Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 5 Dec 2007

Vol. 643 No. 1

Financial Resolution No. 3: Excise Duties (Mechanically Propelled Vehicles).

I move:

(1) THAT in this Resolution—

"Act of 1952" means the Finance (Excise Duties)(Vehicles) Act 1952 (No. 24 of 1952);

"Act of 1992" means the Finance (No. 2) Act 1992 (No. 28 of 1992);

"Act of 2004" means the Motor Vehicle (Duties and Licences ) Act 2004 (No. 5 of 2004).

(2) That as respects licences under section 1 of the Act of 1952 (as amended by section 3 of, and the Schedule to, the Act of 2004) taken out for periods beginning on or after the 1 February 2008, the Schedule to the Act of 1952 be amended by substituting the following for Part 1 of that Schedule:

"PART I

1. Vehicles of the following descriptions not exceeding 500 kilograms in weight unladen:

(a) bicycles (other than bicycles which are electrically propelled), or tricycles (other than tricycles neither constructed nor adapted for use nor used for the carriage of a passenger), of which the cylinder capacity of the engine –

(i) does not exceed 75 cubic centimetres €41

(ii) exceeds 75 cubic centimetres but does not exceed 200 cubic centimetres €56

(iii) exceeds 200 cubic centimetres €73

(b) bicycles or tricycles which are electrically propelled €31

(c) vehicles with three or more wheels neither constructed nor adapted for use nor used for the carriage of a driver or passenger €73

2. (a) Vehicles (commonly known as dumpers) not exceeding 3 metres cubed in capacity, level loaded, designed and constructed for use on sites of construction works (including road construction and house and other building works) for the purpose of conveying concrete, rubble, earth or other like material where the person taking out the licence shows to the satisfaction of the licensing authority that the vehicle is used mainly on such sites, and on public roads only —

(i) for the purpose of proceeding to and from the site where it is to be used, and when so proceeding neither carries nor hauls any load other than such as is necessary for its propulsion or equipment, or

(ii) for the purpose of conveying concrete, rubble, earth or like material for a distance of not more than one kilometre to and from any such site €85

(b) Vehicles (commonly known as off-road dumpers) exceeding 3 metres cubed in capacity, level loaded, designed and constructed primarily for use on sites of construction works (including road construction and house and other building works) for the purpose of conveying concrete, rubble, earth or other like material and incapable by reason of their design and construction of exceeding a speed of 55 kilometres per hour on a level road under their own power and which are the subject of special permits under article 17 of the Road Traffic (Construction, Equipment and Use of Vehicles) Regulations 1963 (S.I. No. 190 of 1963) €737

(c) Any vehicle (other than a vehicle constructed or adapted for use and used for the conveyance of a machine, workshop, contrivance or implement, by or in which goods being conveyed by such vehicle are processed or manufactured while the vehicle is in motion) constructed or adapted for use and used only for the conveyance of a machine, workshop, contrivance or implement (being a machine, workshop, contrivance or implement which is built in as part of the vehicle or otherwise permanently attached thereto) and no other load except articles used in connection with such machine, workshop, contrivance or implement or goods processed or manufactured therein including any vehicle (commonly known as a recovery vehicle) constructed or permanently adapted for the purposes of lifting, towing and transporting a disabled vehicle or for any one or more of those purposes €277

(d) Vehicles (commonly know as forklift trucks) designed and constructed for the purpose of loading and unloading goods where the person taking out the licence shows to the satisfaction of the licensing authority that the vehicle is used on public roads only —

(i) for the purpose of proceeding to and from the site where it is to be used for loading and unloading, and when so proceeding neither carries nor hauls any load other than such as is necessary for its propulsion or equipment, or

(ii) as part of the process of loading or unloading, for the purpose of conveying goods for a distance of not more than one kilometre to and from the site where it is loading or unloading €85.

