Marian Harkin
Ceist:9. Deputy Marian Harkin asked the Minister for Finance for an update on the review of the disabled drivers scheme; and the new criteria being considered line with international best practice. [15225/24]
Amharc ar fhreagraWednesday, 10 April 2024
Ceisteanna (9, 18, 40)
Pádraig O'Sullivan
Ceist:18. Deputy Pádraig O'Sullivan asked the Minister for Finance when the new primary medical certificate criteria will be introduced; if he can provide any update on the process; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [15285/24]
Amharc ar fhreagra
Catherine Connolly
Ceist:40. Deputy Catherine Connolly asked the Minister for Finance for a status update on his Department's work to develop a new scheme to replace the disabled drivers and disabled passengers scheme with a modern, fit-for-purpose vehicle adaptation scheme as recommended by the National Disability Inclusion Strategy Transport Working Group; the number of meetings held by the senior officials group to date, and the dates of same; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14380/24]
Amharc ar fhreagraFreagraí ó Béal (10 píosaí cainte)
I seek an update on the Minister’s work on finalising the new scheme that is set to replace the disabled drivers and disabled passengers scheme. We know the senior officials group has had a number of meetings. I believe the Minister submitted a note to that group in mid-January this year. When can we expect the green light? What is the update on what is happening?
I propose to take Questions Nos. 9, 18 and 40 together.
The Deputies will be aware that the final report of the national disability inclusion strategy, NDIS, transport working group's review of mobility and transport supports, including the disabled drivers and disabled passengers scheme, DDS, endorsed proposals for a modern, fit-for-purpose vehicle adaptation scheme in line with international best practice that would replace the DDS. The working group was chaired by the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, and led by the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Youth. The Deputies should note that my Department had a significant input into the development of this report. Its views, which I share, that the DDS is no longer fit for purpose, are appropriately reflected. The NDIS report is broad-ranging because access to transport for people with disabilities is a multifaceted issue that involves work carried out by multiple Departments and agencies. Consequently, under the aegis of the Department of the Taoiseach, officials from relevant Departments and agencies are meeting to discuss the issues arising from it in order to map a way forward. That is what the Deputy referred to in her opening remarks.
My officials are proactively engaging with this senior officials group's work as an important step in considering ways to replace the DDS, as one specific personal transport response, in the context of broader Government consideration of holistic, multifaceted and integrated transport and mobility supports for those with a disability. Four meetings of the group have been held in July, November and December 2023 and last month. The Department of Finance submitted a note to the group with my approval in mid-January 2024. This note outlines a proposal for a replacement scheme for the DDS which would be a needs-based, grant-led approach for necessary vehicle adaptations that could serve to improve the functional mobility of the individual. This proposal is in line with what the NDIS transport working group report endorsed. In that context, any further changes to the existing DDS would run counter to NDIS proposals to entirely replace the scheme with a modern, fit-for-purpose vehicular adaptation scheme.
Finally, the Deputies should note that while my Department has oversight of the DDS, I do not have responsibility for disability policy but we will contribute proactively to this work. We have gathered a lot of experience and expertise in the administration of the existing scheme which can be very usefully used in designing a new modern grant-based scheme. It will be a matter for the Government to decide on any new scheme to replace the DDS. The work is continuing at the senior officials working group.
While I do not have recent answers in front of me, it seems the Minister’s remarks here today are quite similar except that there has been a fourth meeting. I accept that the Department of the Taoiseach is meeting, that the Minister’s Department is meeting, and that the Minister sent a note outlining a proposal for a new scheme. Can he give us any information on that? He says it is a needs-based grant-aided scheme to replace what is already there. That is good news and we want to hear that because what was there was no longer fit for purpose and was based on a medical model of disability which excluded many people with disabilities. I would like to hear from the Minister, even if he cannot give us full details, whether the new scheme will be inclusive and will include different types of disabilities - not only physical disabilities but also mental, intellectual and sensory impairments.
I wish to support Deputy Harkin. I have followed this issue for some time. The Minister’s response towards the end was not too dissimilar to replies we have received to previous parliamentary questions. I echo what Deputy Harkin said. The Minister might provide us with any content arising from the last meeting to give us an idea of what the outstanding issues might be. As he said, there is a proposal, or the meat of a proposal, there. If there are any outstanding issues or difficulties being encountered, we would appreciate it if the Minister could elaborate on them. As Deputy Harkin rightly said, the scheme is there since the 1960s. It is not cognisant of many disabilities or physical impairments that people might have. For some reason, Ireland is the only country to provide lump-sum tax relief. In his response, the Minister has acknowledged that we are changing how we do this but will he outline the content of the latest meetings?
