I oppose the Order for Report Stage of this Bill.
Motor Vehicle (Duties and Licences) Bill 2003: Report and Final Stages.
The Order has already been agreed, Deputy Gilmore. As you know, your own amendment No. 1 has been ruled out of order.
On a point of order, what we are dealing with now is the Order for Report and Final Stages of the Bill. We are not opposing the Order of the House, but the Order to take Report and Final Stages.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
It has already been decided to proceed with it.
That is the Order of the House, but we are dealing with the Bill itself – the Fifth Stage.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
The Dáil has already decided that.
We oppose the taking of Fifth Stage.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
It has been decided to take it.
Who decided it?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
It was decided by the Dáil this morning on the Order of Business.
It was the timing that was agreed.
No, only the timing was decided this morning.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
The exact wording was that the Bill "shall be taken today". That was the decision.
However, we oppose the actual detail of the Order for Report and Final Stages, not the Order of the House that arranged the time.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
It is the same thing.
It is not the same thing.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
It says it shall be taken today.
On a point of information, this is quite important, although it might appear to be peripheral. What is decided in the case of the Order of Business of the day is the ordering of the legislative business across a period of time. The nature of the Order that is referred to here is internal to the legislative process on the Bill itself. It is not the same matter and, therefore, you should be very careful, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle. In that case what would happen is that you would have collapsed this stage which is a crucial stage in processing the legislation. You would have decided that because of a simple vote in the morning all of that would have been cast aside, but this is not so. It is explicitly stated in relation to the legislative process that it is a nominal gesture and is nodded through by the Minister or Minister of State. On this occasion, however, there are good and practical reasons why it is being opposed. You cannot deny any Member of the House the right to oppose the moving of the Order. We are entitled to say "no".
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
I will read the Order which stated that "the Report and Final Stages of No. 16 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at 12.30 p.m. by one Question. . . ".
There is no problem with that.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
It has already been decided to take it.
That matter has been decided, but the matter of the Bill itself has not been decided. The Order for Report Stage of a particular Bill is not the same as the Order for the conduct of the House for the day.
Absolutely.
It will create a very dangerous precedent if you do not rule correctly according to the Standing Order, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
I am ruling that it shall be taken today.
On what basis?
We have no objection to it being taken today.
We are dealing with Item No. 16, which reads as follows: "Motor Vehicle (Duties and Licences) Bill 2003 – Order for Report, Report and Final Stages". The Order which was made by the House reads as follows: "the Report and Final Stages of No. 16 shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon shall, if not pre viously concluded. . . ", etc. I am objecting to the Order for Report, which is a separate and distinct matter. I would like to explain why I am objecting to taking the Order for Report, if you will permit me to do so, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
I have to proceed with amendment No. 1 in the name of Deputy Gilmore.
No. I am objecting to the taking of the Order for Report.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
There is nothing to object to.
There is because the House has been deceived by the Government on this matter. Last November, when the Government introduced a motion to increase motor taxation, the Minister for the Environment and Local Government said it was being done to provide additional money for roads. On Committee Stage, I and other Deputies extracted from the Minister of State an admission that no extra money is being provided for roads.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
The Deputy is out of order. The only question before the House is amendment No. 1. There is no other question.
When is the Order for Report being taken then?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
It has been taken.
It has not been taken. There was no question put to the House today that the Order for Report be taken.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
The only matter before the House is the consideration of amendment No. 1. If it is not being moved we will proceed to the next amendment.
I would advise you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, not to attempt that sort of steamrollering here. We are simply trying to get the correct procedures in place and to ensure that an incorrect ruling is not made. I would ask you to listen to what I am saying rather than listening to the Clerk of the House at this stage. While I do not wish to name the Clerk, it is unfair of him to intervene when we are discussing something directly with you.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
The Chair is quite clear on this matter. The decision is that the only matter before the House is amendment No. 1.
I know well what the Chair is entitled to do but if we are trying to make a technical point to you, I think the least you should do is listen to us when we are doing that.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
I have done more than listen.
