asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware of the decision of the Revenue Commissioners to seize a motor car belonging to a person (name supplied) from Northern Ireland who, while now resident in the Republic, commutes to Northern Ireland where he has a business interest; and if, in view of the special circumstances of this case, a review of this decision will be sought by him.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Motor Car Seizure.
46.
I am aware that the person whose name was supplied by the Deputy and who is resident in the State was observed using an uncustomed car and was warned in November last that he should have it exported. The car cannot legally be imported except on production of an import authorisation from the Minister for Industry and Commerce and on payment of the customs charges. Its use by the person named constitutes a customs offence incurring liability to penalties and forfeiture of the car. In February last he was informed that failure to re-export it would result in its seizure.
The circumstances of this case have been carefully considered but there are no grounds for altering the decision already conveyed to the person concerned.
While I appreciate that the person mentioned is in effect a resident of the Republic, would the Minister not consider amending the law to allow people who are either citizens of the Republic or who are from the North but are living in the Republic and commute to their businesses in the North from the Republic, to use Northern Ireland registered cars? While I ask this question I feel that neither Revenue concerns nor legal principles are involved. It is the safety of the people who are travelling to the North that should be considered primarily.
The principal reason for these tariffs is not one for collecting revenue but is a tariff which works for the protection of the motor assembly industry in Ireland. Therefore, one has very carefully to consider relaxing the legal provisions or providing an exemption. I understand, in fact, in this case the person in question had taken up residence in the Republic before he had purchased the car which is the subject of this question. Clearly one has very carefully to consider this matter. I do not know what the British provisions are but of course the Deputy will be aware that it is possible for people with cars which have been acquired elsewhere in certain circumstances to get a Republic of Ireland registration. It would appear that if there is a need, for security reasons, on the lines indicated by the Deputy that the matter would primarily be one for the authorities of Northern Ireland rather than for ourselves. I will certainly take a look at the matter but I do not think it will be one that can be easily dealt with under the customs and excise codes.
I fully appreciate the Minister's position and accept that people who use Northern Ireland registered cars and who reside here and use them in the Republic should have them confiscated if the duty is not paid. Would the Minister reconsider his attitude that where a car is used to commute between the Republic and Northern Ireland it is the question of safety that should be considered? While the cars are being used in relation to Northern Ireland journeys special provision should be made in this respect.
I am prepared to have a look at it. As I said to the Deputy, it will not be one of easy solution particularly where, as in this case, the person does not live in the Border zone but the car is used for the purpose of completing a journey between the South and North and would in fact have most of the journey in the Republic. I will certainly take a look at it.
Will the Minister, in examining this situation, take full cognisance of the vastly different price levels of the machines in question? If VAT was removed he would have no problem such as the one Deputy Collins has raised. It is the difference in price which is causing the whole problem. There is a racket which the Minister should well know.
The Deputy will appreciate that a tariff was imposed——
There is more than the tariff involved.
——to provide significant help to the Irish motor assembly industry. It is, therefore, not one——
There is more to it than the tariff.
Question No. 47.
That was the original purpose. It may well be that other people are abusing the position but that does not justify removing the protective tariff.
Question No. 47.
Is the Minister further aware——
Sorry, Deputy Collins. I have given the Deputy a lot of latitude in this matter.
You have given him far more latitude than you have ever given to this side of the House.
Deputy Andrews ought to help the Chair rather than hinder it.
(Interruptions.)
Order, please.
This is an important question.
I have called the next question.
Is the Minister aware that in framing my question I was particularly concerned with the safety of the people involved?
The Deputy has already mentioned that aspect of it. Question No. 47.