Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for tabling these amendments. On amendment No. 6, the cycle to work scheme provides, as the committee will know, that employees can avail of the scheme once in a four-year period. The reduction from five years was provided for in the Financial Provisions (Covid-19) (No. 2) Act 2020. The scheme covers the cost of bicycle locks and other safety equipment to deter bicycle theft. Any deviation from the current self-administration system would involve additional administrative procedures for Revenue, the employer or both in respect of the verification of loss, theft, insurance, recovery and so on. As this runs counter to the need to keep the scheme simple, it would not be appropriate to alter the existing scheme.

On amendment No. 7, the cycle to work scheme is predicated on there being an employee-employer relationship in place since the scheme operates by providing an exemption from benefit in kind, BIK, where an employer purchases a bicycle and associated safety equipment for an employee. It is assumed that in the report proposed by the Deputy, it would involve an employer of a parent purchasing a bicycle on behalf of a child student for use in journeys to and from school. The technical and administrative details of how such a scheme would operate could be very complex and, again, could impact significantly on the administrative cost. Including bicycles for use by children to cycle to school in the cycle to work scheme would add to the administrative burden on employers of participating in the scheme and could, over time, effect its operation. Furthermore, I would expect very considerable dead-weight in a such a proposal given that people benefiting from the scheme would have purchased a bicycle in any event.

While I appreciate the merit, particularly of amendment No. 7, it is a cycle to work scheme. It is designed to reduce the carbon emissions involved in employees going to their place of work. While I can see the merits and attractions of broadening it in the way Deputy Nash is proposing, it would take the scheme quite a bit away from its current intention. I believe the way we have worked on the scheme so far with various amendments along the way, for example, allowing a bike to be purchased every four years as opposed to five and the changes I have just made in respect of cargo bikes, are instead the way in which the scheme could be broadened while remaining consistent with its original intentions. I thank the Deputy for bringing forward the two amendments. However, for the reasons I have articulated, I am not in a position to accept them.