SteeringWheelWinter2022 FINAL - Flipbook - Page 17
STEERING Wheel
The Disabled Drivers and Disabled
Passengers Tax Relief Scheme Review
The Scheme has been a period of chaos resulting from the Supreme Court judgement
of which we have discussed in previous issues and webinars. At one point, the issuing
of Primary Medical Certificates (PMC) was suspended and when the issuing of
certificates was resumed the ability to deal with the resultant backlog was hampered
by the redeployment of Senior Area Medical Officers to pandemic duties. While PMC
are currently being issued, there is currently no Appeals Board in place and there is a
backlog of 700 appeals as we write.
A combination of the Supreme Court judgement,
successive Ombudsman’s reports and public
pressure and the views of the former members
of the Appeals Board have made it almost certain
that the qualifying criteria will be addressed in the
near future.
A review of the scheme began as part of the
National Disability Inclusion Strategy Transport
Working Group that will decide the form that the
Scheme will take in the future or indeed whether
it would be replaced by a completely new
scheme.
Stakeholder group including the DDAI joined
the Working Group in March following an initial
Departmental meeting in January. The March
meeting set out the terms of a stocktaking
exercise and analysis of existing schemes
across public transport and existing supports
for personal transport. The September meeting
involved the delivery of the results of stocktaking
exercise. The most comprehensive reporting
was done by the Department of Finance, who
outlined some of the weaknesses of the scheme
and presented an extensive review of similar
supports across a range of countries both within
and without the EU. Stakeholders were given the
opportunity to respond to the reports and then
to a series of questions proposed by the review
group.
Some of the conclusions in the Department of
Finance document were stark. The Disabled
Drivers and Disabled Passengers Scheme is not
fit for purpose and needs to be phased out in
favour of an alternative scheme. This statement
is increasingly difficult to dispute. The issues with
the existing criteria are well aired. We have long
pointed out that the Scheme benefits those most
who have the greater resources to purchase a
vehicle and the least adaptations to deploy. We
have also made clear that the Scheme provides
lesser benefits in relation to electric vehicles
with issues with regard fuel costs, be it home
charging points or public charging points yet to
be addressed.
The draft report accepts these criticisms and
reiterates the statement that the Scheme is not
fit for purpose. In general, it is primarily focussed
on public provision of transport services and light
on commitment to supporting personal transport.
One of the recommendations we have requested
is that the 54 year State commitment to support
people with necessary adaptations is re-stated
in the key principles section of the report. The
practice of supporting people with disabilities for
whom personal transport is absolutely necessary
with their costs outside adaptations and as
evidenced by the Motor Tax exemption and the
Fuel Grant, and previously also be recognised in
the key principles section.
The Department of Finance also requested
that the report give greater prominence to
their proposals for an alternative scheme with
the passing reference to both it and the joint
proposals made by DDAI and IWA. We await the
final report but we will not subscribe to a report
that subscribes to the view that the transport
needs of people with disabilities can be met by
public transport schemes alone.
17