Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 17 Feb 2004

Vol. 580 No. 1

Motor Vehicle (Duties and Licences) Bill 2004: Second Stage.

Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government (Mr. Gallagher)

I move: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The primary purpose of the Bill is to give legislative form to the increases in motor tax rates and trade plate licences which were contained in the financial resolution on motor tax passed by the Dáil on 25 November 2003. The resolution and the Bill provide for a standard 5% across the board increase on motor tax on all classes of vehicle. As the House will be aware, the increases in motor tax are already in place and apply to all motor tax taken out for periods from 1 January this year. In making the decision to increase motor tax rates, the primary consideration was the need to provide adequate funding for the non-national roads programme.

Motor tax is paid directly into the local government fund. The receipts from motor tax are topped up annually by an Exchequer contribution which is increased each year at least in line with inflation by reference to the base year of 1998. In fact, the Exchequer contribution to the fund since its introduction has far exceeded the minimum inflation guarantee in the Local Government Act 1998. The fund is used to finance the general purpose needs of local authorities and to finance non-national roads grants.

The general purpose grants, which are paid from the fund, are discretionary block grants which can be used by authorities for whatever purpose they consider necessary. In general, they are used to supplement other current income sources such as specific State grants, commercial rates and fees and charges for services. The income from all these sources is incorporated into local authorities' annual budgets to fund a wide range of functions, ranging from management of the planning system, upkeep of social housing, operation and maintenance of public water and sewerage systems, waste management, care of the natural environment, running the fire services, etc.

Under the new arrangements introduced by the local government fund, the level of general purpose funding available to local authorities has increased substantially. The extent to which this is so is evidenced by the fact that, since 1997 when the current parties in Government first came to office, the level of general purpose grant aid to local authorities has increased on average by 122%. This represents an average annual increase of some 17% over the past seven years. The 2004 funding package of €752 million is up €92.2 million on last year. In anybody's language, this represents a valuable contribution to local government.

While it is relevant to make reference to general purpose grants in any discussion on the local government fund, the Bill is essentially concerned with non-national roads. I am aware from previous debates in the House that there is wide agreement regarding the need to invest in our non-national road network to develop the social and economic potential of all regions. The establishment of the local government fund and its substantial funding by motor tax receipts has created an important link between the amount of tax paid by motorists and the visible service they receive for that tax in terms of better roads. It is estimated that the motor tax increases will generate an additional €34 million for the local government fund in 2004. I assure the House that every cent of the extra revenue generated by the increases in rates will be spent on non-national roads. The LGF increase of €34 million in 2004 represents an increase of almost 9% on the 2003 allocation of €394 million.

The grant allocation for non-national roads in 2004 is €477 million. This is the highest in the history of the State. This allocation is more than double the 1997 expenditure and almost 10% more than last year. I am happy to record that the Government has, for a third consecutive year, maintained the allocations at a record level.

This €477 million comprises €428 million from the local government fund and €48.8 million from the Exchequer. The 2004 Exchequer allocation shows an increase of around €8.8 million, or 22%, over the 2003 initial provision. This funding is mainly for key strategic non-national roads projects that will assist housing, commercial and industrial development. The additional funds being provided in 2004 by the Exchequer will enable local authorities to progress work on critically important schemes on the country's regional roads network.

The national development plan sets out the Government's expenditure plans for the non-national road network between 2000 and 2006. The plan commits €2.43 billion to the non-national roads programme over the period. Under the plan, €1.08 billion will be spent in the BMW region and €1.35 billion will be spent in the southern and eastern region. Expenditure in both regions between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2003 was well ahead of that profiled for the period in the plan. Expenditure in that period was almost €1.62 billion compared with a profile of €1.41 billion. This represents an increase of almost 15%. Expenditure in the BMW region was almost €690 million compared with a profile of €622 million and expenditure in the southern and eastern region was almost €930 million compared with a profile of €787 million.

The non-national roads programme is one of the national development plan's major success stories. It continues to be one of the best performing measures under the southern and eastern and BMW regional operational programmes. The success is largely due to the good work of local authorities. This excellent progress has been recognised in the mid-term reviews of the regional operational programmes and in the ESRI's mid-term evaluation of the national development plan.

The restoration programme continues to be a key part of non-national road grant allocations. Just over €220 million has been allocated for the restoration programme in 2004. This funding will enable local authorities to carry out all schemes included until the end of 2004 from their multi-annual programmes from 2002 to 2005.

The first pavement condition study of non-national roads, which was carried out in 1996, identified that approximately 47,000 km. of the non-national road network were deficient at that time. The success of the Government's policy in this area can be gauged by the fact that it is estimated that approximately 32,000 km., or 68% of the network deemed as deficient in 1996, had been restored to good condition by the end of 2003.

A company of consulting engineers, RPS-MCOS Limited, was appointed last year to conduct a second pavement condition study of regional and local roads, as well as a review of pavement management systems. This new study is part of the Government's ongoing commitment to restoring the regional and local roads network to a satisfactory condition. The results of the study will determine the progress that has been made since 1996 and the extent of the remaining deficiencies in the non-national road network. The results will form an important part in prioritising investment in the non-national network and ensuring value for money in future years. Following the completion of the study, local authorities will be asked to submit revised multi-annual restoration programmes from 2005 onwards.

Pavement management systems have not previously been reviewed. The consultants have been asked to review existing systems and to recommend a single system for use by local authorities on the non-national road network. This is intended to assist local authorities in prioritising schemes for inclusion in the restoration programme. Work on the study and review is due to be completed by August of this year.

I wish to send a strong message to local authorities by stating that the Government's commitment to the non-national roads programme must be matched at local level. It is estimated that local authorities will invest approximately €150 million of their resources on non-national roads in 2004. This investment will bring the total investment this year to €627 million. The House is aware that State grants are intended to supplement the contribution of resources by local authorities, rather than being seen as a substitute for such resources. I expect local authorities to maintain their contribution of resources to non-national roads and to aim for increases at least in line with inflation. My Department will monitor closely this element of the programme this year. It is intended that local authorities which increase expenditure of their own resources will be rewarded.

I am sure the House will agree that huge strides have been made in developing our non-national road infrastructure in recent years. This development has been due, in large part, to the establishment of the local government fund and the assignment of motor tax to that fund. It is obvious that the increases in motor tax rates provided for in this Bill will not be popular, but they will ensure that the progress which has been achieved can be built on in future years. I mentioned that the rates of motor tax set out in the Bill apply to tax discs and trade licences taken out for a period beginning on or after 1 January 2004. The new tax rates for all vehicles are set out in the Schedule to the Bill.

I would like to inform the House what the increase of 5% on all vehicles means, in cash terms, in respect of private cars and goods vehicles, which make up over 90% of the national fleet. The annual rate increase is €7 for the smallest private cars, those under 1,000 cc. The annual increase is between €11 and €13 for private cars of between 1,001 cc. and 1,300 cc. The annual increase is between €14 for private cars between 1,301 cc. and 1,400 cc. Some 60% of the national car fleet is made up of cars under 1,400 cc., therefore, the annual extra cost for most motorists will be between €7 and €14, or between 13 and 27 cent per week. The increases for the remaining cars will range from €15 for cars over 1,400 cc. to €64 for cars over 3,001 cc. Fewer than 0.5% of cars are in the 3,001 cc. plus category.