3. (a) Vehicles constructed or adapted for the carriage of more than 8 persons which are owned by a youth or community organisation and which are used exclusively by the organisation solely for the purpose of conveying persons on journeys directly related to the activities of the organisation and which have seating capacity for —

(i) more than 8 persons but not more than 20 persons €128

(ii) more than 20 persons but not more than 40 persons €168

(iii) more than 40 persons but not more than 60 persons €336

(iv) more than 60 persons €336

(b) Vehicles (other than those referred to in subparagraph (c) of this paragraph) used as large public service vehicles within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1961, and having seating capacity for —

(i) more than 8 persons but not more than 20 persons €128

(ii) more than 20 persons but not more than 40 persons €168

(iii) more than 40 persons but not more than 60 persons €336

(iv) more than 60 persons €336

(c) Vehicles which are large public service vehicles within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1961, and which are used only for the carriage of children, or children and teachers, being carried to or from school or to or from school-related physical education activities, and are either licensed under Article 60 of the Road Traffic (Public Service Vehicles) Regulations 1963 (S.I. No. 191 of 1963) as amended, or owned or operated by a statutory transport undertaking €79.

4. Vehicles of the following descriptions:

(a) vehicles designed, constructed and used for the purpose of trench digging or any kind of excavating or shovelling work which —

(i) are used on public roads only for that purpose or the purpose of proceeding to and from the place where they are to be used for that purpose, and

(ii) when so proceeding neither carry nor haul any load other than such as is necessary for their propulsion or equipment €85

(b) tractors (being tractors designed and constructed primarily for use otherwise than on roads and incapable by reason of their construction of exceeding a speed of 50 kilometres per hour on a level road under their own power) and agricultural engines, not being tractors or engines used for hauling on roads any objects except their own necessary gear, threshing appliances, farming implements or supplies of fuel or water required for the purposes of the vehicles or agricultural purposes €85

(c) tractors (being tractors designed and constructed primarily for use otherwise than on roads and incapable by reason of their construction of exceeding a speed of 50 kilometres per hour on a level road under their own power and not being tractors in respect of which a duty is chargeable at the rate specified in subparagraph (b) of this paragraph) which are used for haulage in connection with agriculture and for no other purpose €85

Where a tractor is fitted with a detachable platform, container or implement (being a platform, container or implement used primarily for farm work), goods or burden of any other description conveyed on or in the platform, container or implement shall be regarded for the purposes of this subparagraph as being hauled by the tractor,

(d) tractors of any other description €277

(e) motor caravans, being vehicles which are shown to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners to be designed, constructed or adapted to provide temporary living accommodation which has an interior height of not less than 1.8 metres when measured in such manner as may be approved by the Revenue Commissioners and, in respect of which vehicles, such design, construction or adaptation incorporates the following permanently fitted equipment—

(i) a sink unit,

(ii) cooking equipment of not less than a hob with 2 rings or such other cooking equipment as may be prescribed, and

(iii) any other equipment or fittings as may be prescribed €85

(f) vehicles which are kept and used exclusively on an offshore island to which there is no direct road or bridge access from the mainland €85.

5. Vehicles (including tricycles weighing more than 500 kilograms unladen) constructed or adapted for use and used for the conveyance of goods or burden of any other description in the course of trade or business (including agriculture and the performance by a local or public authority of its functions) and vehicles constructed or adapted for use and used for the conveyance of a machine, workshop, contrivance or implement by or in which goods being conveyed by such vehicles are processed or manufactured while the vehicles are in motion:

(a) being vehicles which are electrically propelled and which do not exceed 1,500 kilograms in weight unladen €80

(b) being vehicles which are not such electrically propelled vehicles as aforesaid and which have a weight unladen —

(i) not exceeding 3,000 kilograms €277

(ii) exceeding 3,000 kilograms but not exceeding 4,000 kilograms €350

(iii) exceeding 4,000 kilograms but not exceeding 5,000 kilograms €452

(iv) exceeding 5,000 kilograms but not exceeding 6,000 kilograms €626

(v) exceeding 6,000 kilograms but not exceeding 7,000 kilograms €848

(vi) exceeding 7,000 kilograms but not exceeding 8,000 kilograms €1,067

(vii) exceeding 8,000 kilograms but not exceeding 20,000 kilograms €1,067 plus €251 for each 1,000 kilograms or part thereof in excess of 8,000 kilograms

(viii) exceeding 20,000 kilograms €4,323.

