Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 18 Oct 2000

Vol. 524 No. 3

Adjournment Debate. - Disabled Drivers' Scheme.

Mrs. B. Moynihan-Cronin

I thank the Ceann Comhairle for giving me the opportunity to raise this important matter on the Adjournment. Some months ago an advertisement appeared in the national media inviting submissions to a review of the disabled drivers and disabled passengers tax concession scheme. This review was timely and I am anxiously awaiting its deliberations. I am also anxiously awaiting word about when and what exactly the Government intends to do to address the clear anomalies which exist in the disabled drivers and disabled passengers tax concession scheme.

In my experience, one group has a clear case for inclusion in the guidelines for the scheme. This group comprises the 7,000 post-polio victims currently living in the State. Thankfully, we have turned the corner on polio and I hope the existing victims will mark the end of polio in Ireland. However, the fact that there are no new cases of polio does not mean that there are no associated problems that need to be addressed as far as post-polio victims are concerned.

I understand that of the 7,000 polio victims, there are upwards of 5,000 who have or are developing post-polio syndrome. The effect of this syndrome is devastating for some people and, in some cases, may result in severe disability. There is an onus on the State to ensure that these victims are given every support possible – there is no reason this should not happen given our financial resources – to ensure that they have as optimal a quality of life as possible.

To this end, it is crucial that the submissions made to the review of the disabled drivers and disabled passengers tax concession scheme on behalf of post-polio victims are considered favourably and that a decision is made to award them the normal concessions currently available to disabled drivers as soon as possible. As it stands, the criteria for the disabled drivers' scheme are strict and they fail to recognise a number of complex disabilities which are now manifesting themselves in post-polio victims.

As it stands, of our population of post-polio victims, the vast majority of them have managed to access employment and hold onto their employment after receiving treatment for their initial polio condition. However, the problems arising for post-polio syndrome sufferers, of which, as I stated, there are 5,000, pose new risks to their continued ability to participate in the workforce. Part of the doubt which hangs over their future participation in work concerns mobility, particularly with regard to travelling to and from work.

While many of the complex disabilities which post-polio victims manifest do not match the criteria for qualification for the disabled drivers' scheme, most of these people require hand-controlled mechanisms in their cars if they are to drive at all. Given that the majority of post-polio sufferers have contributed to the building of this economy by their participation in employment, their needs should not be ignored. The case for awarding this concession to these people is particularly strong not just because they have contrib uted to the social insurance fund throughout their lives, but also because it involves a very small but deserving group.

Access to a car offers huge enhancement to the quality of life for post-polio victims. On a practical basis, a car offers them the most efficient and safest mode of transport currently available. In addition, it ensures that they have access to employment opportunities on a competitive basis with other more able bodied employees. On a social basis, access to a car ensures that post-polio sufferers have the independence they deserve to lead a full life.

I am anxious that the submissions received by the Department of the Environment and Local Government from representatives of post-polio sufferers are considered favourably and that assistance is delivered to them as a matter of urgency. I also ask the Minister to assure the House that this group will no longer be ignored.

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

The disabled drivers and disabled passengers tax concession scheme was established in 1968 when section 43 of the Finance Act of that year 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 issued by the disabled person's doctor and required that the person be "wholly or almost wholly without the use of each of his legs".

The limited medical criteria applying under the scheme were considered to be 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 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 the various procedures to be complied with 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 follow ing wide-ranging consultation with the Departments of Health and Children, the Environment and Local Government and Justice, Equality and Law Reform, 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 was, and 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, up to 350,000 persons in Ireland could be regarded as disabled to some degree. Not all of them would or could use any widened scheme, but the substantial tax benefits make for considerable interest in the scheme.

The issue of the medical criteria for qualification was looked at in considerable detail in 1993/94, 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 unchanged.

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.

As the Minister for Finance is on record as saying in this House, he appreciates the difficulties which people who suffer from some disability face in coping with every day life. There are very many people with various forms of disability who would consider themselves as having a genuine case for tax relief. Given the level of 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. The cost of the reliefs, excluding the annual road tax costs, in 1999 was approximately £18 million, compared to £4 million in 1994. The cost of the scheme, again excluding the annual road tax costs, is estimated at £22 million this year.

The average benefit per person per year is approximately £4,000 on the basis that more than 90% claim in respect of the purchase of a car every two years. The cost per beneficiary is thus very high in that benefits apply for life from the date of admission. The scheme is not means tested. Groups who benefit under the scheme are resistant to the notion of any "tinkering" with it because 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 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 several occasions. Listening meetings were held over a three day period in early May 2000 and over a two and a half day period in September 2000 with organisations and individuals who indicated a desire to make oral submissions to the review group. An advertisement was placed in the press on 11 May 2000 seeking written submissions from interested parties. I am sure the House will be interested in this information plus the fact that over 250 written submissions were received from individuals and groups. The group is considering all the points that were raised by such interested parties.

As the review is ongoing, it would be imprudent of the Minister for Finance to consider any amendments to the scheme until such time as the review is completed and its content is given due consideration.