The effect of the 5% increase on goods vehicles will vary, depending on the size of the vehicle. Some 85% of vehicles in this category are at the lowest level of charge, meaning that they will pay an annual increase of €12, or 23 cent per week. A 5% increase is proposed for trade licences, or trade plates as they are known. These are the green registration plates used by motor traders on vehicles which are temporarily in their possession, in lieu of paying tax on such vehicles. While there are strict restrictions on the use of the plates, they are transferable between vehicles. The increase for a pair of trade plates will be €13.

The purpose of this short Bill, which has just six sections, is to give permanent legal standing to the increases in motor tax introduced by a financial resolution passed by the Dáil in November 2003. The increases are being introduced for the sole purpose of funding the national roads programme, to ensure that local authorities can continue the great progress they have made in recent years in rehabilitating our non-national road network. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. Allen

My party will oppose this Bill. I will start by quoting from Fianna Fáil's election manifesto of 2002: "The surest way to cause unemployment and undermine the public finances would be to implement unsustainable spending plans or to try to return to the days of high taxation." Those of us who fought the 2002 general election against the Government knew that it could not be trusted to keep this promise. We also knew it would saddle the country with higher taxes and unsustainable public spending. Even I am amazed that the Government would subject the country to the dangerous economic forces of both out-of-control public spending and increases in stealth taxes. In this morning's newspapers, there was another example of out-of-control public spending with public sector employment rising again.

Today, we are debating another increase in taxation through stealth measures, another step in the return to high taxation Ireland. Since the election, the Government has increased taxes 27 times. The taxes imposed range from credit cards to passports, from hospital visits to houses. Now further taxes on cars will be imposed. It is incredible that after two years of abusing the electorate's trust, the Government rolls out more increases.

Over the last 12 months, there has been a long list of punitive increases. Local authorities have been forced to introduce development levies of between €6,000 to €30,000, which will raise €700 million from house buyers. There are levies on industrial development which will make some counties uncompetitive against some of their richer neighbours. The drug payments scheme threshold was raised by €8 to €78 per month, the third increase in the year, with the result that people with chronic illnesses will be priced out of the health market. Accident and emergency charges are up from €40 to €45. As I said before, it is now cheaper to arrive with one's own trolley at an accident and emergency department. The cost of a private bed in a public hospital has increased 15%. The cost of an overnight hospital stay increased €5 to €45 per night, with a cap of ten nights per year.

Students did not escape these stealth taxes, with the third level registration fee increased by €80 to €750. The fees for junior and leaving certificate examinations have gone up €10 to €82 and €86, respectively. The fee for a standard ten-year passport will increase on 1 March by almost one third from €57 to €75. The cost of a three-year passport for infants aged up to three years will rise from €12 to €15 and a five-year passport for those aged between three years and 18 years will also rise from €12 to €25. The emergency fee for passport applications, processed outside of office hours, will go up €37 to €100 for adults. I will, however, concede that the price of a ten-year passport for senior citizens has been cut from €57 to €25.

Motor tax will rise by 5% in this Bill which is a perfect example of the Government's arrogance. The Bill increases taxes on private vehicles by an Administration that promised not to do so and to improve public transport. It has misled the electorate and failed in its duty. Were the state of our public transport not so lamentable, we might not be so concerned. As well as taxing motorists into the ground, the Government has failed to provide alternative methods of public transport. The Government's record in this area is already woeful. The construction of Luas is late. The Dublin metro project is years away. The rail network is one of the worst in western Europe. I had personal experience of it on Tuesday morning last, with a five and a half hour journey from Cork. The rural bus network is dreadful. This week the transport unions went on strike. Commuters are now driven to distraction, on to the roads in their cars, choking the streets and stuck in traffic.

As I said on 25 November 2003, the Fine Gael Party is opposed to the provisions of this Bill and the dreadful breach of the people's trust that we have seen by this Government in this Chamber.

Mr. Gilmore

I join with Deputy Allen in stating that the Labour Party is also opposed to this Bill on a number of grounds. As Deputy Allen has pointed out, this Bill is one of a sequence of taxes on everyday activities which the Government has introduced by the backdoor. This is a Government that proclaims it is a low taxation one. It frequently draws attention to how it has reduced taxes on income and that there are no taxes on wealth, property or stallions. However, they are being replaced with taxes on citizen's everyday activities.

A family that sends a child to college will pay, in effect, a tax through increased registration fees. A person visiting a hospital will pay a tax through admission charges. Every morning when a refuse bin is put out, a tax is paid on it. Every time that one goes to a shop, additional taxes imposed by the Government are paid.

The motorist is hit no fewer than four different times by Government taxation. When one buys a vehicle, one pays VAT, VRT charges and motor tax on it. When one buys fuel for it, tax is also paid. In normal circumstances, a 5% increase in motor taxation would not cause great excitement. However, when it is taken in the context of the series of additional stealth taxes that the Government has introduced, then it must be opposed.

It must also be opposed because of the way that it is used. Motor taxation is intended to be the instrument through which funds are provided for the local government fund and non-national roads. I must again express my disappointment at the biased and unfair way in which those moneys are distributed. The Minister of State, in his speech, drew attention to the Government's largesse in recent years to the local government fund and non-national roads. What he did not take into account, were the increased roles and responsibilities that local authorities now have. Through Government decisions rather than their own, their costs have increased and they must find resources to meet those costs.

This is an exceptional year, however, in that regard. With local elections coming up, the Government managed to find some additional moneys for the local government fund. It remains to be seen, however, if those moneys, intended to take the sting out local authority decisions for the 2004 Estimates, will remain for 2005 and remaining years. I have my doubts.

The local government fund is itself unevenly distributed. There has never been proper accountability of the fund to this House. Last year, when we debated the 2003 version of this Bill, I proposed on Committee Stage that an annual report be made on the fund and that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government be required to report to this House as to what goes into and out of the local government fund, how it is distributed and what criteria are used for its distribution. The basis on which the fund is distributed between local authorities needs to be debated in this House and the Minister made publicly accountable for it.

The Minister of State drew attention to the allocation this year of €447 million to the fund for non-national roads. He did not tell us, however, how that money was allocated to local authorities or how badly urban authorities in particular fare in the distribution of that money. Only 12% of the €447 million for 2004 was allocated to all the urban authorities put together. I do not wish to make invidious comparisons but it is difficult to escape the fact that the Minister's constituency, Waterford city and county, received almost €21 million, almost twice the €11 million allocated to Dublin city. The total allocated to the urban authorities was €36 million for the city authorities, €10.6 million of which was for Waterford city; €3.5 million to the urban borough councils; and €14.5 million to all the town councils together.

I spoke before about the serious neglect of urban roads, particularly tertiary roads, those in housing estates on which most of the payers of this tax travel every morning to work. They are in a state of disrepair and no money is being spent on them. It is interesting to hear the Minister say that he will require local authorities to put their own resources into the roads programme and reward those which increase their resource expenditure if he is not accountable for the way in which the local government fund is allocated, and little or no account is taken of the relative ability of local authorities to raise money from commercial authorities. The circumstances of local authorities vary — some have a large rate base, others have not. If no account is taken of that and if there is a disproportionate allocation of the non-national roads fund between different authorities and the Minister offers to reward authorities if they raise additional charges, levies or commercial rates to upgrade the roads locally, motorists in those areas will ask where their motor tax is going.

I do not know what proportion of motor taxation is raised in urban areas but the figure for all the cities and towns together is closer to 60% than 12% of the total amount of motor tax raised. It will be increasingly difficult to tell those who pay motor tax that the urban authorities in which they live will receive only 12% of the total allocation in a given year. Those people must drive on roads in their housing estates and immediate neighbourhood which are potholed, broken and in a state of disrepair and which in many cases need reconstruction rather than repair or resurfacing.