6. Vehicles other than those charged with duty under the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Schedule:

(a) any vehicle which is used as a hearse and for no other purpose €85

(b) any vehicle (excluding a taxi) which is used as a small public service vehicle within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1961, and for no other purpose €79

(c) any vehicle which is fitted with a taximeter and is lawfully used as a street service vehicle within the meaning of the Road Traffic Act 1961, and for purposes incidental to such use and for no other purpose €79

(d) other vehicles to which this paragraph applies and which have an engine capacity –

(i) not exceeding 1,000 cubic centimetres €165

(ii) exceeding 1,000 cubic centimetres but not exceeding 1,100 cubic centimetres €249

(iii) exceeding 1,100 cubic centimetres but not exceeding 1,200 cubic centimetres €275

(iv) exceeding 1,200 cubic centimetres but not exceeding 1,300 cubic centimetres €298

(v) exceeding 1,300 cubic centimetres but not exceeding 1,400 cubic centimetres €320

(vi) exceeding 1,400 cubic centimetres but not exceeding 1,500 cubic centimetres €343

(vii) exceeding 1,500 cubic centimetres but not exceeding 1,600 cubic centimetres €428

(viii) exceeding 1,600 cubic centimetres but not exceeding 1,700 cubic centimetres €453

(ix) exceeding 1,700 cubic centimetres but not exceeding 1,800 cubic centimetres €530

(x) exceeding 1,800 cubic centimetres but not exceeding 1,900 cubic centimetres €560

(xi) exceeding 1,900 cubic centimetres but not exceeding 2,000 cubic centimetres €590

(xii) exceeding 2,000 cubic centimetres but not exceeding 2,100 cubic centimetres €754

(xiii) exceeding 2,100 cubic centimetres but not exceeding 2,200 cubic centimetres €791

(xiv) exceeding 2,200 cubic centimetres but not exceeding 2,300 cubic centimetres €827

(xv) exceeding 2,300 cubic centimetres but not exceeding 2,400 cubic centimetres €861

(xvi) exceeding 2,400 cubic centimetres but not exceeding 2,500 cubic centimetres €899

(xvii) exceeding 2,500 cubic centimetres but not exceeding 2,600 cubic centimetres €1,067

(xviii) exceeding 2,600 cubic centimetres but not exceeding 2,700 cubic centimetres €1,109

(xix) exceeding 2,700 cubic centimetres but not exceeding 2,800 cubic centimetres €1,147

(xx) exceeding 2,800 cubic centimetres but not exceeding 2,900 cubic centimetres €1,189

(xxi) exceeding 2,900 cubic centimetres but not exceeding 3,000 cubic centimetres €1,231

(xxii) exceeding 3,000 cubic centimetres €1,491

(xxiii) electrically propelled €146

(3) That as respects licences under section 1 of the Act of 1952 taken out for periods beginning on or after the 1 February 2008, the Schedule to that Act be amended by substituting the following for paragraph 5 of Part II of that Schedule (as amended by section 4 of the Act of 2004):

"5. Where the applicant for a licence under section 1 of this Act satisfies the licensing authority that the vehicle in respect of which the licence is sought was constructed more than 30 years prior to the commencement of the period in respect of which the licence is sought the annual rate of duty shall, notwithstanding Part 1 of this Schedule, be —

(i) €21 where, apart from this paragraph, paragraph 1 of Part 1 of this Schedule would apply to the vehicle, and

(ii) €46 in respect of any other vehicle.".

(4) That as respects licences under section 21 of the Act of 1992 (as amended by section 5 of the Act of 2004) taken out for periods beginning on or after the 1 February 2008, subsection (3) of that section be amended by substituting the following for that subsection:

"(3) (a) There shall be charged, levied and paid on a trade licence a duty of excise of—

(i) in the case of a licence for exhibition only on a motor-cycle, €49,

(ii) in the case of a licence for exhibition only on any other vehicle, €293.

(b) There shall be charged, levied and paid on a trade licence issued in place of a trade licence that has been lost, stolen or destroyed, a duty of excise of—

(i) in the case of a licence for exhibition only on a motor-cycle, €32,

(ii) in the case of a licence for exhibition only on any other vehicle, €71.".