We understand the point you are making about the Order being made for the Business of the House today. What we are dealing with now, however, is the Order Stage of a Bill.
Which is different.
We are objecting—
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
That is not before the House.
It is.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
The only matter before the House is amendment No. 1.
It is written down here that it is before us –"Order for Report, Report and Final Stages" is what is now before the House and we are objecting to that Order for Report.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
That is not before the House.
Why is it written down here then? What is before the House?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Amendment No. 1. Is it being moved?
How did we arrive at amendment No. 1?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
We have to proceed with amendment No. 1.
Of course it is being moved.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
The other night, Members from all sides took up another objection.
That is different.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
I know it is different but, still, the ruling of the Chair was proved right, in spite of all the arguments. I would ask Deputies to accept the ruling of the Chair and to proceed with amendment No. 1 which is the only matter before the House.
In view of the importance of this matter, I would ask for a short sos so that the Whips can discuss it.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
There is no justification for a short sos.
There is because we now have this dilemma that we have business before us that we cannot decide on. You say we have decided on it already, but we did not discuss it. If we had attempted to discuss it previously we would have been ruled out of order and told that we could not discuss it.
Exactly.
Now the Order is before us and we are objecting to it.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
The Order is not before the House.
It is.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
The Order is not before the House, that superseded it.
How can you get to the amendment at this stage if we do not deal with the Order?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
That matter has already been dealt with on the Order of Business.
No, it has not been.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
It has been.
You do not want to appear like Alice in Wonderland, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
With respect, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle—
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
The Chair takes the decisions.
The procedures of the House must be respected.
I have no wish to be in conflict with you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, but it is quite clear what was decided by the House this morning. It is written down here on the Order Paper that we were given this morning. It says "the Report and Final Stages of No. 16 shall be taken today", and then it goes on to deal with the arrangements for time and the taking of amendments.
And we have no problem with that.
However, No. 16, which is on the Order Paper for today, reads "Motor Vehicle (Duties and Licences) Bill 2003 – Order for Report, Report and Final Stages". The bit after the comma, "Report and Final Stages" is the matter for which the House has made an Order. The House has not made an Order in respect of the Order for Report.
Which we are opposing.
Therefore, that matter has to be taken now and the Labour Party is opposing the Order for Report.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
It has already been dealt with.
It has not been, with respect, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
The Chair is ruling that it has been. The Chair is quite clear on this matter. We must proceed with the amendments that are before the House. That is the only matter before the House.
Can you direct me?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
If Deputies want to keep going until 12.30 p.m. it will conclude then in any event.
With respect, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, the House has not dealt with the Order for Report.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
It has and I have said umpteen times that it was dealt with.
Can you direct me to where on the—
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
The Chair does not have to go into detail by explaining why certain decisions were made.
With respect, this is not a decision of the Chair but a decision of the House that we are dealing with.
On a point of information.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
There is no such thing as a point of information but does the Deputy have a point of order?
Is there a time limit on Report Stage of this Bill?
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
It was decided this morning that it would conclude at 12.30 p.m.
How do the Report and Final Stages come before the House, if there is not an order agreed for the taking of Report Stage? An order to take Report Stage must be agreed before we can proceed.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
We will move on to amendment No. 2. I call Deputy Gilmore to move his amendment.
I indicated to the Chair that I will move amendment No. 1.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Amendment No. 1 has been ruled out of order.
I do not believe that what is at issue is a decision of the Chair, rather it is a decision of the House. It is clear and in black and white what the House decided. It made no decision on the Order for Report Stage. Since the Order for Report Stage is before the House I am entitled to object to it.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
It is not before the House. The only matter before the House is amendment No. 2.