When I raised this previously the response was that a firm of consultants would carry out a study but apparently this will not be complete until August. There will be the farce in coming months of candidates from the Government parties picking their way over potholes and broken pavements in urban areas where they are canvassing to meet the frustrated householders and motorists who endure those roads every day and tell them a study is being done. The study will not appear until August and then it will be forgotten, as so often happens to such issues which arise after an election.

The Labour Party will oppose this Bill on the grounds of the additional stealth taxes proposed in it, that the Minister is distributing the moneys raised in motor taxation in a way that is unfair, biased and takes no account of the needs of respective areas, and that, scandalously, in his last allocation, he showed an unashamed bias towards his own electoral needs rather than the needs of motorists.

Mr. Connolly

I wish to share time with Deputies Twomey, Morgan and Cuffe.

I oppose this Bill. The Minister of State mentioned that the bills and moneys received as receipts from motor tax are topped up annually and that the fund is used to finance general purposes and needs for local authorities and non-national road grants. It would have been fair to do that in proportion to the taxes paid by each county, in particular counties Cavan and Monaghan and the Border counties. The level of receipts from motor tax returns from these counties is far above that of other counties in our neighbourhood. For example, the motor tax returns from County Monaghan amount to €10.07 million for 2003, for Cavan they amount to in the region of €10.6 million and for Louth approximately €15.53 million. By comparison, in neighbouring counties such as Longford the return was €5.6 million and in Leitrim, €4.6million. This should have been reflected in the amount of money coming back to the local authorities.

We need new bypasses for Monaghan and Cavan, the proposed cost of which seems high — for example, the Carrickmacross bypass is estimated at €28 million to €30 million, the Castleblayney bypass, approximately €112 million and the Monaghan bypass, phase one, €23 million and phase two, €57 million. The dates set are September 2004 for the Monaghan bypass and 2005-06 for the Castleblayney bypass. Would the Minister consider topping that up to give the boost required for these projects? We are paying more than our fair share of tax in these Border counties. We pay a very high proportion of the revenue from diesel which we sell to Northern Ireland. I would like to think that we would be considered in that respect.

As regards taxing cars and lorries, lorries are a large part of people's livelihoods in County Monaghan. Cars and other forms of transport are an absolute necessity. The people of counties Monaghan and Cavan do not have any choice in terms of the type of transport they use to get to work. They cannot get on a No. 7 or No. 46A bus. There was talk about putting a railway line between Kingscourt and Navan to give people an alternative form of public transport. However, that will not happen. The Minister should seriously consider funding bypasses in my constituency so that the people do not have to wait 20, 30 or 40 minutes to drive through Cavan town, Castleblayney or Monaghan town. Money should be pumped into these counties. The people have paid more than their fair share of tax.

Motorists are being hit with an unfair raft of disproportionate stealth taxes. Motorists could be described as punch drunk at this stage. Taxes amounting to €22,000 will be paid on a family car which costs approximately €21,500 over a ten-year period. The figure of €21,500 includes VAT of €4,500 and added taxes of €3,000. The total road tax on a car over a ten-year period would amount to €3,500 and estimated petrol taxes would amount to €10,000. That is based on 12,000 miles per annum and an average consumption of 30 miles per gallon. Insurance levies and VAT charges on servicing the car over a ten-year period would amount to a further €480. The already fleeced motorist is ripe for further plucking in the eyes of the Minister for Finance. This is in addition to a 12% increase in motor tax this time last year and a 7% increase in VRT on vehicles over 1900 cc. Motorists are seen as a means of getting more money.

Some years ago the heads of Europe's largest motoring organisations launched a new motorist charter in Brussels. The message was that the unfortunate motorist had had enough and that there should be a moratorium on new motoring and road tax increases. The Minister should take that on board. The Government might as well have been idle if its action since then is anything to go by. Taxes have continued to increase and that has led to a breakdown in trust between motorists and the Government. Europe's motorists pay in excess of €300 billion in taxes every year, yet only a quarter of that is reinvested in transport and mobility. As bad as the situation is internationally, our Government's record is worse. Last year the Government collected in excess of €3.8 billion in taxes from motorists, but it spent only approximately €715 million, or18%, on roads and transportation.

Dr. Twomey

It will come as a surprise to the constituents of County Wexford that the local authority has been well funded over the past seven years. With average increases of 17%, one would expect a corresponding increase in services. It is also surprising to read the figures produced by the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Gallagher, on the number of roads which are supposed to have been improved since 1996. It seems that 32,000 kilometres of road have been dramatically improved since 1996, compared with 47,000 which are in poor condition. The condition of the roads in County Wexford have not improved dramatically over the past seven years.

It is stated that local authorities will be able to spend the increased extra funding on whatever they wish, including sewerage systems and social housing. We have not seen any extra funding in County Wexford. I am glad the Minister of State at the Department of Communications, Marine and Natural Resources, Deputy Browne, is here because he has been a strong critic of the local authority on a number of occasions. He might be in a position to enlighten me in that regard.

How will the money be spent on non-national roads? Last year the finance committee had a discussion on the fact that our roads seem to be in regular need of repair. We discussed how we could repair them because drainage was an issue after the flooding we had last year. Many of the local authorities pointed out that they only get enough funding to patch up the non-national roads and that they do not have enough money to carry out drainage works or to lay proper road surfaces. That seems to contradict much of what the Minister said in his speech about the fact that many roads have dramatically improved. They are only being patched up on a regular basis.

Motorists might accept the supposed increase in spending by the local authority if they got improved local authority services. However, no one could say that services have dramatically improved. Nothing is happening in Rosslare Harbour, for example, which is ideal for industrial development, because there is no sewage treatment plant for that area. Raw effluent is still being pumped into the sea. Although there are plans to build a new sewage treatment plant in the area, nothing has happened. It will be interesting to show these figures to my constituents and to tell them that such extra work could have been done over the past seven years because extra funding was supposed to have been given to the local authority.

Perhaps it is time to look at how the local authorities are spending the money. Is there a problem in all Departments in that money is being wasted or not being used correctly? Is there a lack of transparency in terms of how the money is spent? Are Departments top heavy with management? The Department of Health and Children is regularly accused of being top heavy with management. It has also been stated that there is too much administration in the Department and that not enough work is being done at the frontline. If the 1996 and 2003 figures are to be believed, it is time to examine how the local authorities spend this money. It is one thing to give extra funding to local government, but it is another thing to spend it without any form of accountability. I have not seen a dramatic improvement in local government services, whether non-national roads, social housing or water and sewerage systems. I will be interested to hear the Minister's explanations.

Mr. Cuffe

We seem to have an annual discussion on the type and scale of duties imposed on motor vehicles. I remember expressing similar sentiments last year, namely, that the measure we use for charging is crude. I and my party would like to see the introduction of a slightly more sophisticated measuring system. Instead of looking at the capacity of the engine, we should consider other issues, such as sustainability. We could closely examine transportation and the effect it has on sustainability. Instead of looking at the size of an engine, we should look at other indicators and reflect those in the type of charging system we use. The most obvious indicator is the carbon dioxide or climate change emissions from a vehicle. That data is readily available. It is not rocket science to find out what type of emissions come from an exhaust pipe and to reflect that in the charging mechanism we use or to reflect the more basic pollution load the vehicle creates. It would be easy to examine the basic pollution produced by a particular make, model and size of car. I am upset that the Department is not examining this in any detail and is not reflecting it in its charging system. It would make sense to incorporate this into the measures used.