(5) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).

This resolution provides for the amendment of the Finance (Excise Duties) (Vehicles) Act 1952 and the Finance (No. 2) Act 1992, as extended by the Motor Vehicle (Duties and Licenses) Act 2004, with regard to rates of motor tax and fees for trade licence plates. The most recent increase in motor tax rates was agreed by resolution of this House in November 2003. It is significant that it has been four years since that increase.

The proposed increases are 9.5% for cars below 2.5 litres and 11% for cars above this threshold. Goods vehicles and all other vehicles will also increase by 9.5% with no increase for electric vehicles. Trade plate licences will also increase by 9.5%. The increases in motor tax rates must be viewed against the background that, since 2004, inflation has increased by more than 15%. The increases provided for in this resolution are clearly well below inflation over the four year intervening period. The new rates will apply to motor tax discs and trade licences taken out for periods beginning on or after 1 February 2008.

In the context of today's budget, it is important to emphasise that the proceeds of motor tax are not paid into the Exchequer. Rather, they are paid directly into the local government fund. This fund, which was established under the Local Government Act 1998, is ring-fenced exclusively for local government. It cannot be used by the Exchequer for any other purpose. The motor tax paid into the fund is supplemented on an annual basis by an Exchequer contribution. The fund is used primarily to finance non-national roads and the general purpose needs of local authorities.

Deputies are aware of the significant role which the local government fund has played in the financing of local government since it was established in 1999. Total funding for 2007 amounts to approximately €1.5 billion, which represents approximately 30% of local authority current funding. The fund comprises an Exchequer contribution of €537 million and the proceeds of motor tax, which is projected at €944 million for 2007.

The ability of local government to respond to the ever-increasing demands for improved services made on it in recent years demonstrates the success of the local government fund. These demands have arisen due to an expanding population, unprecedented economic growth and higher customer expectations. Not only has the fund been successful in delivering resources locally, it has succeeded in limiting the direct financial contribution required of local communities and businesses through rates and charges.

On a point of order, the Whips from all parties, including those on the Government side, agreed to an extremely limited timespan for this resolution. Members of the House wish to contribute. If the Minister delivers this Second Stage speech——

It is only short.

It is not only short. It is long. If the Minister delivers a Second Stage speech, we must lengthen the time allocated for this resolution.

The difficulty I have is that I cannot shorten or lengthen the Minister's speech as Deputy Stagg knows.

I am happy to shorten it to some extent if I can. I have a set speech and I am trying to cover——

We all have it as well.

If Deputy Stagg starts reading it now, he will probably get to the end of it before I complete it.

The local government fund plays a key role in funding non-national roads. Regional and local roads, which represent approximately 94% of the country's road network, serve an important economic role. They also have valuable social and community functions. While we have experienced increased urbanisation and a move away from agriculture in recent times, the network of non-national roads is still necessary to provide mobility within and between local economies and to provide vital links to the strategic national road network and the ports and airports which are our links with the wider European economy.

The impact of the non-national road network on regional development takes on an added importance as we move forward with implementation of the national spatial strategy. Investment in strategic non-national roads is critical to developing our gateways, hubs and other growth centres. Investment within and between these centres and their hinterlands plays a key role in improving connectivity, circulation and facilitating the development of strategically placed landbanks. The programme to develop and maintain the non-national road network is not confined to urban centres. It is vital for rural communities that improvements in transport infrastructure continue to be implemented. The programme also has an important road safety dimension in the context of increased safety measures.

In terms of funding, the national development plan provides that approximately €4.3 billion will be invested by the local government fund and the Exchequer in the non-national road network over the period of the plan. While responsibility for non-national roads is transferring to the Department of Transport, the fund will continue to provide significant resources towards the development and maintenance of the network. This year alone, €520 million is being provided from the local government fund.

In 2007, approximately €948 million in general purpose grants has been provided to local authorities from the local government fund. These grants are my Department's contribution to local authorities towards the gap between the cost of providing an acceptable level of day-to-day services and the income they obtain from other sources. The amount provided this year represents a significant increase over that provided in 2006 and is a clear signal of the Government's commitment to the local government sector and a recognition of the importance it attaches to local democracy.

