Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 22 Mar 2000

Vol. 516 No. 4

Adjournment Debate - Disabled Drivers Scheme.

Ms Shortall

I wish to raise the urgent need to reform the disabled drivers and passengers tax concession scheme to include persons with severe disabilities not currently covered by the scheme. I thank the Chair for allowing me to raise the issue.

Like many other Members, I have received a number of representations from constituents concerning the limited nature of this scheme. The complaint is straightforward – the medical criteria are too strict for people with severe disabilities to comply. This results in much frustration for the applicants and the senior area medical officers, who are forced to administer a system which is designed to meet the transport needs of people with severe and permanent mobility restrictions, but the qualifying criteria of which categorically deny many of this group from qualifying. The feeling is that there is a scheme in operation which recognises the transport difficulties of people with disabilities but limits to a small minority those who qualify.

The scheme is intended to facilitate people with severe disabilities in their mobility so they can live life as fully as possible. The medical criteria for the scheme are that, for the purposes of the Finance Act, 1989, the eligibility on medical grounds of disabled persons who are severely and permanently disabled shall be assessed by reference to any one or more of the following criteria – 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 the movement of their lower limbs; persons without both hands or without 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 limbs.

The Minister, Deputy McDaid, as a medical doctor, will be aware that a number of those criteria do not match any medical condition. It is extremely frustrating for many medical officers to come across people who are severely disabled and who simply cannot get out and about without a specially adapted car to drive or in which travel as a passenger. If we accept that people with severe disabilities have rights to live life to the best of their ability, then there is a moral onus on the State to support and facilitate them in terms of their mobility.

People with very common disabilities do not qualify under those strict criteria. I am talking, for example, about people who have had a severe stroke and who are paralysed and do not have the use of an arm or who drag a leg. These people are desperately trying to rehabilitate themselves, sometimes to return to work on a part-time basis so they can be rehabilitated, and get back to a normal life. Those people do not qualify.

People with severe arthritis, arthritic knees or hips, who have considerable difficulty getting around and cannot really walk more than a few yards, desperately need a car or the use of a car to get out and about and to live life normally. However, people with severe arthritis do not qualify. People with osteoporosis who are severely restricted in their movements and who, for their own well being and that of their family, should be entitled to live a normal life, should be facilitated by travelling by car as a passenger or as a driver. None of those people qualifies under the existing scheme.

An expert group is looking at this matter but it is clear from several parliamentary replies I have got that there is no sense of urgency in relation to the work of this group. Its consideration is constantly being delayed. The most recent reply I got seemed to indicate that it will be at least another year before there is a decision. I ask the Minister to give this matter his urgent attention, to ensure the expert group reports within a reasonable time – say within the next three months – and that there is some action so that people who are severely disabled will be supported by Government to live normally.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Cullen)

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 for relief from VAT and excise duty – motor excise duty was replaced by vehicle registration tax with effect from 1 January 1993 – on the acquisition of a vehicle and from excise on the petrol used. Medical certification was by the disabled person's doctor and required that the person be "wholly or almost wholly without the use of each of his (her) legs".

The limited medical criteria applying under the scheme were seen as being excessively restrictive and, in addition, the piecemeal fashion in which the scheme developed gave rise to a number of anomalies and abuses. Therefore, 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 in order to qualify for benefit. The resultant Disabled Drivers (Tax Concessions) Regulations, 1989, came into operation on 21 December 1989.

A comprehensive review of the workings of the provisions set out in the 1989 scheme was carried out in 1993 and resulted in the adoption of the Disabled Drivers and Disabled Passengers (Tax Concessions) Regulations, 1994. Six different types of disability are listed under the regulations and a qualifying person must satisfy one or more of them. Essentially, those without the use of limbs, as distinct from those who are just weak in the limbs, will qualify. These regulations were drawn up following wide ranging consultation with the Departments of Health, Environment and Justice, the Disabled Drivers Medical Board of Appeal, the Revenue Commissioners, Opposition spokespersons for finance and organisations dealing with the disabled.

The principal issue of concern expressed in connection with the reliefs then was, and indeed still is, in relation to their scope. Arguably, the pressure to extend the scheme is driven by its substantial benefit in terms of the tax relief extended. The qualifying disability criteria set out in the regulations relate essentially to persons who have severe and permanent physical mobility problems.

While the number of potential beneficiaries is unclear, there are up to 350,000 persons who could be regarded as disabled to some degree. Of course, not all would or could use any widened scheme, but the substantial tax benefits makes for considerable interest in the scheme.

The issue of the medical criteria for qualification was looked at in considerable detail in 1993-4, bearing in mind the various representations which had been received seeking the extension of the benefits of the scheme to other medical categories. The review recommended that the existing specific medical criteria should remain broadly uchanged. The current medical criteria are designed so that people who qualify for the scheme do so irrespective of the original cause of their disability and this is considered to provide for equitable treatment of those with severe mobility difficulties.

As the House is aware, this scheme is currently under review by an interdepartmental group 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 the Department of Finance, the Department of Health and Children and the Revenue Commissioners. This group is taking this task very seriously. It obviously wants to expedite this matter while coming to a fulsome conclusion in terms of reviewing all the criteria involved.

The Minister for Finance is on record as saying he appreciates the difficulties which people who suffer from some disability face in coping with every day life. There are many people with various forms of disability who would consider themselves as having a genuine case for the tax relief. Given the level of the benefits available under the scheme, the cost is quite considerable and extending it further would present any Minister for Finance with some dilemmas. The total number of beneficiaries under the scheme is in the region of 5,400. On average the scheme is worth up to £800 per year from the refund of petrol excise and £7,500 relief on the price of a new car every two years. There is also exemption from road tax. The cost of relief in 1999 was £17 million compared to £4 million in 1994, which shows just how this scheme is being sought out and used.

Groups who benefit under the scheme are resistant to the notion of any tinkering with the scheme because they believe that 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 a lessening of benefits generally. In this regard, representatives of the Disabled Drivers' Association advised the Minister of State at the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy Mary Wallace, at a meeting on 3 July 1998, that they were strongly opposed to any tinkering with the regulations.

The interdepartmental review group is trying to resolve the very complex issues involved. The group has met on a number of occasions and will be arranging to meet with representatives of a number of organisations and with a number of persons who indicated a desire to make oral submissions. The date for such oral submissions has not yet been determined, but it is likely to be in the coming months. The information furnished at these meetings will facilitate the group in bringing its work to a conclusion and in finalising its report for consideration.

Ms Shortall

We will not hold our breath.