I note that the annual charge changes depending on the engine capacity and that the charge per cubic centimetre is low at the lower end of the scale and rises fairly substantially at the top. However, in looking at the scale, the increase per cubic centimetre seems to stop at about 2.5 litres and continues on a linear scale at higher levels. Even using the current crude scale instead of having a staggered or escalator tax, it would be possible to have a more linear equation that would continue to hit those who insist on driving cars with very large engines. There should be an increasing charge per cubic centimetre for cars with a capacity of more than 2.5 litres.

We should also consider factors such as the kinds of accidents and severity of accidents caused by particular types of car. This week an article in The New Yorker magazine investigated the kind of accidents that particular types of vehicles cause. It specifically considered what the Americans call a sport utility vehicle, SUV, or what we would call a four-wheel drive, Jeep-type vehicle, and the typical accidents in which those vehicles are involved. It is not surprising to discover that the larger and more protected the vehicle is for the occupants, the more damage it causes to others.

Some vehicles on the market with kangaroo or bull bars — huge bumpers — and very high cab positions represent the equivalent of a tank. The kind of damage they do when they hit smaller cars, pedestrians and vulnerable road users such as cyclists and motorcyclists is massive. The Department should investigate this and consider a taxing structure to reflect the greater damage these vehicles cause. Fortunately, as yet we do not have many of the Humvee-type Jeeps on Irish roads. Essentially a pedestrian hit by such a vehicle would be dead.

We are all familiar with the statistics that show a pedestrian hit at 20 miles an hour has a 95% chance of survival and 5% chance of being killed; that at 30 miles an hour it is 50:50; and that at 40 miles an hour, nine and a half times out of ten the pedestrian will die. However a more sophisticated measure exists to the effect that the kind of armour or protection a vehicle has, if it is one of these four-wheel drive vehicles, ensures it becomes a deadly weapon. A school of thought believes we should introduce a super tax on the height of the driver above the road. While this is a crude barometer, it reflects that the higher the driver, the more damage a vehicle tends to do to another vehicle or road user.

I introduce this matter to suggest that the Department should consider other indicators in the debate on vehicle taxation. The transportation sector is one of the major offenders in sustainability, regardless of whether we define sustainability as climate change emissions or the number of road deaths. The private car has led to carnage in its brief 100 years of existence. While for many the car has been a liberator, the lives of many others, including almost all in this Chamber, have been touched by death and injury on the roads. My party recommends more sophisticated measures to introduce more equity in an important area of taxation.

Mr. Morgan

The Bill represents yet another attempt by the Government to raise revenue through inequitable taxes. This is strange given that this right-wing Government and its leading ideologues pride themselves on low levels of taxation. While the Government imposes low levels of taxation, this applies only to the very wealthy and speculators while crippling ordinary working people and the lower paid through stealth taxes. The Revenue Commissioners 2002 survey showed 18% of the top 400 earners in the State pay an effective tax rate of less than 15% while benefiting from a raft of property based tax shelters created by the Government and retained and extended in the Finance Bill before the Houses of the Oireachtas. There is clearly no hope that the Government will introduce reforms to create an equitable tax system which would bring about a fair distribution of wealth.

Sinn Féin has repeatedly criticised the Government's habit of addressing revenue shortfalls through stealth taxes rather than through the general taxation system. The Government is not concerned at the impact measures such as this unwarranted increase in motor tax will have on the less well-off. All policies and, in particular, tax policies should be poverty proofed to asses their impact. The proportion of our population living on less than 50% of the average income has increased since 1997, when the previous Government took office. The national anti-poverty strategy outlines that nearly 25% of children in the State are living in poverty, representing some 300,000 children. This increase cannot be justified by the fact the money is being used for the funding of local government. We need immediate reform of local government funding to ensure it is properly funded and does not have to rely on arbitrary grants from the Government such as the revenue raised through this measure.

Sinn Féin strongly supports public transport and believes that proper funding for the sector must be a Government priority. This Administration needs to begin the process of enabling people to move away from the excessive use of private vehicles. We support measures designed to reduce private car usage, which is both damaging to the environment and causes huge traffic problems, especially in the Dublin area. However, we are realistic enough to see that because the State has a severe deficiency of public transport, especially in rural areas where people are unable to make a behavioural change to public transport. We have not reached a stage where the alternative of public transport is available widely enough to allow motorists to use it in place of private transport. This problem is especially acute in rural areas.

This is where we have a problem with the proposed increase. Motorists, especially young motorists, are crippled by insurance, tax and increasingly by tolls on the State's roads. The Government needs as a matter of urgency to increase the funding for public transport. The Minister of State said that all money raised from this measure will be put into improvements to non-national roads. However public transport in rural areas is in far greater need of investment. Rather than introducing this increased taxation on all motorists, the Minister of State should introduce measures linked to usage, such as carbon tax, which would encourage people to move towards public transport. Such a move is urgently needed to reduce CO2 emissions, which have grown well beyond the limits permitted by the Kyoto Protocol.

The State is facing a choice between paying enormous fines and spending huge amounts of revenue on emissions trading. We should take our responsibilities seriously and should not resort solely to emissions trading. The Exchequer will benefit from any actions which result in a reduction in emissions.

What is the Government doing to put in place proper public transport in rural Ireland? Rural citizens suffer disproportionately as a result of measures such as this motor tax increase as they have no choice but to use private transport. Why is the Government not increasing investment in rail? How will it respond to calls for the opening up of the western rail corridor?

The Minister, Deputy Cullen's, mishandling of the State's obligations under the Kyoto agreement is reprehensible. The recently announced decision that our biggest industries will not be required to cut levels of carbon dioxide emissions is deeply disappointing, especially to those who are concerned about the effects of global warming and the future of the planet. It has been known for years that if we are to address the problem of global warming and reduce emissions output all states and governments will need to make difficult decisions. The Minister does not have the courage to stand up to vested interests in order to tackle global warming. He has capitulated to pressure from large industries and his Progressive Democrats Cabinet colleagues. Ordinary citizens and consumers will end up paying when carbon tax is introduced in 2005. If the tax is introduced on transport without any corresponding increased investment in the public transport sector it will achieve nothing.

Some roads have received up to 85% funding from the European Union. Rather than benefiting from this, however, Irish motorists are expected to pay exorbitant tolls, which have themselves increased. This is grossly unfair. The motorist continues to be a soft target in the funding drive of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The poor condition of roads is also a problem. We are told that the local government fund is being distributed to local authorities, which is acceptable, but it is not adequately dealing with the condition of the roads.

The Bill provides for a 5% increase in motor tax, but inflation is running at less than 2%. How can anybody stand over such a vast increase? The Government is being short-sighted on the issue of excise duty on petrol and fuel generally. In Border areas a vast number of people come from the North to buy their fuel because of lower prices. The Government is missing an opportunity by not keeping revenue low on fuel prices, because in these areas alone millions of euro are generated in this way. It is unfortunate that the Government has not seen fit to capitalise on this. Not only does the price differential provide jobs in Border areas, it also brings revenue into villages along the Border which for many years have been starved of that type of trading.

All types of people in rural Ireland, particularly older people, find that a car is essential. They cannot get to the shops or the post office. Very often their local post office has been closed and they must go elsewhere for their pensions. They cannot get to Mass or avail of services without a car. These are the people who can least afford to pay these taxes. The 5% hike in motor tax will severely hit them. The Government has made a major mistake. I ask that the Minister reconsider the Bill.