The new rates set out in the financial resolution will apply to motor tax discs and trade licences taken out for periods beginning on or after 1 February 2008. Rather than read out the new rates for the long list of vehicles involved, I will highlight for the House the impact of the proposed changes for private cars and goods vehicles which make up 91.5% of the national fleet.

For the lowest engine size car of under 1,000 cc, the annual increase is €14, or 27 cent a week. For cars in the 1,001 cc to 1,400 cc range, the annual increase is between €22 and €28. For cars in the 1,401 cc to 1,700 cc range, the annual increase is between €30 and €39, representing a weekly increase of between 58 cent and 75 cent. For cars in the 1,701 cc to 2,500 cc range, the annual increase is between €46 and €78. The remaining cars over 2,500 cc will attract annual increases of between €106 and €148. In summary, the extra costs for 95% of the car fleet, namely, those under two litres, will be between 27 cent and 98 cent a week.

For goods vehicles, the effect of the 9.5% increase will vary depending on the size, in weight terms, of the vehicle. However, I emphasise that approximately 87% of goods vehicles are at the lowest level of charge, meaning that they will pay an annual increase of €24, or 46 cent per week. A 9.5% increase is also proposed for trade licences, or trade plates as they are known. These are the registration plates used by motor traders on vehicles temporarily in their possession, in lieu of taxing such vehicles. The increase for a pair of trade plates will be €25.

The Minister has been speaking for approximately eight minutes. As has been pointed out, only 35 minutes has been allocated for this debate. In the circumstances, while I do not wish to constrain the Minister, I ask him to conclude.

I will conclude and simply state it is clear the measures which I outlined are primarily designed to increase revenue for the local government fund. However, alongside the changes in motor tax rates——

He is away again.

——which are contained in today's financial resolution, I will also introduce a fundamental change in the manner in which motor tax is charged for new cars and new imports. The programme for Government contains a commitment to introduce measures to rebalance motor tax and vehicle registration tax——

——in favour of cars with lower carbon dioxide emissions.

Skewering the motorists.

Why should the Minister hit the motorists?

In tandem with the announcement by the Tánaiste today on vehicle registration tax, tomorrow I will outline to the House measures on the rebalancing of motor tax in favour of new cars and new imports with lower emissions.

The arrogance of the Minister is unbelievable. The Ceann Comhairle asked him to sit down.

It is a massive con job.

This financial resolution will cease on the enactment of the relevant Bill, which will be presented to the House at the earliest possible date. I thank Members for all the interruptions.

I will not delay. Fine Gael opposes this measure. It is nothing more than an old-fashioned stealth tax. I find it interesting that the Minister quotes a figure of 15%. That is 5% per annum, or above the average European inflation rate, and it is the reason we are uncompetitive. I cannot understand why that figure would even be used. Everyone uses cars and the Government is collecting €5.6 billion per annum from car owners. The Green Party has become the mudguard for Fianna Fáil on the environment, just as the Minister for Health and Children is the mudguard on health. VRT is supposedly a neutral tax but motorists are once again seen as a soft touch and are being penalised by the Government. The issue has nothing to do with green taxation.

The Deputy should have listened to my speech.

I said it was revenue raising.

What about the effect on motorists?

Listen to what I am saying.

In terms of motor tax, a 9% increase is not a green tax. It is revenue generating.

I said it was revenue raising but Deputy O'Donnell did not listen to my speech.

All the Minister is doing is collecting extra taxes.

The Deputy is asleep over there. He is not listening.

We are not asleep.

In terms of stamp duty, the Government is collecting €17 million from elderly people. The Tánaiste made no reference to the €50 million he will be taking from people through the drug refund scheme and additional health charges. An additional €83 million in revenue is proposed to be collected from motor tax. That is extra tax.

Hit the motorists every time.

We will be opposing that proposal.

The Minister is aware this increase in motor tax is intended to make up for his political failure to get sufficient money in the Estimates from the Minister for Finance to fund his programmes. He has to find the money elsewhere and the soft touch is an increase in motor tax. The economy is uncompetitive at present and a lot of people depend on their vehicles to do their business because public transport is insufficient.

