Vol. 1040 No. 5
80. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance his views on the recent increases in interest rates by the ECB; his assessment of their impact on mortgage borrowers; and if he will introduce temporary and targeted mortgage interest relief. [30241/23]
The Minister will be well aware, and hundreds of thousands of people, unfortunately, are well aware, that the European Central Bank has raised its interest rates for the eighth time since July. These sharp hikes in interest rates have led to a significant rise in mortgage costs and a massive income shock for hundreds of thousands of borrowers. Those borrowers are already in the grip of a wider cost-of-living crisis, and the State can and should support them. In that context will the Minister for Finance commit to a temporary targeted mortgage interest relief to support these households without delay?
I thank the Deputy for his question.
The formulation and implementation of monetary policy is an independent matter for the European Central Bank, ECB. As the Deputy will be aware, the ECB has increased official interest rates over recent months as it attempts to combat inflation. The latest increase, which was announced last week, brings the main ECB lending rate to 4%. Any decision to change official interest rates, and the timing of any such decision, is solely a matter for the ECB. Following last week's monetary policy meeting, the ECB reiterated that its monetary policy decisions will depend on its assessment of the inflation outlook in light of the incoming economic and financial data, the dynamics of underlying inflation and the strength of monetary policy transmission.
The Central Bank is analysing developments in credit matters on an ongoing basis to understand how rising interest rates are affecting the economy and the resilience of the household sector as a whole and, within that, to identify groups of borrowers who may be more vulnerable to distress. The Central Bank has recently published a number of reports, studies and papers on these matters which can be found on its website.
In general, the Central Bank has noted that the ratio of Irish households' mortgage interest payments to income has fallen substantially since its peak in 2008 but that it is also the case that the impact of interest rate changes varies widely across households. Due to high levels of mortgage fixation, up to half of all mortgage holders at retail banks are likely to have experienced no increase in repayments by the end of 2023 and about 40% will be insulated from higher interest rates by the end of 2024. On the other hand, tracker mortgage customers and certain other borrowers are among the most exposed to repayment shocks. This most exposed group also tends to have substantially larger mortgage balances than less exposed customers.
On the question as to what support we can give as a Government in terms of fiscal intervention, and as I have said before, the most appropriate time for that decision, in my view, is when we consider the available resources we have in the lead-up to budget day.
That is fine for the Minister for Finance to say because there are people in this House who may be able to withstand the types of shocks we have seen. However, we on the finance committee had two people before us yesterday. Both had their mortgages sold on from Permanent TSB to the vulture funds, which my legislation would have stopped, but Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael frustrated that. Those people are now in the grip of the vulture funds. They are now paying 7.25% and 7.5% and they know that their interest rates are going to go up later, when they get the letters through the doors in the coming weeks as a result of the recent ECB interest rate hikes, and they are likely to go up further. What that means for one individual, a bus driver here in the city of Dublin, is that his mortgage repayments have gone up by €8,400 per annum - before this interest rate hike happens and before the scheduled other ones that have been flagged by the ECB happen. That is the reality. They do not have until October when the Minister might decide to do something that might not come into effect until January of next year - if he does it at all. The reality is that these families need support now.
The Minister mentioned the Central Bank. The Central Bank said that 20% of all households with mortgages are facing an increase of €4,800 in servicing their mortgages as a result of these increases, and that was before the last two increases took effect. The Minister needs to get his head out of the sand. The Government needs to get its head out of the sand. This is not normal. People need support now.
I welcome the work of the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach on this issue. I have been very clear as to my expectations and what I want to see from the financial sector, and that is that customers who are making genuine efforts to repay their mortgages should not be allowed to fall into arrears by virtue of changes in interest rates brought about by monetary policy tightening by the ECB. We need to see the statutory protections and the code of conduct that is there being fully applied, which requires, as the Deputy will know, that all cases be handled sympathetically and positively by the lender, with the objective at all times of assisting the borrower to meet his or her mortgage obligations. There is a collective responsibility here shared not only by the Central Bank, the banks and all the non-bank lenders, including credit servicers, but also by the actual loan owners and the funders and the beneficial owners of those loans, who should be engaging with the committee. We will consider all of this in the lead-up to the budget and we will be putting more money back in people's pockets in the budget, but the precise way in which we decide to do that requires careful consideration.