Dr. Devins

I welcome the opportunity of speaking on the Motor Vehicle (Duties and Licences) Bill 2004. Speaking in the House on the Finance Bill recently, I made the point that while we all dislike paying tax, all Deputies would agree that in a caring society people recognise their commitment to fund the Government, particularly in such areas as health, education and social welfare, and the most equitable way of finding the money to do this is through taxation. What we are discussing is a form of tax, but the difference between this and all other forms of tax is that the motor tax intake is ring-fenced.

I had the honour of being elected to Sligo County Council in 1991 and for my first number of years as a county councillor it was cloth and ashes. We were scrabbling, saving and skimping to try to look after our roads. Since 1999, however, when the local government fund was established, the money gathered through motor taxation has come back to the county directly. The amount for use by the county has now been greatly added to by central Government. The result has been a dramatic improvement in our non-national roads. I have listened carefully to the remarks of some of the other Deputies. While much remains to be done for our non-national roads, class 1 and class 2 non-national roads are in infinitely better condition than they were five years ago. It is important that this tax remains ring-fenced so that motorists in Sligo, Wexford or anywhere else know that when they pay their tax the money comes straight back to their counties, with the addition of a substantial amount from central funds.

For many years paying motor tax was an ordeal. People went to their local motor taxation office and queued for hours on end. In some cases in Dublin people queued for more than two days. Over recent years the facility of paying motor tax by post has become available and is now widely used. Since last November the Government, pursuing its e-government strategy, has been running a pilot study in three local authority areas — north Tipperary, Clare and Galway — in which people could pay their motor tax over the Internet from their home PCs. The uptake has been in the region of 6% in the first couple of months. From 1 March this facility will be extended nationwide. This is a positive move.

The Government is committed to making progress in the area of e-government. The Central Statistic Office estimates that there are more than 1.9 million home PCs in this country. This initiative will result in even shorter queues in motor tax offices. Up to now there have been few problems with the pilot scheme. Ireland is one of the first countries in Europe to embark on this. We are the envy of the United Kingdom, which makes a nice change, as for many years we slavishly followed its lead in many areas. It is nice to know that we are now leading the way. The model used here is based on a system which is widely used in Australia. The Government is to be commended for making this option available to everybody from 1 March.

Few of the previous speakers referred to the content of the Bill. I am sure Members would agree that the return of the moneys raised in motor taxation to the county of origin is the most important aspect and it is something I applaud. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. McCormack

With the permission of the House, I wish to share my time with Deputy English.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. McCormack

According to the Minister of State, the increase in motor tax rates will yield an additional €34 million in the current year. This rate increase has been in operation from 1 January 2004 and anyone who has had to renew his or her motor tax has paid an additional 5%. The motorist is heavily taxed, having to pay VAT, VRT, road tax and fuel tax. A motor car is not a luxury but an essential necessity to get people, particularly young people, to and from work.

It was stated that the money will be ring fenced, but it may be used for a variety of general purpose needs of local authorities and to finance non-national road grants. I would like "the general purpose needs of local authorities" to be defined, in order to know for what exactly the yield from motor tax can be used. It is not ring fenced to the extent that it is solely used for roads purposes. Could it be used to pay benchmarking awards? As stated, it may be used for the upkeep of social housing, operation and maintenance of public water and sewerage systems, waste management, care of the natural environment and running the fire services and so on. As it is not ring-fenced solely for investment in roads, the motorist is not getting value for the 5% increase. In other words, it is simply another local tax to replace what was given to local authorities in rates support grants. The development charges introduced this year are similar. Some local authorities are not introducing the development charges as they consider a charge ranging from €8,000 to €10,000 up to €20,000 is a very severe penalty on first-time buyers.

The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government is taking a new direction to raise local taxation. The total grant allocation for non-national roads is €477 million in 2004. I live in Galway city where there are approximately 50,000 cars, however I do not know how that figure compares with the number of cars in rural areas. The money paid in motor taxation is not spent in proportion to the area in which it was raised, certainly the yield from 50,000 cars is not spent on non-national roads in Galway city. We are a long way from what the then Fianna Fáil Government did in 1977 when it was in a tight corner and abolished motor taxation as well as rates to win a general election. Motor taxation is back and is accepted as local taxation.

On the question of rebates of tax for disabled drivers and disabled passengers, in 1997 the Minister for Finance set up a review group to look into this matter which I understand reported to him in October 2002. Yet the Minister has never published that report or made known its recommendations. Will he consider amending the regulation that 10% of the net cost of the car must be spent in converting it for use by a disabled driver or passenger, even though in some cases it may not be necessary?

How much money do the urban councils spend? Some €27 million was allocated in local road grants to Waterford city. The Minister of State pointed out that the 2004 package was increased by 10%, the largest increase in recent years. We all, of course, realise that the local elections will be held this year and the councillors from the Government parties have to be appeased by increasing spending on the roads programme.

The 5% additional increase in motor taxation is taking an extra €34 million tax from the motorist who is taxed at every move he or she makes. Will the Minister consider the points we have raised? I know the majority will ensure the Bill will be passed and the reality of the 5% increase in motor taxation will become law.

Mr. English

Deputy Devins stated that nobody likes paying tax, but we have to pay it to fund government. People are browned off paying additional tax to fund this Government. Nobody minds paying his fair share, if he sees results. It is not that long ago since I sat across the floor from this Minister and spoke about services on the ground. People are not seeing results on the ground and that is why they do not like paying tax. Even if one paid twice the level of tax, one would not see any difference. Unless we guarantee improvements and give value for money, we cannot look for higher taxes.

It is wrong for a Government to increase the amount of tax being raised for no real specific reason, except for the fact that it has the power to do so and needs to fund the terrible lack of planning and a total mismanagement of funds in the past number of years. It is wrong and as a Member, I must oppose it. I cannot agree to the Bill.

If I thought the money raised would fix the potholes throughout the country and improve the roads by making them safer, I might support it, but there is no guarantee of that. Last year we were told that increases in motor taxation would be ring-fenced and result in increased expenditure on roads. It did not happen. In County Meath the increase in the roads grant did not match inflation. How can I believe that this additional taxation will improved matters on the ground? I do not believe it, however much I would like to. Based on last year's commitments, I cannot.

Apart from a basic income tax level, all tax takes should be optional. If one uses a facility or a service, one should pay for it or lose the use of the facility or service. It should be policy that the user pays. Any other policy, as this Government has proved, brings about a scrappy system of government, such as the one we have, where over-spends occur safe in the knowledge that a stroke of a pen, or any other type of stroke, can and will gain more revenue for the Government. There is no encouragement to save money, because nobody is going to stop the Government raising more taxes.

A real increase in the amount being raised in motor taxation without a definite reason for doing so cannot be justified and the same can be said about increasing taxation involving motor vehicles, especially when there is no guarantee of achieved results. The Government is increasing a form of taxation that people in the modern age have no choice but to pay. It is the same as putting a gun to one's head while a greedy hand is being slipped into one's pockets. It is State-backed extortion.

People should not be over-penalised for doing what they have to do, in this case to drive to and from work. It is bad enough that commuters are forced to drive for four or five hours each day just to get to work but to impose extra charges on them for the privilege is crazy. It is no wonder people are fed up with this country. If a citizen is not to become a burden on the coffers of the State, he or she must work. This Bill penalises people for going to work. It is a work tax.

