Mr. Kenneth Fox:

On some of the technical matters, there has been quite a hike in VRT. While VRT is covered to a limit of €16,000, the hike in VRT on certain vehicles, particularly the larger vehicles we are talking about, is eating into the €16,000. The NOx tax is refundable but again it eats into the €16,000. With regard to the €5,500 adaptation grant, people may not realise that in a new vehicle there is VRT on that €5,500 adaptation cost and there is VAT on the €5,500 adaptations. If they are created in the vehicle before it is registered and if the vehicle draws a VRT rate of 35%, there will be 35% on the €5,500 worth of adaptations and there will be 21% VAT on that as well. If one has a highly adapted vehicle where the vehicle cost might be €30,000 and there might be €30,000 worth of adaptations, the State is taxing the adaptations as well. In some cases, it might be giving €16,000 of relief but it has charged quite an amount of tax on the adaptations themselves, not to mind the vehicle. There are some structural things there, it is all tax law and is quite complicated, but there are things there that do not seem to be right.

Ms Cox quoted the example of somebody with the amputation of an arm. The cost of the probable adaptations to drive as a driver is probably approximately €2,500. Some of the reluctance is with this business of the primary medical certificate being so different from the actual scheme itself. If somebody qualifies with the primary medical certificate, the person can go in as a passenger or as a driver. There is a certain reluctance there for people who would be perceived as not having a need for adaptation as a passenger getting the primary medical certificate while they have very real and expensive needs if they wish to become independent drivers. What we probably would want people to do is to be supported to get out and about and to go to education and to work independently, not to be driven or to need somebody to drive them but to drive themselves as all of us aspire to do and to make their own way and do their own thing. That person might have got the motorised transport grant. It was possible to get the motorised transport grant if one met the means requirements. However, at present, one cannot get on it, yet the adaptation cost is approximately €2,500, which is a lot more expensive than certain other adaptations that are allowable.

In terms of what we might perceive, it is that there is some connection within the scheme, if it is about adaptation, with the adaptations required. We spoke about the environment and the environment in buses for certain categories of people. One of the things that came up in the Supreme Court is that the person had a permanent disability and an adaptation was required. It was not necessarily related but the vehicle had to be adapted because the environment of the vehicle had to be changed for the person to travel in it. That is where the Supreme Court had the problem. The person met the requirement, needed an adaptation and had a permanent disability yet could not get the primary medical certificate.

It is some correlation of the need and a better correlation within the scheme. It might need some change but we do not want to be in a situation where we lose it altogether. Coming behind that is a mobility allowance scheme reinstated and we develop that. If in time we develop a mobility allowance type of scheme and it supersedes or is better than the tax relief scheme, that is fair enough. If we need to make changes to the scheme let us make them and bring in a comprehensive mobility scheme behind it that may replace it in the future. There are changes in tax effected all the time. The tax relief scheme is a tax relief scheme so if we change our taxes, it immediately impacts. If we double the amount of VRT on petrol vehicles, it affects the scheme. If there is no advantage between me buying an electric car and Mr. Carty buying an electric car, it disrupts that market advantage for electric vehicles and it makes electric vehicles unattractive. What is going to happen in 2030 when the intention is that electric vehicles are what is around and one is going to be heavily penalised for owning a petrol or diesel car? Where does the disabled driver who is in the scheme go there? It is only seven years until 2030. If that is the direction of Government policy, what are we doing in terms of preparing for that on the disability side?

There are a few issues there, but I am very much of the opinion that the scheme should be adjusted and then the comprehensive scheme should come in behind it.

As I said, there is fear that we will find too many problems with the scheme, the scheme will collapse and, effectively, we will be waiting another nine years for this replacement scheme to come in.