One of the witnesses who came before the finance committee made it very clear that she does not want to fall into arrears. Actually, both witnesses have not missed a payment, have never been in arrears and are meeting all their payments. The reality, however, is that when interest rates increase to the level they have increased to as a result of those loans being sold to the vulture funds, and when families are asked to find an extra €8,500 to keep a roof over their heads, it was explained in great detail - the Minister should not have to be told this by the victims of this scandal - that it means children have to go without other things, like school trips, family holidays and being able to go to a wedding, that put pressure on the finances of the family.
The Central Bank has told the Minister that, on average, there was a €5,000 increase before the last two hikes for 20% of customers and a €2,000 increase for half of all mortgage holders, and it is going to get worse, yet the Minister says he will consider it. Given the reality he knows, why does he not at least say he will do something to support these people? Can he even say that now, even if it is delayed as far as October, which would be scandalous? He should be intervening now, and there is no reason he cannot. We have seen interventions in a range of other things, whether hospitality, petrol and diesel or energy costs for businesses. It can happen outside the budgetary cycle. The Minister has decided to abandon these households and these homeowners, and it is absolutely disgraceful in light of these rates.
The commitment I can give as Minister is that we will help households in the budget, but those decisions fall to be made as part of the budgetary process. The Deputy gives stark examples, which are real examples, of people whose mortgage payments might have increased by €400, €600 or maybe €800 a month. His proposal is to give them €4 a day, maximum, to help them with their mortgages.
We need to look at all of this. We need to look at the role of the Money Advice & Budgeting Service, MABS, the role of the insolvency service and what reforms and changes are needed there. We need to look at mortgage to rent, the consumer protection code and the code of conduct on mortgage arrears. There are a whole suite of measures here that have to be examined to see how we can help in practical terms the mortgage holders who are under real pressure, as many are. I acknowledge that. We have managed to bring the level of arrears down significantly over the past ten to 12 years. I do not want to see that progress move into reverse. My key message is that no borrower should be allowed to fall into arrears because of interest rate hikes if he or she is making a genuine effort, and the code needs to be fully applied in that regard. I will be engaging again with the sector - the banks, the non-banks and the Central Bank - on all these issues in the weeks ahead.
81. Deputy Richard Boyd Barrett asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware of the recent opinion poll showing overwhelming public support for abolition of the universal social charge; if he will give a commitment to announce the abolition of the charge in budget 2024; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30486/23]
An opinion poll over the past week or so showed that a majority of people wanted the hated universal social charge, USC, to be abolished, something that was promised by Fine Gael in 2016. When it was imposed during the economic crisis, it was supposed to be a temporary emergency austerity tax. It was cruelly and unfairly imposed on working people, costing them thousands of euro every year. Despite the emergency being over and record budget surpluses, however, workers are still being hit with the USC. Will the Minister listen to public opinion and abolish this hated charge, at least for those earning under €100,000, in order to give working people a break?
The USC was designed and incorporated into the Irish taxation system in 2011 to replace the health and income levies. Its primary purpose was to widen the tax base and provide a steady income to the Exchequer to provide funding for public services. The USC is an individualised tax, meaning that a person's liability to it is determined on the basis of his or her own individual income and personal circumstances. It is a more sustainable charge than those it replaced and is applied at a low rate on a wide base, which ensures it is a stable and sustainable source of revenue for the State.
It is important to point out that in 2016, joint research by the Department of Finance and Economic and Social Research Institute, ESRI, found that the USC represented a more stable form of revenue than income tax. The findings highlighted that USC revenues would fluctuate by less than income tax revenues whenever income was volatile, for example, where the economy moved from a boom to a bust. Given the openness of the Irish economy and consequent susceptibility to economic shocks, the contribution that the USC makes to the stability of the State's revenue sources is considerable. It is also important to note that the USC's yield is approximately €5 billion. In fact, it is projected to be €5.2 billion this year. If the USC were to be abolished, it would be necessary to generate this yield from alternative sources.