To add insult to injury, the Government has implemented policies to keep this vicious circle going through bad planning. Houses are located away from workplaces and factories. There are vast, stand alone areas with no integration of home, work and play areas. Vast estates have been built in such a way that if one were to consider providing an underground or overground rail network in the future, its design would resemble the sewing on a patchwork quilt or the Red Cow disaster on an even bigger scale. County Meath is a prime example. Thousands of houses have been built in Ratoath, Ashbourne, Dunboyne, Navan, Kells and Moynalty. However, no jobs followed the thousands of houses, only thousands of people. The result is that people must commute to their jobs. This is bad planning and bad Government and has resulted in the need for more taxes just to try to maintain the roads at a half decent standard, not to mind fund new modes of transport.

No definite policy exists for building in such a way that, with a ruler on a map, a straight line could be drawn to enable public transport to be built or operated efficiently near all housing schemes and industrial areas. Have we not learned anything from past mistakes in planning? We have not. Now, the Government intends to centralise the health service, to make regional hospitals into major centres of excellence and to threaten hospitals such as the one in my home town of Navan. People are being forced to travel 20 miles to Drogheda and 30 miles to Cavan for appointments, simple check-ups and treatment for minor injuries. However, there is a hospital more or less beside them which they cannot use. We will continue to force more people back onto the roads. It is crazy. Nevertheless, we still zone land and build houses in the greater Dublin region and beyond but no jobs are following them. We have not learned.

Try getting from Coole in Westmeath or Moynalty in Meath to Dublin without a car to visit somebody in hospital. One would have to be on holiday pay to attempt that. This Government's refusal to invest properly in public transport, despite taking billions in taxation from the transport sector, is a disgrace and is choking the quality of life in this country. I am referring to proper investment in rail and quality roads which one will not have to pay a tariff to use. Any decent road in this country is tolled. Motorists pay a fortune to use them. The lorries do not use them but continue to break up the other roads. Where does the toll go? I could accept it if the toll returned to the State's coffers to pay for the building and repair of more roads. However, it does not return to the State. It goes into the coffers of private companies or across the water to provide a nice lifestyle for somebody else. Again, this is bad policy, like investing pension money in foreign exchanges and so forth and, probably, losing more money by doing so. Policies implemented by the Departments do not yield value for money and each time the Government loses money or gets bad value, it demands more tax from the people. The attitude is: "You will sort out our problem". That is not good enough; it is not good Government.

What is the tax money for? Will it be blown on the few over-priced projects which are supposed to start sometime in the next year or so even though traffic cones are used to mark the biggest potholes in County Meath? When I was a young fellow I often made signs to mark the potholes outside our house. I would get a piece of wood and a stick, paint the words "Gone Fishing" or "Fishing" on it and stick it in the pothole. I hoped it might lead to the pothole being repaired. It was long before I became involved in politics; I was only about ten years old. Generally, the pothole was fixed because it had been highlighted. A few years later, people started to spray yellow lines around potholes to highlight them and eventually they might be fixed. Green paint is used now. The latest practice, however, is to plonk red and white cones in the middle of these holes. They fit quite nicely. This happens in other counties as well as Meath and often the cones are put there by council staff in an effort to highlight the danger. This is pathetic, yet the Government is still seeking more tax to spend on the roads.

The Government should get proper value for the money it has already and stop looking for more. If it does not wish to take my advice, perhaps the local election results will give this Department a wake up call. The people of Ireland have given enough money to dysfunctional Departments such as the Department of Finance, Environment, Heritage and Local Government and Transport. Given this country's lack of an integrated transport policy, the car is as important to life as the air we breathe, so how can the Department justify imposing more tax on it? It is madness. To a working man or woman the car is part of the family, just like the van or a lorry is to a business person, and just as if he or she were to lose an arm, leg or eye, the effect of any changes to the family vehicle is as dramatic. Every Member of the House knows this.

It is wrong and a great shame that the car has become such a vital organ for living in Ireland. It is worse to add insult to that by imposing charges on people so they can continue to drive. This is where Government policy makes no sense. This Government treats the motoring public like a soft target to be hit by more tax at will. The Government encouraged the use of the car above other methods of transport, such as rail, bus and bicycle, and then taxed the people it encouraged to buy and use these cars. How can this be right? If Members of the House did their job properly, they would be considering a law to stop a Government doing this rather than a law endorsing this policy. Forcing people, as a result of bad planning, into a tax trap should be outlawed or certain things should be exempt from tax. If an alternative exists and one makes the personal choice to use the car, one should pay. It is the car and the petrol used in the car that have fuelled the lifestyle we enjoy. The Government should leave them alone.

The Government should drop the demand for this tax, not increase the tax. Members of this House, like the people we represent, have been forced by the Government over many years to become car junkies. I resent the fact that due to an increase in taxation, I, like many others, will have to pay more for the habit I cannot quit. I cannot leave my car at home and do my job. That is the failure of this Government. I live in a town just 34 miles from this House and I should be able to do my job without using the car but I cannot. Would even this Minister for Finance go so far as to put a tax on people's arms, eyes or legs? I doubt it and I hope I have not given him any ideas. How can this Government, as if it did not matter, take a figure out of the air and increase the car tax and registration fee by that amount? Stop this madness before permanent harm is done.

The Minister spoke about the money that was spent on roads and so forth. I must be living on a different planet. Last year, I heard this money would be ring-fenced. The money Meath County Council received did not match inflation. The population in Navan town is approximately 25,000 and there are thousands more houses in the surrounding area. Councillors squabbled over €15,000 to €20,000 to be spent on maintenance and to fix and repair county and non-national roads. That is just to keep the roads safe. That is terrible. We are not getting value for money. I do not see any of the tax that is collected coming to Meath. There is talk that this money will go to the local government fund and it will be topped up by the Exchequer. That money is composed of other tax; it is our money as well. The Minister talks about the fund as if it will come from somewhere else but it is just more tax revenue. The money is all going into the same pot but we are not getting value for it.

The Minister said the local government fund is available to complement other income sources such as specific State grants, commercial rates and so forth. Let us take County Meath as an example. As a result of Government policy and the lack of jobs, the county's commercial rate is between €9 million and €11 million. Other councils' increases in 2003 were €9 million or €11 million. Fingal County Council collects approximately €70 million in rates. There is a big difference. If Government policy leads to a county such as Meath missing out on money yet causes extra problems for that county, something is wrong. It is not fair.

There is much talk about the increases in budgets over the years and there is constant comparison with how things were in 1997. I did my leaving certificate in 1997. The country has changed dramatically since then and I am fed up to the teeth of hearing Minister after Minister comparing like with unlike, that is, the figures for 2004 with those for 1997. It was a different generation and a different millennium.

I could say a great deal more on this subject. The money is not there and it is a joke to keep saying it is. It has been said that the money raised has increased and that we will get more out of it. This money will not even repair the roads we have at the moment and certainly will not build any new roads in our towns. In fact, we are bringing in development levies on new houses to build any new roads or bridges required in them. It is one more tax, another hidden tax. It is not income tax because our taxes are still low but it is a disgrace.

This money will not widen the roads to make them safer. It will not remove bends or humps. Filling in potholes and building a few new roads is not enough. We need to put more money into roads because traffic has increased on all of them. To restore roads to what they were ten or 15 years ago is not good enough. We need better roads and in view of this it is a disgrace to clap ourselves on the back for a small increase in money spent on them. I am sure the Minister of State would probably agree with me except he must stick to his script. He knows the amount raised is not enough and that much more is required.