It does not give many people an alternative to their cars, trucks or vans. This is a political grab for money in order to make up for the Minister's shortfall in the Estimates. Fianna Fáil did not trust him with any money for road transport because in recent legislation he handed the money for non-national roads to the Minister for Transport, Deputy Dempsey. Who in their right minds would give any more responsibility to that Minister?

Deputy Gormley would.

He seems to trust the Minister for Transport better than anybody else in this House.

He took an incinerator.

His failure in his Estimates has meant that the soft touch of motor car owners has again been used as a political expediency. We will be opposing the measure on that basis.

The Minister made the point that no increase has taken place since 2004 but the result is that people will now be faced with a substantial increase. That will cause hardship, particularly for people on low incomes and big families, who have no option but to drive bigger cars. Unlike VRT, this tax does not take account of carbon emissions and therefore goes in the opposite direction in terms of environmental incentives. There is no incentive for more energy efficient cars and the differing increases according to the size of the car, at 9.5% and 11% respectively, leave little incentive for people to drive smaller cars. It is a tax raising measure intended to make up for the ridiculous 2% increase in the local government fund.

The same 9.5% increase is being imposed on youth, community and school buses and other large public service vehicles, so there is no incentive to improve public transport provisions in these areas or to car pool. The tax will impede efforts to reduce carbon emissions in transport.

Just over one third of the transport budget is being spent on public transport but €1.7 billion is being spent on road building, which goes against the promises made by the Green Party before it entered Government. This is a cosmetic exercise and the only green measures being introduced in this budget are the VRT changes. Overall, there are very few Green Party policies in this budget.

I cannot understand the logic of moving the basis for calculating VRT from engine size to emissions rating of engines, which is more accurate and sensible, when that rationale is totally ignored in respect of motor tax.

We are not ignoring it.

That is exactly what the Minister is doing.

It is exactly what we are doing in July. I said that at the end of my contribution.

If he is going to do it in July, why does he not do it now?

People have to be prepared for it.

He is acting now——

VRT is also being changed in July.

If the Green Party rationale on emissions on engines is good enough for VRT, it should be good enough for motor tax.

Instead of spreading confusion, they should be introduced at the same time.

They are coming in at the same time.

The Minister should provide clarity on that.

Why are we voting on this motion this evening if it is clear?

In terms of motor tax, there is something inherently unjust in charging somebody who drives his or her car 2,000 km each year the same as somebody who drives 50,000 km. My grandmother pays the same amount of motor tax as I do, even though she drives less than 4,000 km per year compared to my 50,000 km. That is fundamentally unjust. If the Minister is seriously interested in linking taxation and revenue raising to emissions and car usage, it surely makes sense to create a structure that charges people for car usage through motor tax. The amount of time spent on the road in a car emitting carbon should relate to the amount of money spent on road tax. Irrespective of whether tax is changed to make it fuel or mileage based, that should be the direction taken in a genuinely reforming green budget. Unfortunately, we are not doing that.

I have been in this House for approximately 20 budgets, of which the present one has the highest borrowing requirement, at €5 billion. That does not make for a good day in this House or the economy. In the past several years, State borrowing was wisely transferred to individual borrowing but we are now facing a situation of high State and individual borrowing because if people invest in houses, more money comes to the Government in the form of borrowed money from the banks.

I ask Deputy Deenihan to confine his comments to the issue of motor tax.

Irish motorists are the most taxed in Europe. When they leave the garage, they pay more tax than any of their European counterparts on their cars and when they go to the filling station they pay more on a litre of petrol or diesel. Out of every euro spent, approximately 60 cent goes directly to the Government before anybody else takes a cut. This is another penalty, albeit a small one, on Irish motorists, especially those living in rural areas. Farmers with heavy goods vehicles will face increases of 9.5%. That might not seem a lot but it will mean an increase of €150 for most farmers. It is another cruel imposition on Irish motorists, who are taxed more than any of their counterparts in Europe. Notwithstanding the decreasing cost of insurance, it will also be a major blow to young people who have recently acquired a car and are financially stretched by the costs of running it. While the increase may appear small, it is unjust tax which makes the taxation system even more penal.