Currently, individuals with incomes of less than €13,000 per annum are exempt. In addition, the USC does not apply to social welfare payments, for example, the contributory and non-contributory State pensions. In the current year, it is estimated that more than 1.1 million taxpayer units - 35% of all taxpayer units - will be exempt from the USC.
We have one of the most progressive personal income tax systems in the world, which plays a crucial role in the process of income redistribution. Our redistributive tax system has been acknowledged by the International Monetary Fund, IMF, the OECD and the ESRI. It is my view that a broad-based, progressive income tax system, where the majority of income earners make some contribution according to their means, is the most fair and sustainable income tax system in the long term.
The Minister is rewriting history in terms of the rationale for the USC. It was not put forward on the basis of broadening tax bases or anything like that. It was put forward as an emergency tax in response to a crisis created by banks and developers and it was imposed on top of the income tax that workers paid. If you earn €45,000 per year, you pay €2,300 on top of your income tax. If you €70,000, you pay €4,300 on top of your income tax. Due to the cost-of-living crisis, workers have lost €2,000 to €4,000, depending their mortgage situations and so on. People are being hammered at the moment and they need a break.
Here is the irony and contradiction. While ordinary workers are losing out because of the USC, net household wealth has increased dramatically. There is a group of people who are winning in the current crisis, but it is always the ordinary worker who has to pick up the tab. Why does the State not pay for the abolition of the USC by imposing higher taxes on the very wealthy, as we have proposed? This would cover the cost of getting rid of what is an unfair austerity tax, one that was supposed to be a temporary emergency tax.
I am glad to hear that the Deputy supports reducing the burden of income tax on ordinary workers.
We have always done that.
When we proposed such reductions in recent budgets, he opposed them. That is a fact.
No, we did not. On USC?
Did the Deputy ever vote for a finance Bill?
We never voted for the Government's budgets for other reasons.
The Deputy never voted for a finance Bill.
Not because of that.
Finance Bills are the way in which we bring about reductions in the burden of income tax.
It was because of all the other stuff in the Bills.
By the way, the Deputy did not say what he would replace the €5 billion with. When what we deem to be, and what I am advised to be, windfall receipts in the current year are stripped out, we have an underlying deficit, yet the Deputy just asked whether we could eliminate a tax that brought in €5 billion without explaining what he would replace it with. He might argue he will do that in his pre-budget submission, which I look forward to seeing.
We will honour the commitment we made in the programme for Government. We will reduce the burden of income tax on all low- and middle-income workers. On this occasion, I hope the Deputy might support it.
There is the unseemly spectacle of Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil scrambling over who will get the credit for the reduction in the USC. We have been consistent in all of our budget submissions since the introduction of the USC in arguing that it should be abolished and that, although the USC was unfair, its abolition should be paid for. The Minister knows this, as he has seen our budget submissions as well as the questions we tabled recently arguing that the USC's abolition should be paid for by having new bands of taxation in respect of those on incomes of more than €100,000 as well as by having wealth taxes, for example, those that Oxfam is proposing, which are similar to the one we have proposed every year. Oxfam estimates that a tiny tax on those who have more than €4 million in wealth could raise up to €8 billion per year, which would be more than enough to pay for the USC's abolition in respect of those earning less than €100,000. Would that not be fair at a time when some people are being crushed by the cost-of-living crisis yet there are others whose wealth has been growing every year? We can see that growth in the Central Bank's quarterly reports on household wealth. That wealth is heavily concentrated at the top of Irish society, where people are doing well while workers are being hammered. Why do we not address this issue in a fair way?
There is an obligation on the Deputy to be consistent. When we introduce budgets where we increase PAYE and personal tax credits for low-income workers, the Deputy votes against them. We have a programme for Government-----
I do not.
Yes, the Deputy does. He should check the voting record.
We vote against the Government's finance Bill. That is a different thing.
The Deputy has never voted in the House for a package of income tax reductions. He then comes in during oral questions-----
We propose them in our budget submission every year. This is nonsense.