Mr. Dennehy

Unfortunately, unlike Deputy Devins, I did not have the opportunity to listen to all of the previous speakers or the Minister of State so I hope I will be forgiven if there is some repetition. Deputy English made some astonishing claims about finances, taxation and various other matters. The most accurate statement he made was that this is a changed country since 1997. It is radically changed. The number of cars on the roads and their standard and quality is something not envisioned in 1997. People could not afford to run such cars then. Cars were old and battered but those are gone and we have a new era. In the past, Deputy Ring and others took some of the credit for previous years but only since 1997 has there been radical change. Deputy English is accurate in that regard.

The primary purpose of the Bill is to enact the changes in the increases in the motor tax rates and trade plate licences as provided for on 12 December. The increase in the standard rate is 12%. There have been a few technical amendments one of which has been discussed at some length — the question of being able to tax a vehicle through electronic means. This is critical. We have talked about such issues for years but nothing was done. Now the Government is taking action because the services have been put in place. People have complained constantly about the three and four hour queues in large cities, in the Cork area in particular. I welcome that we have now taken this step. I compliment the Minister on putting the legislation in place. It will make an enormous difference will save time for a million people or more.

Deputy McCormack was scathing about where the moneys raised from these duties and licences go and ridiculed the term "ring-fencing". I have worked in local government since 1974 and have participated in and led deputations to the Oireachtas to various Ministers over the years seeking funding for non-national roads. We always went home with fairly empty pockets because the Government did not have the money and could not manage to give funding. As part of all-party deputations I visited different Ministers of different parties but we never had a breakthrough until 1998.

That breakthrough was essential because major urban areas such as Cork, Limerick and Waterford were not getting their fair share. Roads in those areas were used by millions of vehicles over the year by people who did not reside in the area or contribute locally. These areas also had some peculiar difficulties. Cork City Council put together a position paper and made a presentation on it but got no action until the previous Government took power.

We must look at the facts and be honest about them. Since 1998, there has been a radical breakthrough. In my area we have completed a programme which started about the end of 1999 when the money started coming through. We have completely resurfaced well over 150 housing estates, something previously unheard of. Prior to that we would have had to borrow to resurface one or two estates and they would have to be in a state of rack and ruin before they were done. The reason for that was because the funding had to come from local contributions. Even then Cork was paying its fair share but I know some areas did not do the same.

Local elections are due shortly and are in everybody's mind at present. In the 1991 local elections, if my memory serves me correctly, three candidates were elected on the issue of potholes. If we think back to the state of the roads in 1991, it was right for people to say they would take some kind of action on the issue and elect pothole candidates. I doubt we will see any pothole candidates being elected next June because they will not find potholes to stand over.

Mr. F. McGrath

I can name several in Dublin for the Deputy.

Mr. Dennehy

One can drive around the country and if one picks a particular road and says it is in bad condition, there will be a scéal about it. There will be a story covering it. The story will be that it has been taken in charge, or something else. There is no comparison between the road surfaces paid for directly from this money and the situation we had before.

I will be 29.5 years involved in local government in June. If Deputy Ring wins his case, I might hang in for another 30 years or so. I have been honoured to do that job over those years and managed to come top of the poll most of the time. I must have been doing something right. One of the main changes I have seen over that time has been the increase in the funding for surfacing the roads in the area.

Deputy McCormack was also scathing about the money being used, perhaps, for other concerns. I have no problem with that. In Cork we have built a number of pedestrian bridges with moneys from this fund and from the moneys from high-rise parking fees because these areas are complementary to one another. This is a logical approach and I am happy we are taking it.

One of my bugbears, related to our road work, is the digging of trenches on roads which have been resurfaced. In Cork we have resurfaced 97 primary roads. These are road works which are 50% grant aided. Unfortunately, trenches have been opened on a number of them within 12 months of being resurfaced. When I was a member of Cork City Council I repeatedly raised this issue, including and when I chaired the roads committee. The council has now put an agreement in place with service providers that following the reinstatement of the road and a three months settlement period the provider must provide a full lane width replacement. However, I do not like the digging of trenches because somebody must pay for the services being laid. Often it is the taxpayer. Cork has suffered badly in this regard. We started with natural gas and cut up the city streets to replace the old town gas. Three or four years later, there was multi-channel television and the streets were cup up again. There has also been the usual water and electricity repairs and so on, followed by broadband when, again, the streets were cut up.

I do not believe in arguing for the sake of it when I cannot make a positive, constructive argument against something and propose an alternative. For 20 years I have argued that ducting or conduit should be laid at all times when a road is fully reinstated. There should not be any need to cut up roads because the services should be placed in ducting. This was done in the United States a hundred years ago in the sidewalks of New York so I do not see why we cannot do it. I hope the current cost to servicepeople will deter them a little bit in cutting up roads. This money pays for these roads. There is a direct relationship between the two and I do not want to see any of it wasted.

Phenomenal work is being done on all aspects of transport. I listened to the Green Party whingeing as usual about too much money being spent on roads. I travelled both the Watergrasshill and the Kildare bypasses this morning, both of which major projects were opened by the Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan. I feel much safer driving on these roads than the previous old boreen-style road that was south of Kildare.

There is no conflict with the argument put forward by the Green Party about supporting rail over roads. Any project that has been put forward, whether it be in Dublin city or elsewhere, has had its detractors. The country Deputies tend to whinge about Dublin getting everything while Dublin based ones want more. I have not heard the Minister or his colleagues argue with anybody, be it on Luas, metro, railway safety or anything else. The Minister will probably re-open the western rail corridor before he finishes his term in 2007.

Mr. Ring

Deputy Dennehy was not out with him when I was.

Mr. Dennehy

The Cork area strategic plan, CASP, for the next 20 years is based around the Blarney to Midleton railway line and there has been a positive reaction to this. This is contrary to what the Opposition says. In the county hall in Cork three weeks ago, I and the other members of Cork County Council along with the Minister of State, Deputy Michael Ahern, and all our Oireachtas colleagues heard Deputy Stanton complain that the National Roads Authority had overspent two years running. Today I heard Deputy McCormack say that not enough money is being spent on roads. Let us get it right. A great deal of money is being spent and the work is being done well. I do not see a conflict between rail and road, but safety must be of paramount importance at all times.

I could be parochial, as other speakers were, on all aspects of transport. Some €140 million was spent on Cork Airport, €137 million on the Ballincollig bypass and I already referred to the Watergrasshill bypass. The Kinsale road flyover is another local example. I do not see a problem. We receive our fair share in Cork, as I am sure does every other part of the country. All regions have good representatives to make the case in a positive fashion, as do we. I do not go along with the whingeing. Everybody receives a fair share.

One imbalance I hope this legislation will rectify to some extent is the situation where fleets of vehicles have been registered in Dublin. It has been another false source of funding, as it has been with the rate base generally, in that the Dublin local authorities received motor tax funding from some vehicles registered in Dublin but located elsewhere in the State and funding from other sources located in Dublin. The result was that, for many years, they did not need to apply service charges which everybody else throughout Europe saw as essential. I hope one of the side effects of decentralisation will be the diversion of funding into local areas from the Central Fund as more registrations take place locally. I want to see both drivers and vehicles registered in the towns to which they relocate. This is only right and will divert money into areas that were not able to compete when it was a question of allocating money according to the number of vehicles in a county area.

Deputy English had concerns about value for money on projects. I was concerned that so much work was being done in the target dates he gave, from 1997 to 2002, that we were not getting value for money because the economy and industry heated up to the point where the cost of projects was not right. We needed to change that and have done so. We now have a method in place whereby we will get more value for money. I am a member of the Committee of Public Accounts which monitors this.

