use in transporting the disabled person in the tax relieved vehicle; and exemption from the repayment of road tax on the vehicle.

These reliefs are also available in respect of specially adapted vehicles purchased by certain qualifying charitable organisations for the transport of disabled persons. These are generous tax reliefs for the qualifying persons and are costly to the Exchequer. It is estimated that the relief cost the Exchequer approximately £14.4 million in 1998 and will cost approximately £16.5 million in 1999.

Mr. G. Mitchell

A lot less than a tribunal.

Mr. Treacy

I agree with the Deputy. This is an increase from approximately £4 million originally in 1994.

As the House will see, the medial criteria relate essentially to disabilities which seriously and permanently impair the physical mobility of the person concerned and reflect the origins of the scheme as a relief for disabled persons who are confined to wheelchairs but who nevertheless are capable of driving suitably adapted cars.

Visual impairment is not a disability which comes within the scope of the specified medical condition which, although disabling, may not compromise the physical mobility of the person concerned to a serious degree. The principle issue of concern expressed in connection with the relief is in relation to the medical criteria. Arguably, the pressure to extend the scheme is driven by its valuable reliefs, giving access to tax free cars and fuel, essentially for life. The scheme cannot be extended to all and every person who suffers from some form of disablement or disability – however deserving each group considers its case to be. Requests are continually made for the medical criteria to be relaxed so as to extend the range of qualifying disabilities to include other categories, notably those suffering from, among other ailments, cystic fibrosis, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, the effects of stroke, heart conditions, cerebral palsy and epilepsy—

Mr. G. Mitchell

The cheek of them.

Mr. Treacy

—renal failure, diabetes, spina bifida, club foot and foot drop, mental illness, Downs syndrome and visual impairment.

In addition, there are demands to allow persons not fully meeting the current criteria relating to the loss of limbs to be admitted. The number of potential beneficiaries is unclear but, according to lobbyists for the disabled, there are up to 350,000 persons in Ireland who could be regarded as disabled to some degree.

I welcome the affected person, Mr. John Mitchell, and his wife, Mary, to the public gallery. I empathise completely with this couple and I would love to resolve this issue for them. It is not possible for me to do so because of the medical criteria laid down and the regulations passed by this House.

Mr. G. Mitchell

The Minister should change the regulations. That is his job.

Mr. Treacy

Deputy Mitchell has been a Member of this House for longer than I have. He had several opportunities to change the regulations in Government and otherwise and he failed to do so.

Mr. G. Mitchell

The Minister of State's reply is a disgrace.

Mr. Treacy

Deputy Mitchell is very good at creating scenes to suit his own agenda.

I regret that I cannot change the regulations now. However, I will refer this case to the new National Disabilities Authority, recently established by the Government. The authority will examine this case and make recommendations on it for future legislative change.