-----and proposes to get rid of a tax that brings in €5 billion per year. We have a programme for Government commitment, one agreed by all three parties in government, to index credits and bands in line with Ireland's growth.
That was in our budget submission last year as well.
Deputy, allow the Minister to reply.
That is the Government's commitment-----
The Minister can see it. I have it with me. I will show it to him.
The Minister to reply, please.
-----and is what we have implemented in the past.
It was costed as well - €850 million.
The commitment I will give is that we will reduce the burden of income tax-----
Index linking the existing tax bracket was in our budget submission.
Let the Minister reply.
-----on workers and others who pay income tax in budget 2024. That will be done. I look forward to seeing the Deputy's pre-budget submission.
It was in our budget submission. The Minister is misinforming the House.
I hope that he will support income tax reductions this year.
You should read our budget submission from last year.
You should read the finance Bill.
Before we move on, I welcome our visitors from Portroe National School in Tipperary, who are in the Public Gallery. We need to be on our best behaviour for the schoolchildren.
That will cheer us all up.
82. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Minister for Finance the input he and his Department have had in the establishment of a multi-annual strategy to combat economic crime and corruption, including fraud and scams; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30242/23]
In recent years, there has been a dramatic and worrying increase in the incidence of financial fraud and scams. Everyone has seen that. Citizens are increasingly concerned that the text messages and calls they receive are scams and that the adverts they see online are not genuine, but fraudulent. Despite this, the Government still does not have a multi-annual strategy to combat financial fraud and scams even though it was a key recommendation of the Hamilton report in December 2020. What action has the Department taken and will take to stem the rise of fraud? Why is the Government not introducing a plan that was asked for nearly three years ago?
Although primary responsibility for combating all forms of crime and corruption lies with the Minister for Justice, my Department is eager to contribute to this task insofar as we can. An advisory council on economic crime and corruption was established in May 2022. Its establishment was one of the recommendations made in the review of structures and strategies to prevent, investigate and penalise economic crime and corruption. The review, colloquially known as the Hamilton review, was led by Mr. James Hamilton, the former Director of Public Prosecutions. Mr. Hamilton also chairs the advisory council.
The council is comprised of public sector officials as well as members with appropriate expertise from the private sector. It will advise and make proposals on strategic and policy responses and will be responsible for developing a multi-annual strategy to combat economic crime and corruption. An official from my Department has been appointed to the council, as has an official from the Central Bank of Ireland.
Ireland has a strong legislative framework to deal with economic crime. An Garda Síochána utilises the organised crime legislation, where appropriate, because organised criminal groups are behind almost all economic crime. Many of such groups are transnational in nature. An Garda Síochána is engaging with the Department of Justice and the Hamilton implementation group to strengthen some legislative areas to increase the efficacy of criminal investigations in this area.
A specialised division of An Garda Síochána - the Garda national economic crime bureau, GNECB - tackles this sort of criminal behaviour. The GNECB is responsible for the investigation of the most serious and complex economic crimes. It plays a proactive role in the prevention, disruption, detection and investigation of economic crime. It also provides support and assistance to regional and divisional Garda investigators and provides training in the form of a University College Dublin, UCD, accredited postgraduate certificate in fraud and e-crime investigation, and a specialised course in money laundering investigation. The head of this division is a member of the advisory council on economic crime and corruption.
Figures released to me by the Department of Justice show that since 2019 investment fraud has risen by 258%, account takeover fraud has increased by a staggering 560%, romance fraud has risen by 83% while scams through phishing, vishing and smishing have increased by 417%. These are frightening figures. Citizens are being robbed of millions of euro each year by fraudsters.
Last week ComReg estimated that scam calls and texts cost society and the economy more than €300 million each year. I welcome its proposals in that regard, but what is the Government doing? Why has it not published a multi-annual strategy to combat fraud and scams when this was recommended by the Hamilton report two and a half years ago? That is a very simple question to which we still do not have an answer. Why is the Government blocking the establishment of a shared information fraud database so that banks and agencies can act to stop fraudsters in their tracks in real time? It does not make any sense.