I draw the Chair's attention to what was circulated by the Government. It states that it is proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders – which means there are no qualifications anywhere else – that the Report and Final Stages shall be taken today and the proceedings thereon shall terminate at 12.30 p.m. That is on what we called a division earlier, the taking of Report and Final Stages and the guillotine implicit in that. We are now asked to take No. 16 in its entirety. We did not write this. It was decided by Members on the other side of the House. The Government's proposal is for the taking of the Motor Vehicle (Duties and Licences) Bill 2003 – Order for Report, Report and Final Stages. Somebody on the other side of the House has not done the sums and has got it wrong. We are entitled to invoke the rules of this House and to challenge the taking of Report Stage of this Bill because the order for it has not been properly brought before us. It is not the Chair's fault that Members opposite screwed up. Neither is it his fault that the Government has not done its job properly, but it is our responsibility to hold it to account. It has not done its job properly today and that is why my colleague is holding it to account.
If the Chair has ruled on the matter, we are eating into the time in which we will be allowed to deal with this Bill. I have sympathy for what the Labour spokespersons are trying to achieve, but we are eating into the time with which we have to deal with Report Stage of the Bill, which is vital.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
We will conclude the proceedings on this Bill at 12.30 p.m. In the ordinary course, the order for the taking of each Stage of a Bill takes place at the end of the preceding Stage.
The cat is out of the bag now.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Will the Deputy be courteous enough to allow the Chair to make its point? However, in circumstances where it is ordered on the Order of Business of any particular day that one or more Stages shall be taken and brought to a conclusion on that day, the need to make a separate order for the taking of each such Stage is obviated. This is the position in the case of this Bill and it is in accordance with long-standing and regular practice on such matters.
The cat is out of the bag now. If the Chair insists on its ruling, we can proceed to the amendments. However, we will have to vote on the Order for Report Stage. There is no doubt about that. The Chair said that is normally done at the end of the preceding Stage, but it should be done at the beginning of proceedings if an order is required for the taking of Report and Final Stages.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
I have explained the matter in some detail. We will move on to amendment No. 2.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 3, between lines 25 and 26, to insert the following:
2.–In so far as additional payments are made to the Local Government Fund by virtue of this Act which, but for this Act, would not be made, such payments shall be applied to the construction, repair and maintenance of tertiary roads.".
What I have to say about this amendment relates to the reason I wanted to oppose the Order for Report Stage. The Bill before us will allow the Government to increase motor taxation by 12%. This measure was first announced by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government immediately after the budget. He brought a motion to that effect before the House.
When the Government announced the increase in motor taxation the Minister for the Environment and Local Government made it clear that motor taxation was being increased in order to provide additional money for the roads portion of the local government fund. He conveyed that again in the House. When I and other Deputies questioned him about that, he was at best a little evasive about when he might make an announcement on when additional money would be made available to the local authorities to enable them to maintain the roads.
When we came to deal with Committee Stage of the Bill, the Minister of State, who is taking the Report Stage today, admitted that no extra money would be available for the maintenance of roads as a result of the increase in motor taxation. The Government has cut €70 million from the non-national roads budget for this year compared to the amount that was made available last year. That €70 million will be made up for by the revenue accruing from the increase in motor taxation.
In other words, motorists are being asked by the Government to pay additional motor taxation. We were promised that the revenue accruing form this measure would be put into improving the roads, but that will not happen. A great deception has been perpetrated by the Government on the House and on motorists. The reason the Labour Party was seeking to challenge the Order for Report Stage is because the Government has deceived the House. It introduced a measure stating it is for one purpose, but the Minister of State admitted on Committee Stage that is not the case. The increase in motor taxation will be used to fill the pothole in the Government's finances rather than the potholes in the roads and no extra money will be provided for the maintenance of roads.
We know the state of the non-national roads. Many of them are falling apart, particularly the roads to which I specifically referred in this amendment, the tertiary roads. They are the small roads mainly in urban housing estates, many of which were built by the original developers of housing estates 20 to 40 years ago. Many of them have never been repaired or resurfaced, they are falling apart and will shortly need reconstruction.
