Vol. 512 No. 6
28 Mr. Deenihan asked the Minister for Finance if he has received the report of the interdepartmental review group on the disabled drivers and disabled passengers (tax concessions) regulations; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26931/99]
As the House is aware, this scheme is under review by an interdepartmental group which was established in April 1998 and which is chaired by an official from the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. In addition to representatives from that Department, the group has representatives from my Department, the Department of Health and Children and the Revenue Commissioners.
The group met on a number of occasions and will be arranging to meet representatives of a number of organisations and a number of persons who indicated a desire to make oral submissions. The date for such oral presentations has not yet been determined, but it is likely to be early in the new year. The information furnished at these meetings will facilitate the group in bringing its work to a conclusion and in finalising its report for consideration.
While the Revenue Commissioners keep the scheme under ongoing review, they have just completed a technical review of the scheme and this document has recently been circulated to the members of the interdepartmental group. However, it should be pointed out that the Revenue review has a very specific focus in that it aims to address only the technical and operational problems with the present scheme, with a view to making the scheme operate in a more effective and cost-efficient manner for its present target group.
I appreciate the difficulties which people who suffer from some disability face in coping with everyday life. However, a particular difficulty with this scheme relates to its increasing cost in giving very generous tax benefits. The total cost to the Exchequer for 1998 was £14.4 million and it is estimated that the cost will rise to at least £17 million this year.
Does the Minister accept that the present definition of immobility excludes many stroke victims and others with medical disabilities? It discriminates against a large section of our community.
I agree that people with significant mobility problems are excluded from the benefits of this scheme, which causes anger and frustration for them. However, the scheme is tar geted at those who are severely and permanently disabled regarding their physical mobility. The important point is that those who benefit under the scheme are very resistant to the notion of any tinkering with the scheme, as they believe it would not be possible to extend the benefits to other classes of disability without incurring prohibitive additional costs which they fear would ultimately result in lessening the benefits generally.
The total number of beneficiaries under the scheme is 5,400. It is a very generous scheme and perhaps if we were starting it again we would probably do what has been done in other countries, which use grants and other methods of dealing with the matter. When the Leas-Cheann Comhairle was Minister for Health he suggested a change in the way people qualified for the scheme and all hell broke loose. It is such a generous scheme that if any changes were made to it, those who qualify under it at present would be upset, and I do not propose to do that. An interdepartmental group has been established, but given generous benefits under the scheme, it is not possible to extend it to any great extent.
The Minister received a submission from those representing blind passengers, who are few in number. Given that blindness is not a medical condition, so to speak, but a loss of a faculty crucial to mobility, surely the Minister could make an allowance for the approximately 70 blind passengers in that lobby group without upsetting the present definition? Will he give serious consideration to providing for them, if he proposes to expand the scheme?
I would love to give not only that group but many others further consideration in terms of extending this scheme. If one were to make any change to it and state that one form of disability should be included thereby implying others should not be included, one would create an imbalance. With the best will in the world and taking account of the small number of people involved in this lobby group, it is not possible to provide for them in this way.
It is difficult for a Minister for Finance or any other Minister to state that one form of disability is less severe than another form of disability. This is where the difficulties in this area have arisen. The interdepartmental review group is trying to resolve these difficulties by bringing forward proposals. When we have examined this matter further, I will give the group to which the Deputy referred further consideration.
I have been in this position for two years and six months, but these problems were in existence long before my time and bedevilled successive Administrations. There are tens of thousands of people with various forms of disability and each of them has a good and genuine case. Given the generosity of the benefits available under the scheme, its cost is quite considerable and extending it further would present any Minister for Finance with inordinate difficulties.