The Minister spoke about a strong legislative basis but gardaí and the banks are looking for this shared fraud database and the Government and the Department are blocking it. It makes no sense, given the rise in fraud and the hundreds of millions of euro that are being stolen each year. This is a battle that we are losing but unfortunately, we are fighting this battle with two hands tied behind our back.
The rise in this form of crime is a serious concern but I assure Deputy Doherty and the House that the advisory council is active. It met on 30 May last and it is working towards the development of a multi-annual strategy to combat economic crime and corruption. My officials in the Department of Finance are working closely with our colleagues in the Department of Justice to ensure that the council's work is brought to a conclusion and that the multi-annual plan can be brought forward as quickly as possible.
A lot of work is already happening. I referenced the Garda bureau earlier. It has trained 680 gardaí and 200 investigators on each of the respective courses that have been put in place and these members are available in each of the Garda divisions throughout the country. We have a strong legislative framework. We are resourcing the relevant Garda bureau to make sure that adequate training is in place and that officers are available around the country to deal with the rise in this form of crime. We are working very closely with the other stakeholders whose support and input we need, including the financial services industry, the members of the Banking and Payments Federation of Ireland, BPFI, and others, to deal with this form of crime.
The Minister has no strategy two and a half years on - that is a fact. The Government is blocking the implementation of a shared information fraud database which would allow for information to be shared in real time. It is clear that the Government is not taking the issue of this growing crime seriously. Interventions could be made to protect citizens from the criminal activities of fraudsters but the Government is simply not at the races. For example, I raised the fact previously that in the North, banks and payment providers will soon be required to compensate victims of authorised push payments but there is no such protection here in the South. When I asked the Minister if it would be possible to introduce this protection in this jurisdiction he informed me that it was prohibited under the EU payment services directive. However the European Commissioner for Financial Stability, Financial Services and the Capital Markets Union, Ms Mairéad McGuinness, informed my colleague, Mr. Chris MacManus MEP, that there was nothing stopping member states from introducing such protections. We also have no requirement for banks to check the name of the entity to which customers are sending money against the name on the registered account. That safety check, called confirmation of payee, is in place and working well in the Netherlands and Britain.
As I said, this Government is blocking a shared information database and has no strategy two and a half years on. The BPFI has warned that if we fall behind in this fight, Ireland will become the destination of choice for fraudsters. We are falling behind. There has been an explosion in this type of fraudulent activity. The Minister spoke about the GNECB. I got a call from the GNECB yesterday but it was not actually from the bureau. It was a scammer who claimed to represent the GNECB and who told me to press number 1 in relation to my account. This is happening all of the time. There has been an explosion in this type of activity and it makes no sense that the Government has no strategy, is blocking the shared information database, has not implemented confirmation of payee and that there is no process in place whereby victims would be compensated as they will be in Newry, Derry, Belfast and elsewhere.
We are actively working on this issue. The advisory council, which came from the Hamilton report, is up and running. It has representatives from all of the key areas that would one expect across the Government and the private sector who are working to develop a comprehensive strategy to deal with what is a very significant issue of public concern. We are all seeing the increase in the activity levels here and the attempts at crime and fraud in this space. That said, the provisional crime statistics for 2022 released by An Garda Síochána in March show that technology-based fraud such as phishing, account takeover and online shopping fraud went down in that year, following a significant increase in such activity during the Covid-19 pandemic.
We are absolutely committed to doing all we can, working with others in the private sector, to tackle this issue. The advisory council is developing a multi-annual strategy which the Government will then fully implement.
83. Deputy Seán Canney asked the Minister for Finance when he will publish the revised criteria to qualify for the primary medical certificate which will be fit for purpose; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30097/23]
84. Deputy Michael McNamara asked the Minister for Finance when the medical criteria to obtain a primary medical certificate in order to benefit from the disabled drivers and disabled passengers scheme are expected to be updated; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [30017/23]
When will the new criteria for the primary medical certificate be published, in view of the fact that the existing scheme is unworkable? The appeals board resigned en bloc almost 18 months ago on the basis that it could not deal with appeals because the criteria were so strict. It is time that we looked at this and got it sorted for the people who really need it.