To be fair to the Minister of State, he gave an indication on Committee Stage that he will arrange for consultants to examine the state of these roads and that we might see something some time in the future, but again when he was questioned about that, it transpired that the earliest any resources will be provided for these roads will be 2005.
In a nutshell, a con is being perpetrated by the Government on motorists. It is increasing motor taxation, which is one of the stealth taxes whose name the Government dare not speak and no extra money will be provided for roads. The Labour Party is opposed to that. I will put this amendment to the House for a decision because it is at the core of the issue of whether we will see an improvement in the state of the roads as a result of the increase in motor taxation.
That is a crucial point and it highlights a difficulty we face since the Committee Stage of Bills began to be taken in committee rather than in the Dáil. If one checks the record, one will note that the absolute impression was given on Second Stage that the revenue accruing from the 12% increase in motor taxation would go into the roads fund. No indication was given that the roads fund would be €70 million short on last year or that an estimated €65 million or more would be raised by this road tax. The hole in terms of that €70 million shortfall is being plugged by a 12% increase in motor vehicle taxation. It is quite clear I was deceived although I took part in the Second Stage debate and I did not discover that this was the case until Committee Stage. Taking Committee Stage in the select committee on the Environment and Local Government is useful for taking pressure off the Dáil but there is very little reporting of such debates. The public was not aware of this measure and would have to assume, after the Second Stage debate, that it was acceptable. We could sell a 12% increase to motorists, however reluctantly, if they believed that increase would give them better roads on which to drive.
This is a very dangerous precedent. If the Department of Finance says there will be €70 million less for roads next year, must the Minister for the Environment and Local Government find some means of raising that revenue? Those revenues should be raised by and spelt out in the budget so that everyone knows where they stand, rather than have a system whereby a shortfall is filled or made up in this manner. The worst aspect of this is that after the Second Stage debate I had the firm understanding I would probably be able to sell this to constituents by saying they would see €65 million more spent to improve roads, which would save them money in wear and tear on their cars. We now find that less will be spent on rural and tertiary roads this year than in previous years. The deceptive manner in which this has been introduced, which was only exposed on Committee Stage, is very serious.
The Green Party amendments are intended—
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
We are dealing with amendment No. 2 in the name of Deputy Gilmore.
I support Deputy Gilmore's amendment. While we have a fairly intensive capital programme for roads, one danger is the lack of maintenance and repair of the roads many people use such as estate roads and local roads. Those are not in a good state of repair and it is important to concentrate resources on those minor roads and to ensure we have adequate funds for their maintenance. There is a real danger as we concentrate on the intensive capital programme for building motorways and bypasses that we will forget about the requirements of those smaller roads. Looking ahead, I fear that we will end up with very high running costs for these newer roads, with funds having to be diverted either from the minor roads or significant increases in motor vehicle duties.
I support Deputy Gilmore's amendment and I am concerned we are funding a capital programme which will require a significant increase in maintenance expenditure which may increase duties and taxation.
I am pleased to clarify this situation. First, there is no question of deception being perpetrated by the Government and there is no question of the Government trying to deceive. This was made absolutely clear when the resolution was before the House prior to Christmas and again on Second Stage. On Committee Stage some Members expressed surprise that the extra money to be raised by the motor tax increases was not for non-national roads. It was implied then and is now by some Deputies that the Government was being less than honest with the Dáil when it introduced this legislation regarding the purpose of the extra money that could be generated by the motor tax increases.
As I said then and repeat now, I am in favour of rigorous examination and lively, informed debate in the Oireachtas on all legislative proposals. In the debate on this legislation I have at all times endeavoured to discuss in an open way all the issues raised and to answer any queries but I cannot accept a misrepresentation of the facts. The suggestions that the House only learned on Committee Stage of the use of the extra motor tax income or that the Government was not open with the facts on this issue are unfounded and untrue. On Committee Stage I pointed out that it has always been stated that the extra money being generated by the motor tax would be paid into the local government fund. Furthermore, the extra revenue would be used to maintain the record 2002 level of €435 million for non-national roads. We said we were anxious to maintain those record levels.
