Vol. 505 No. 4
20 Mr. Callely asked the Minister for Finance the progress, if any, on the review of the Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers (Tax Concessions) Regulations, 1994; if his attention has been drawn to the fact that an amendment to the first schedule primary medical certificate would help resolve current difficulties; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [13700/99]
A review of the disabled drivers and disabled passengers (tax concessions) scheme is being undertaken by an interdepartmental group under the chairmanship of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform with a view to determining what modifications, if any, might be proposed to the current scheme. The existing medical criteria for qualification – set out in the first schedule primary medical certificate – may be among the items examined by the group. I understand from my colleague, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, that the group hopes to furnish its report for consideration prior to the summer recess.
The current scheme is costly and opening it up to wider ranges of disabilities would significantly add to that cost. I caution, therefore, against an expectation that every person who suffers from some form of disability or disablement will be admitted to this scheme as a result of the deliberations of the group.
Does the Minister accept a situation in which an elderly lady who is completely incapacitated was asked to travel to Dublin to have her case reassessed?
She can travel to the local town with her husband but could not travel long distances in a car. I appreciate the Minister's anxiety over funds but if this lady is not catered for in the near future, she will have to be funded for full time care as her husband simply cannot afford the transport costs. I urge the Minister to consider the situation to ensure genuine cases, such as the one to which I refer, have available to them, the transport to which they are entitled. We are talking about areas in which public transport is not available.
I am somewhat confused as to how this could occur. The regulations are set and a person goes before a medical officer who completes a primary medical certificate outlining whether the person satisfies the criteria. This has nothing to do with the Revenue Commissioners or the Department of Finance. Deputy Crawford seems to be suggesting that the criteria should be extended. The interdepartmental group has been sitting for some time and is due to report shortly. However, I caution against the expectation that this scheme will be open to people with all forms of disability. We discussed this issue during the debate on the Finance Bill and considerable costs would be incurred if the scheme were extended.
The appeals can only be dealt with in Dublin.
That is correct.
The Minister rightly pointed out that we discussed this issue at some length on Committee Stage of the Finance Bill. We agreed that there were essentially two ways of approaching the matter. We could either seek to extend the existing scheme to people with other illnesses or we could adopt a root and branch approach to the way in which the scheme operates. The Minister appeared to indicate at that stage that he would favour the latter approach. Will he confirm that now?
Yes, I did. However, I also pointed to the hue and cry which ensued when former Ministers for Finance and former Ministers for Health attempted to do something about this scheme. The people who qualify under the scheme do not want any of the concessions to be changed. A root and branch review would not alone entail examining the criteria but also the form the scheme would take.
The difficulty arises from the fact that the scheme is very generous. One could broaden the criteria if one reduced the generosity of the scheme. As a result of the uproar which occurred when attempts were made to make some changes to the scheme many years ago, the scheme was not changed.
Does the Minister accept that it is unfair that individuals who may be totally incapacitated on one side of their bodies as a result of a stroke do not qualify under the current terms of the scheme? Surely that is an anomaly in the present system and is very unfair to some people who are as incapacitated as others who are in receipt of the scheme's benefits.
I am very sympathetic to people with disability for reasons of which the Deputy may not even be aware. The difficulty with this scheme relates to its cost. As a result of previous deliberations, new quite specific and restrictive regulations were published in 1994. However, the cost of the scheme has increased each year. There are many alternatives to addressing this problem. Other countries do not have a scheme like this. Some opt for a grant system. This scheme has been so attractive that if one were to change it, all hell would break loose. That must be taken into account.
What would it cost to extend the scheme?
It would cost £15 million. More than 100,000 people in Ireland suffer from some form of disability.