The Supreme Court struck down the criteria in August 2020 and, as Deputy Canney said, the appeals board stepped down 18 months ago. Enough is enough at some point. The Minister can convene all of the expert groups he wants but people lives are being affected by this and we need to move on it before the Dáil breaks up for the summer.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 83 and 84 together. I thank Deputies Canney and McNamara for their questions.
The disabled drivers and disabled passengers scheme provides relief from vehicle registration tax, VRT, and value added tax, VAT, on the use of an adapted car, as well as an exemption from motor tax and an annual fuel grant. The scheme is open to severely and permanently disabled persons who also meet the medical criteria, as a driver or as a passenger, and also to certain organisations. In order to qualify for relief, the applicant must hold a primary medical certificate issued by the relevant senior area medical officer or a board medical certificate issued by the disabled driver medical board of appeal. Certain other qualifying criteria apply in relation to the vehicle, in particular that it must be specially constructed or adapted for use by the applicant.
To qualify for a primary medical certificate an applicant must be permanently and severely disabled and satisfy at least one of six medical criteria as set out in primary legislation, with which the Deputies are very familiar. The allowable limits of relief provided under the scheme vary by the nature of the primary medical certificate holder, that is whether he or she is a disabled driver or disabled passenger, as well as the type of adaptations undertaken.
As the Deputies may be aware, I have just introduced a fourth category of reliefs available for both disabled drivers and disabled passengers of €48,000 and €32,000 respectively, where adaptations as specified for wheelchair accessible vehicles are required. I want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Ms Leigh Gath who, along with others, highlighted this particular issue. We were able to identify and bring forward a solution after work over recent months on that particular issue.
My predecessor, Deputy Donohoe, and the Minister for Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Deputy O'Gorman, agreed in September 2021 that the disabled driver scheme should be incorporated into the work of the National Disability Inclusion Strategy transport working group.
It was tasked under action 104 with reviewing all Government-funded transport and mobility supports for those with a disability, including the disabled drivers and disabled passengers scheme. The final report, published back in February, indicated that the current scheme was outdated and should be replaced with a needs-based, grant-aided vehicular adaptation scheme. The proposed scheme could thus provide direct financial assistance to individuals requiring vehicle adaptations according to their needs in order to meet their personal transport requirements and, ultimately, facilitate independence and participation in society. The working group agreed that proposals in this regard were a clear deliverable on which work could begin in the immediate future.
I very much welcome the Taoiseach’s comments last week that he will convene all relevant Departments to develop meaningful proposals arising from the final report of the working group. I assure the Deputies that I and my officials will fully engage in that process and support the development of a new scheme that is fit for purpose and significantly modernised, one that meets the needs of disabled drivers and passengers who need additional help from the State in order to meet their transport needs.
I thank the Minister for his reply. As Deputy McNamara stated, there has been a lot of talk, engagement, discussion and public opinions put out by the Government but the Ombudsman, who has responsibility for complaints relating to people with disabilities, has stated that this has been ongoing for far too long. We need to get a scheme that is fit for purpose in place as quickly as possible. My concern is that people with disabilities are still grounded in their homes without transport supports. That is particularly the case in rural areas, where they have no supports at all and may not have transport. We want people to live independently. We want to ensure that everybody can live equally. I ask the Minister to provide a date by which this will be put in place.
We need to look at the backdrop to this. The Minister's predecessor, who is, in almost every regard, a thoroughly decent man, did something quite indecent, with the support of the House, in one of the budgets that was passed down in the convention centre. The Supreme Court struck down the statutory instruments as being far too restrictive. Basically, in order to comply with the parent Act, a person almost had to be missing a limb to qualify. It was far too restrictive. Instead of just passing a new statutory instrument and continuing the scheme, the then Minister changed the primary legislation to make that more restrictive and buried it in the detail of a vote on the budget. It was completely buried. I never heard it mentioned it in his speech or any other speech, yet it is now the law on which people are relying and it is what is precluding people from exercising their independence and mobility. The Minister, Deputy McGrath, was in the House when it was decided that the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation could be wound up overnight. At the time, he was on the Opposition benches while I was on the Government backbenches. It was a significant undertaking but it was done overnight because that is what was needed. Are we, as a Legislature, and he, as a Minister, saying this issue is not so urgent that it can be done before the end of the year? People have waited long enough.