This has been the position from day one and I question the memories of some Deputies. The Minister, Deputy Cullen, said during the debate on the financial resolution regarding these taxes on 12 December 2002: "As I said on the day I announced the motor tax increases, the Deputy knows full well my objective was at least to maintain the level of funding into the future."– he was referring to Deputy Gilmore. Furthermore, in a discussion of the possibility of a decrease in non-national road spending, the Minister went on to say:
I was not prepared to countenance this. With this increase in motor taxation I could at least maintain the level of the fund with small increases so the level of investment would remain the same.
That is what we have done. When the issue was raised again on Second Stage Deputy Gilmore quoted from the Minister's contribution during the debate on the financial resolution which indicated that the extra tax would be used to prevent a decrease in non-national roads spending. It has always been clear, therefore, that the extra funding generated by the increases in motor tax would be paid into the local government fund, which would allow for an increase in important general purpose grants to the local authorities and to maintain non-national roads spending at the record 2002 levels. Deputies may claim to be surprised now or on Committee Stage but they knew the position at that time, that the increased motor tax would go into the local government fund and maintain the record levels of investment in our non-national roads. That is the situation.
On Second Stage I said that for 2003 €434 million will be available for non-national roads. That was a factual statement. I said this compared to the slight decrease from €435 million in 2002, which was the highest ever State grant provision for non-national roads. I do not know if I could have made it any clearer than that –€434 million would be made available for this year and that is the situation.
I am not trying to score political points but €214 million was the allocation in 1997 to non-national roads and that has increased to €434 million. If we look at our statutory obligations to the local government fund and index-link it to 1999, we have contributed €204 million, which is in excess of our legislative obligations.
Although I did not accept the amendment on Committee Stage and do not propose to accept it now, I appreciate the point made by Deputy Gilmore both then and now on the seriousness of the position with regard to tertiary roads. He noted on Committee Stage that the estimated requirement for his electoral area of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown was in the region of €10 million, which I do not doubt. As I stated then, we are finalising the terms of reference for a pavement study and tenders will be sought soon. Its purpose is to ascertain the extent of the remaining deficiencies in the network and to examine each class of road, including tertiary roads. The report is due to be completed late this year or early next year.
It is important to underline that the maintenance and improvement of non-national roads in the various electoral areas is a matter for the relevant local authority. We received and accepted multi-annual programmes submitted by the local authorities. If some of them wish to alter their programmes, they are at liberty to make a case for doing so to the Department.
In fairness to Deputy Gilmore, he has raised the serious problems regarding tertiary roads on numerous occasions. While I appreciate there is a problem, I also have to deal with regional and county roads, for example, by conducting traffic counts on these extremely busy roads. I hope the substantial expenditure on such roads by the Department through the local authorities will result in many of them being completed or brought up to a high standard within a few years.
I remind the House that 50% of the allocation goes to restoration and that a number of local authorities have reduced their own resource contribution to the non-national roads this year. I will not detail all the local authorities in question, but I have discussed the matter in the Department. Perhaps there is good reason for these reductions. In fairness to Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council, it has slightly increased its allocation from €5.3 million to €5.9 million, while Galway County Council has increased its allocation from €4.6 million to €5 million. Overall, however, local authorities have reduced roads funding.
Perhaps if we considered linking the Department's allocation to councils' own resource allocations, such reductions would cease. I do not wish to pre-empt what will happen this year, but I am anxious that this matter be brought to the attention of the county managers of the local authorities in question. It is important to note that the Department's contribution supplements those of the local authorities.
I was not prepared to accept the amendment on Committee Stage for sound reasons. It seeks to give absolute priority to local, yet important roads which account for 23% of the non-national road network in county council areas. It is important to underline that the maintenance and improvement of the non-national roads in the county council areas is a matter for the respective local authorities. They allocate resources which are supplemented by State grants. The initial selection and prioritisation of projects or works to be carried out under the various non-national road grant categories is a matter for individual local authorities.
