Vol. 515 No. 1
34 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Finance the situation regarding disabled drivers; the plans, if any, he has to broaden the tax concessions for disabled drivers and disabled passengers; if not, the reason in this regard; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [5005/00]
I have no plans to make any amendments to the disabled drivers and disabled passengers scheme at this point in time. As the House is aware, this scheme is 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 my own Department, the Department of Health and Children and the Revenue Commissioners. As I am on record as saying in this House, I appreciate the difficulties which people who suffer from some disability face in coping with everyday life. There are very 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 and the cost to the Exchequer in 1999 was in the region of £17 million. The interdepartmental review group is trying to resolve the 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 presentations 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.
Does the Minister accept that the review group of which he speaks has been sitting for almost two years? Does he accept that the medical criteria on which the scheme is based go back about 30 years and do not take into account many disabilities which we now consider to be serious but relate mainly to amputated limbs? Does the Minister accept that there is a very strong case for a graded mobility allowance which might not cost much more than the present scheme? This could take into account a person who is blind and would like to have a companion driver, a person who is mentally handicapped or the child of parents who cannot get about because they suffer from severe epilepsy. Such issues could be taken into account by a graded scheme. The present scheme is much too restrictive and quite unfair.
I have dealt with this matter on a number of occasions and I have received representations from all sides of the House. The matter has also been discussed on a number of occasions at meetings of my own parliamentary party. Deputy O'Keeffe is correct in saying the review group has been meeting for some time. It is under the chairmanship of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and it is hoped that when it meets with other groups it will bring forward proposals.
This scheme is very attractive and if it were opened too widely its cost would be enormous. It was introduced to target people who are severely and permanently disabled with regard to physical mobility. The total number of beneficiaries of the scheme is approximately 5,400. The medical criteria were adjusted some years ago.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle tried to extend the scheme when he was Minister for Health and all hell broke loose. Those who already benefit from the scheme are very reluctant to see any tinkering with it. It is a difficult issue to resolve within cost limits. If such a scheme were being introduced now it would be done very differently and it is unlikely that tax reliefs would be granted. In other countries grants are given to disabled drivers. However, those who enjoy tax reliefs under the present scheme do not wish to see it changed. That has presented difficulties to successive Ministers in trying to make changes.
Does the Minister accept that those who are already in the scheme could retain their tax concessions while new entrants could be offered a graded scheme, depending on the degree of their disability?
Does the Minister agree that there are tens of thousands of people throughout the country who are severely disabled but who do not come within the strict terms of this scheme? These people see 5,400 people qualifying and, while they are glad to see them qualify, they feel marginalised and disadvantaged. In many cases they are unable to walk and have to be driven but do not qualify for the scheme. The Minister quoted a cost of £17 million. Much of that cost is expenditure which would not otherwise have occurred – cars would not have been purchased – were it not for the scheme. Will the Minister reach out to the thousands of people who need the scheme or something similar to it and give them some hope?
Deputy Bradford put his finger on the nub of the problem when he said that tens of thousands of people suffer from some form of disability. It would be invidious for the Minister for Finance to differentiate between forms of disability. I would not like to have to do that nor, I am sure, would anyone else in the House.
That is done at the moment under the present regulations.
Deputy O'Keeffe suggested a graded system. I am sure such a system will be considered by the interdepartmental review group but I can see problems with regard to such a system in differentiating between different forms and degrees of disability. Deputy O'Keeffe's solution would leave us with two systems. This, in turn, would lead to representations from people to be transferred from the less beneficial system onto the more beneficial one. Pressure would be applied to Deputies, perhaps during election campaigns, and Deputies know what would happen then.
When will the report be published?
This year.
Written Answers follow Adjournment Debate.