This is urgent. The existing scheme dates back several decades. It is outdated. The terminology is outdated. It is not fit for purpose and we urgently need a new scheme. I support the thrust of what the Ombudsman has said in that regard. In my role, I have inherited a tax-based scheme which we will continue to operate until it is replaced by a new, more modern scheme. I have sought to change the existing scheme to meet the needs of a relatively small number of people who, in general, have to import a vehicle from the UK because the nature of the adaptations they require is very significant, they have to be done in the UK and the tax bill tends to be very large. We have managed to come up with a solution to that issue but there are more fundamental problems with the scheme overall.
The other issue for which I have direct responsibility is getting the appeals board back up and running. As the Deputies are aware, that has been beset with problems. The board resigned and then a process was gone through to get new members and so on. The National Rehabilitation Hospital, NRH, then withdrew from the scheme as the host of the appeals board. I acknowledge its engagement with my Department, however. I am confident we will get that back up and running very quickly. That said, however, it is not the end solution. The level of successful appeals is tiny, at only a couple of percent.
A new scheme is urgently needed. The Taoiseach has stated on the floor of the House that he will convene all relevant Departments, including the Departments of Health, Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth, Transport and my Department. We have learned a lot from the existing scheme. There is a significant amount of knowledge. I was trying to work out a solution to the issue that presented for Leigh Gath and others. We engaged with the Irish Wheelchair Association, Disabled Drivers Association of Ireland, Revenue Commissioners and others. We looked back at the history of the scheme and the nature of the applications. There is a wealth of information there. Approximately 30,000 people are currently benefiting from the existing scheme but it is not an answer in itself. We need a new scheme and I will do all I can in my role to make sure that is brought forward as a matter of urgency.
I welcome the Minister's statement that he will try to bring it forward as quickly as possible but time is up on this, and has been for a long time. It is important that a deadline is set within Government to ensure a scheme is put in place. An Indecon report commissioned by the Government on the additional cost of living with a disability stated the additional cost is €9,000 per annum, on average. That is before one considers the rate of inflation for the past year or 18 months. That report has not been acted upon either. In many cases, lip service is being paid to vulnerable people. We need to restore equality in order that everybody has a chance to live independently and participate fully in society. That is a right that we must uphold.
The Minister used the word "immediate" at least once in his response. He used the word "urgent" several times. I do not doubt his commitment to this or his bona fides on it but, based on the delays to date, I doubt the Government’s ability to deliver it in a timely manner. People have waited long enough. Will the Minister put this on the agenda of the Cabinet next week in order that he can come back to me and Deputy Canney with a timeframe for when a new scheme will be put in place? The announcement of the budget will probably be drip-fed during the summer, if not by the Minister then by some of his ministerial colleagues who will be consumed with wishful thinking. We need to make sure this is dealt with in the next budget. If a new scheme cannot be put in place in a timely manner even though everyone accepts it would be the ideal solution, the Minister should change the budgetary measures that were brought in by the previous Minister for Finance, Deputy Donohoe, and allow for a more open scheme. We need a time commitment on this.
I thank the Deputies. I have been of the view for quite some time, having examined individual cases, that a tax-based scheme based on the existing criteria for the primary medical certificate is not the way forward. I will continue to operate the existing scheme. We have made one significant improvement. We will get the appeals board back up and running and I will lend my full support to getting a new scheme, which will be a grant-based scheme based on the needs of individuals, in place. It will involve defining the criteria, which is complex and difficult, but it will need to be done.
I am very much aware of the report on the cost of disability. The Government responded last year, albeit in the form of a once-off payment of an additional €500 to people in receipt of disability allowance, for example. In the lead-up to the budget, we will consider what we can do to provide assistance to people with a disability.
As regards the question in respect of the Cabinet, the Taoiseach gave a commitment last week on the floor of the Dáil. He will be convening a meeting of the relevant Departments to put in place a process that will quickly lead to a fit-for-purpose modern scheme being developed and I will provide my full support to that process.