This restoration programme has been in place since 1995 and aims to restore by the end of 2005 regional and local roads which were deficient in 1996. We are also finalising the terms of a further pavement condition study to be carried out this year and this will be taken into consideration in later years. I realise this provides little solace to the people Deputy Gilmore represents. I oppose the amendment.
The Minister of State has acknowledged that the 2003 grants are some €3 million or €4 million short of the 2002 grants. The explanatory memorandum states:
The Fund is ringfenced exclusively for local authority purposes and is distributed to local authorities as discretionary grants in respect of day-to-day spending requirements and also as grants in respect of expenditure on non-national roads.
The clear impression given was that the money generated by the measure would be allocated in addition to current funding. Even if half of it were allocated in this way, the Minister and other Members, such as Deputies Gilmore, Cuffe and myself, would find it easier to sell the proposal to our constituents. However, not one penny of the increase will be used as additional roads funding.
The Minister acknowledged that funding for roads has been cut by several million compared to 2002, even before inflation is taken into account. The bottom line is that less work will be done on the county and tertiary roads. This is a false economy because when road surfaces wear away, the nature of our climate with its significant rainfall levels – the weather will not always be like the past few weeks – will result in the foundations being washed away. The cost in the long run for either the current Minister or one of his successors will be higher.
It is estimated this new additional tax on motorists, which will mainly affect people in rural areas where cars are essential items and are required to get to work every day, will raise €65 million per annum. If at least half of that sum was spent on county and tertiary roads, the proposal would be much easier to sell. As matters stand, we have no option but to oppose the provision.
There are two aspects to this issue, the first of which is the question of funding or lack of it for the tertiary roads. The Minister of State acknowledged on Committee Stage and again today that I have made a case on behalf of the country's roads. He followed this up by saying a pavement study will be undertaken, the results of which will not be available until late 2004 at the earliest. Even if action is taken on foot of the study, the earliest we will see results will be 2005, which is a long time to wait in terms of improvements to some of the roads in question.
Meanwhile, the Government is increasing motor taxation. This is the nub of the question. The announcement to increase motor taxation came in the wake of the budget. The Minister for Finance came in here on budget day and told us there would be no tax increases. We now know that at every twist and turn the Government increased charges and taxes on everything – VAT, college registration fees, VHI charges, gas and electricity charges, television licences – and, in this instance, motor taxation.
Considerable public controversy arose following the announcement of the increase in motor taxation and it was the subject of the radio phone-in programmes for some period of time. The message coming from Government all through that period was that it was increasing motor taxation but there would be more money for roads.
That is it.
As Deputy McCormack said, to be fair, many motorists, regardless of how displeased they were about having to pay additional motor tax, responded to that argument by saying that if they have to pay a little more in motor tax to see improvements in roads, they can live with that.
The Minister is right. At no stage did either he or the Minister for the Environment and Local Government explicitly tell the House that there would be additional allocations on top of the normal allocation for non-national roads, although he was given many opportunities to state that. However, we cannot operate on the basis of crossword puzzles. The Minister appears to be inviting us to read the clues he gives us, which are buried in the text of his Second Stage speech, to understand what he meant. It is now clear what he meant. In the Estimates process €70 million was cut from the budget for non-national roads but that cut was not announced by Government. The people were not told by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government that the Minister for Finance had taken €70 million from him for non-national roads. When he announced the increase in motor taxation, he did not tell either the House or the public that the purpose of the increase was not to provide extra money for roads but to back-fill the cut in the roads budget which was effected some time during the Estimates process. That is the deception. The Government has deceived both this House and motorists. The motorists who pay their increased rate of motor taxation today will not see an additional ounce of road surfacing provided.
This may be a small point but the Minister did not succeed in maintaining the 2002 level of funding for roads. The 2003 level of funding for non-national roads is reduced on the 2002 figure. The 2002 allocation was approximately €438 million while the allocation for 2003 was €433 million. If one factors in inflation and that the Minister has earmarked part of the 2003 allocation for his high profile road signs initiative, there is significantly less money for roads in 2003, even without taking account of the cut of €70 million which the increase in motor taxation is designed to cover.