The one difference in the Minister’s answer is that there has been a meeting this year. Given the context, this is unacceptable. He has to give us details about when the new scheme will be up and running. In 2001, 23 years ago, the Ombudsman told us the scheme was improperly discriminatory, overly rigid and inflexible and appeared to be causing inequity. Then we had a Supreme Court case taken by two individuals. They were successful. The Minister announced in 2020 that a review would be undertaken. That is four years ago. Then we had the complete resignation of the whole board which we found out about from the media – I believe it was the television - in December 2021. Since then we have had an ad hoc system. There was no appeals system until December 2023. Can the Minister tell us how many appeals have gone through? What is the waiting list? What is the rate of progress? We have a system in place where, if you are refused, you go back six months later. How many appeals have been successful under that?
While I do not have data on the rate of success in the appeals, I can say the volume of activity is much improved and 334 appellants have been assessed since the appeals process recommenced in December. I do not have the split - I am sure it can be provided through parliamentary questions and so on - but it represents a lot of progress. I think well over 1,000 people were on the waiting list at one time. To be fair to the members of the appeals board that I appointed, they are doing a lot of hard work and are making serious inroads into the backlog. I thank them for that. We can all recognise that the key issue here is that the gateway to the existing scheme is the primary medical certificate. The policy on the alternative gateway to a grant-based support is not one that my Department is leading on, understandably. We are the Department of Finance. We are administering the existing scheme. It cost just over €70 million in 2022. We will continue to administer it. I have made a very specific change in the scheme to accommodate a small number of cases which I felt were very genuine and needed to be addressed. We have the appeals system back up and running. I cannot give details on the emerging proposal. It would not be fair to do so until we have a final agreed proposal on what will replace the existing scheme. The work is ongoing and we are making progress on dealing with the appeals.
Deputy Connolly raised a question about the appeals board. In the appeals, is it taking on board the new philosophy that the Minister spoke about in relation to the alternative gateway?
The Minister said he is not taking the lead on this. Does the note from his Department indicate that funding will be in place for this alternative gateway when we look at the criteria that will be in place, to ensure it will be there for people who suffer from very different kinds of disability? Too many people have been waiting a long time. Many people could never even think of accessing this scheme because of the medical model. All of those people were excluded anyway, but, right now, so many people are waiting. They want to know, at least from today's questions, whether the Department's note indicated that the recommendations from the national disability inclusion strategy transport working group will be funded. If we knew that today, it would be positive news.
We obviously do not expect the Minister to announce details of any proposed scheme on the floor of the House. I do not think the Minister of State, Deputy Rabbitte, who is chairing the group, would thank him if he did. Are we working towards a deadline? Are there a specified number of meetings where a decision has to be arrived at? Will the Minister elaborate on the process that is left?
My two supplementary questions follow on from what Deputy Connolly said regarding the number of previous appeals that were heard. Will the Minister provide subsequent information in writing on the previous few years and a couple of years prior to the dissolution of that appeals board? This is to see whether we are working our way back to that capacity where we can deal with the appeals.
My second supplementary question relates to the composition of the appeals board. I understand that three different recruitment campaigns were run over nearly two years to try to populate that board. The most recent response to a parliamentary question I received indicated that five people had been appointed in the past 18- or 24-month period. Will the Minister confirm that the board is now fully staffed and actively engaging in as many cases as it can?
A question seeking clarification on whether funding is available has been asked. That is very important. It has also been asked when the new scheme will be up and running. After 23 or 24 years, that is the least people deserve. They deserve a timeline. As of 13 February, 923 people were on an appeals waiting list. I do not know where the Minister's figures are in that, but maybe he can give us details on the appeals afterwards, and let us know how many people came back after six months and were allowed to apply again. Were they successful?
We had the debacle involving the National Rehabilitation Hospital. It refused to do that. Was an analysis undertaken as to why it was in that position? Was an analysis undertaken as to why it took four recruitment campaigns to get medical professionals to sit on an appeals board, 24 years after the Ombudsman said it was not fit for purpose? We need answers.
I thank the Deputies. I got the appeals board back up and running. It is now working its way through the backlog. The latest information I have from the secretary of the board is that 834 appellants were on the waiting list as of 21 February. As I said, since the appeals process was reconstituted, 334 appeals have been assessed. The board has prioritised the waiting list using clinically based criteria.
To answer Deputy Harkin's question, it is administering the existing scheme. It is a tax-based scheme. That is the board's obligation and mandate in that respect. The priority for the Government is to come up with a modern, fit-for-purpose, needs-based grant scheme. That is what we need to do as quickly as possible because the gateway to the existing scheme in the form of the primary medical cert is too crude. I deal with it as a constituency TD as well as a Minister.
On the question of funding, once we have an agreed scheme - the Government will of course consider that - it will replace the existing scheme. The funding already being drawn down for the existing scheme is immediately available, but we will give favourable consideration to any additional funding required. We want this scheme up and running as quickly as possible. I do not believe funding will be the constraint. I will certainly be supporting it fully, once there is an agreed position.
Question No. 10 taken with Written Answers.