One factor which has made this happen to some extent is the arrival of foreign construction firms. For instance, a Turkish company is building the Ballincollig to Bishopstown bypass in Cork. Like other local representatives, I was lobbied and told that these people would not have experience of this kind of project, would be slow, would not complete it for 20 years and would give rise to a huge overrun. The Secretary General of the Department of Transport informed me last week that the project is within budget, is five or six weeks ahead of schedule and will open shortly. This conflicts with what was said. I believe her on this issue, as I do the officials who give us facts and figures.

The Bill deals with trade plate licences. Trucks are becoming so large, people want the height of the port tunnel in Dublin to be raised to accommodate them. We fought Europe for five or six years on the axle weight of trucks. We did not want monster trucks and we took the right road on that one — no pun intended.

There is a need for more control over this type of vehicle — the juggernaut and the 40 foot truck — especially in regard to speed. I tabled a parliamentary question to the Minister a fortnight ago and concluded that the figures I received which are the speed limits for these trucks are being ignored by many drivers. Some 95% of professional truck drivers are competent, respectful and careful, but there is a small percentage which has a total disregard for other road users. Might is right in their book.

I experienced two incidents in the past month, both of which occurred south of Horse and Jockey in Tipperary near where a major fatality recently took place. In both instances a truck in an oncoming convoy overtook a car. Two thirds of the vehicle was in my lane. I was observant and saw it, but it could have been otherwise. There could certainly have been a fatality on both occasions. This cannot be allowed to continue. There is a need for more control over these vehicles, especially their speed. There is no comparison between a car being driven at 60 miles per hour and a car transporter or large truck, which do not have the same control, doing the same speed.

Another hobby-horse of mine is the standard of road signs. I raised the matter in the Chamber three years ago in the context of the National Roads Authority. I also raised it last week with the Department of Transport. Some of the signs are atrocious. The method of construction is the problem; they are made from separate pieces. I urge the NRA to look at a sign which is 50 yards south of Lisheen mines in north Tipperary which now has a three foot gap in the centre of it. The top half reads "NRA", a company which is very proud of its work, and the bottom half is three feet lower. That is an example of what should not be done. Instead of a horizontal join, there should be a vertical one.

The standard of signs has improved enormously and I pay tribute to the NRA and those involved for this. In the interests of safety, I asked them to put reflective studs on the traffic islands that are built near villages and towns. This has not happened, except in New Inn, County Tipperary, where a mini-roundabout has had reflective studs installed on it. If one looks at these islands, one will see tyre marks on them. They are a major hazard and should not be built by the NRA or local authorities carrying out work under the guidance of the NRA. I appealed to the director general on this issue and I made an appeal to the Secretary General of the Department last week. I hope someone will carry out the small job of installing reflective studs on these islands.

Mr. Ring

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this Bill.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Does the Deputy wish to share time?

Mr. Ring

No.

Mr. F. McGrath

I thought Deputy Ring was going to share time with me.

Mr. Ring

That is fine. We can have ten minutes each.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Ring

I have been a member of a local authority for 25 years. While I will not discuss this tonight, with luck I will be a member of the authority for a bit longer. I was elected to this House in 1994 and the biggest issue facing us when we came into Government was roads. The Fine Gael and the Labour parliamentary parties discussed the issue and decided that we could not put up with the condition of roads in this country. This was the first time there was discussion on setting up a fund specifically for roads. Deputy Howlin was the then Minister for the Environment and the Minister of State was my colleague, Deputy Allen. We tackled this issue and did a good job on it. I am glad to say that things have continued from there.

Drivers in this country must be the softest people in the world to put up with the taxation and abuse we get from the Government. When one purchases a car one must pay VRT. We were told that on joining the European Union we would be able to import cars from elsewhere in Europe without paying VRT. The Government quickly got a derogation from this when it found it was losing tax revenue. This was wrong. This is a hobby horse of mine and I have always reminded people of this when canvassing in referendum campaigns.

In addition to VRT, car owners are taxed by having to pay motor taxation and further taxes on diesel and petrol. There are three or four new taxes for car owners. There are gardaí behind hedges in every corner of the country with cameras. They are trying to catch people speeding in 30 miles per hour zones. I do not have a problem with the gardaí catching people breaking the speed limit in a 60 miles per hour zone but I am concerned at how this is used to collect revenue for the State. Last year I tabled a question that sought to ascertain information on this. When I discovered how much revenue the Garda Síochána collected for the State, I wondered whether its purpose was to collect revenue for the Government or to do a job. People have told me that they have been caught driving at 35 or 36 miles per hour in 30 miles per hour zones. That is not fair.

Last week I saw a car clamped on Merrion Street that had its side window broken. The clampers have cameras all over this city to note the length of time cars are parked in certain places. Clampers are now more available than taxis — they can be found at any minute of any hour. However, their cameras are not used to identify persons who break into cars.

It is wrong that we are always attacking the motorist. Motorists are going to have to stand up for themselves. As there is no public transport, people living in rural areas need a car to get to work and travel around. Rural Ireland is not like Dublin; it does not have the Luas light rail system or a metro. The people of Dublin are soft. They should have taken to the streets in their thousands over the way in which they were abused by the State when the Luas works were happening in the city. It is outrageous that the public had to put up with such inconvenience. Nobody minds putting up with inconvenience for the sake of progress. However, this beautiful city has been destroyed. As I said in the House five years ago, the Luas light rail system should have been built underground. Those involved have made a mess of it. They have lost control and do not know what is happening. I will be surprised if we ever see Luas travelling around St. Stephen's Green.

Drivers now have to have their cars tested under the NCT when they are four years old. It is another money racket for the Government and the greatest one that was ever introduced. A person involved with the NCT was interviewed on "Five-seven live" and I was sorry that I did not have my mobile telephone with me so that I could call the radio station. A man from my constituency had his car fail the emissions element of the NCT. He took the car back within the specified period and, without having had any repairs or otherwise carried out, his car passed the same test. This proved to me that the NCT is a money racket and a con job to fleece taxpayers.

I would not mind if we had good roads. Ministers visited my constituency last weekend and the Taoiseach has also visited it in the past. How do Ministers travel to my constituency? They fly to Knock Airport where they are met by the State driver that was sent ahead of them. Is this not an admission in itself?

The people of Dublin are soft and I do not know how they put up with motorcades. I was travelling on the M50 and heard the screeching of five or six motorcycles escorting a Mercedes. I am sorry I did not see what Minister was in the Mercedes because I would have jumped out of my car and pulled him out of his. They wanted me to pull out of my lane. I was coming towards the edge of the M50 and there was no place I could go. The motorbikes screeching up and down frightened the life out of me and I was worried that I had done something wrong. There was probably no one in the Mercedes and they were only on a practice run. While I am proud that we hold the Presidency of the EU, those in State cars should not put people off the road and hold up traffic when there is no need for it. The Taoiseach should lead by example. However, I had the same problem with him a few months ago when I was on my way to the west. The motorcade swooped past me and while I tried to tail them, I could not keep up with them.

Mr. F. McGrath

The people on the north side are not soft.

Mr. Ring

I do not know. Deputy Dennehy referred to the money that has been spent on infrastructure. The local authorities are getting funding. However, as has been revealed today, local authorities are the fastest growing industry in the world. While every other company is downsizing, local authorities are upsizing. What is happening cannot continue. It was reported today that 20,000 public servants were employed in the last year. What happens when public servants are employed? Taxes must be raised on cars, directly and indirectly, to pay their salaries.

Local authorities have gone out of control. They are no longer answerable to this House and have their own auditing systems. It is time for the House, the Committee of Public Accounts and the Comptroller and Auditor General to deal with them.

Debate adjourned.