I intend to press the amendment because I want Members of this House to show where they stand on motor taxation. Members of this House who vote with the Government on this issue are voting to increase the motor taxation rate without providing an additional service to motorists. That is an issue on which the House must decide.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided by electronic means.
As part of the Labour Party campaign to oppose the bulldozing of the Freedom of Information Act and to give me the pleasure of seeing Fianna Fáil backbenchers going through the lobby to vote for increased taxation for motor vehicles, I am as a teller, under Standing Order 69, calling for a vote other than by electronic means.
As Deputy Stagg is a teller, under Standing Order 69, we will have a vote through the lobby in six minutes' time.
Amendment again put.
Tá
|
Breen, James.Broughan, Thomas P.Bruton, Richard.Burton, Joan.Costello, Joe.Coveney, Simon.Crawford, Seymour.Cuffe, Ciarán.Deasy, John.Deenihan, Jimmy.Durkan, Bernard J.English, Damien.Gilmore, Eamon.Gogarty, Paul.Gregory, Tony.Harkin, Marian.Hayes, Tom.Healy, Seamus.Higgins, Joe.Higgins, Michael D.Howlin, Brendan.Kehoe, Paul.Lynch, Kathleen.McCormack, Padraic.McGinley, Dinny.McGrath, Paul. |
Mitchell, Olivia.Morgan, Arthur.Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.Naughten, Denis.Neville, Dan.Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.O'Dowd, Fergus.O'Keeffe, Jim.O'Shea, Brian.O'Sullivan, Jan.Pattison, Seamus.Penrose, Willie.Quinn, Ruairí.Rabbitte, Pat.Ring, Michael.Ryan, Seán.Sargent, Trevor.Sherlock, Joe.Shortall, Róisín.Stagg, Emmet.Stanton, David.Timmins, Billy.Twomey, Liam.Upton, Mary.Wall, Jack. |
Níl
|
Andrews, Barry.Ardagh, Seán.Blaney, Niall.Brady, Johnny.Brady, Martin.Brennan, Seamus.Callanan, Joe.Callely, Ivor.Carey, Pat.Carty, John.Cassidy, Donie.Collins, Michael.Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.Coughlan, Mary.Cregan, John.Cullen, Martin.Curran, John.Davern, Noel. |
de Valera, Síle.Dempsey, Tony.Devins, Jimmy.Ellis, John.Fahey, Frank.Finneran, Michael.Fitzpatrick, Dermot.Fleming, Seán.Gallagher, Pat The Cope.Glennon, Jim.Grealish, Noel.Hanafin, Mary.Haughey, Seán.Hoctor, Máire.Jacob, Joe.Keaveney, Cecilia.Kelleher, Billy. Kelly, Peter. |
Níl–continued
|
Killeen, Tony.Kirk, Seamus.Kitt, Tom.Lenihan, Brian.McCreevy, Charlie.McEllistrim, Thomas.McGuinness, John.Martin, Micheál.Moloney, John.Moynihan, Donal.Moynihan, Michael.Mulcahy, Michael.Nolan, M. J.Ó Cuív, Éamon.Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.O'Dea, Willie.O'Donnell, Liz. |
O'Donovan, Denis.O'Flynn, Noel.O'Keeffe, Batt.O'Keeffe, Ned.O'Malley, Fiona.Power, Peter.Roche, Dick.Ryan, Eoin.Sexton, Mae.Smith, Brendan.Smith, Michael.Treacy, Noel.Wallace, Dan.Walsh, Joe.Wilkinson, Ollie.Woods, Michael.Wright, G. V. |
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Stagg and Durkan; Níl, Deputies Hanafin and Kelleher.
Amendment declared lost.
Question, "That Report Stage is hereby completed and the Bill is hereby passed", put and declared carried.