I fully support the proposed changes, at least in vehicle registration tax and compliment the Minister on this innovative proposal. We could argue about whether the measure would have been introduced had the Green Party not been in Government but that is beside the point. It is a welcome step forward which Fine Gael supports because it introduces an emissions based tax, which is, in many ways, a carbon tax. This is also the case with regard to excise and VAT on petrol. It is noteworthy, however, that, according to the International Panel on Climate Change, the cost to the environment of motoring and petrol is approximately 9 cent per litre. Motorists are, therefore, paying more than their fair share to compensate for carbon emissions from private vehicles.

I am a little annoyed by the disrespect the Minister has shown the House in spending a considerable part of a short debate outlining changes which will be effective for only six months. At the end of his four-page speech outlining his proposed changes to motor taxation, we find the throw-away remark: "I will tomorrow outline to the House measures in relation to the rebalancing of motor tax in favour of new cars and new imports with lower emissions." It is unreasonable to expect Parliament to adopt what is essentially a temporary measure lasting for six months without having the courtesy to outline to Deputies the details of the proposed new regime.

We do not know what the Minister will do in six months yet he is asking us to vote on the measure now.

The Deputies could wait until tomorrow.

The Minister should provide the information today. This is a tax on car ownership. I am not aware of other assets which are taxed on the basis that people own them. We tax people for buying goods. This tax is an attack on business and consumers, as are the proposals on tolls we will discuss at an oral hearing on Wednesday.

If the Minister proposes to change motor tax, why not take the radical step and abolish it? It is difficult to make a case for motor taxation. We have an emissions based vehicle registration tax and consumption based petrol and diesel taxes. Why not abolish motor taxation and have a real debate about how we fund local government? Having local authorities rely on direct funding from the Exchequer, business and motorists is a bad approach to funding local government. If the Minister is prepared to have a debate on funding local government, my party will be pleased to engage in it.

I strongly agree with Deputy Varadkar's final point. The Minister should engage in a proper debate about providing adequate funding for local government. If the motion before us proposed to introduce a carbon tax from 1 January, I have no doubt it would receive unanimous support in the Chamber. However, the proposal is, pure and simple, a rip-off of motorists and cannot be described as a rebalancing of motor taxation.

Not too long ago, when the Green Party was on this side of the House, I heard several of its Deputies describe the use of this type of phraseology by Ministers as bluff and bluster. Look where it is coming from now. Motorists have no option but to use cars as the Minister has frequently pointed out. Public transport is available in only a small number of narrow streams in the State. Under such circumstances, it is grossly unfair to penalise motorists to this extent.

When one hears the Minister articulate his case, one fully understands the reason he decided to filibuster and waffle to try to prevent Opposition Deputies from making their views heard. If he wanted to be fair and reasonable, he should have negotiated with his Government colleagues to give the Opposition additional time to debate the issue. We would then have happily listened to the four-page, slowly delivered diatribe to which we were subjected. I had better make way for other speakers.

The Minister has produced a smokescreen to camouflage the true intention behind his decision to impose penal taxes on motorists. It is a disgrace for him to propose introducing these taxes when motorists are paying €1.20 and €1.25 per litre for petrol and diesel. I can buy diesel in Skibbereen for €1.12 but cannot get it for a remotely similar price on the entire journey to Dublin. With the price of fuel increasing at an astronomical rate, it is time the Government imposed price controls on fuel.

Recently I read an article in a newspaper about a report which concluded that domestic appliances that are more than ten years old emit more carbon dioxide than cars. Is the Minister aware of this report? I would support the proposed measures if they reduced carbon dioxide emissions but their purpose is to collect money.

County Cork covers one eighth of the territory of the State but receives the lowest rate per kilometre from the road fund grant. This is disgraceful. My constituency of Cork South-West has a large number of secondary roads but not one mile of national primary routes. It receives only the crumbs which fall from the Department's table as far as road fund grants are concerned. The Minister should stop penalising motorists because they pay enough in tax and insurance. Fuel prices have escalated and are now exorbitant. The Minister would better serve members of the public by controlling the price of fuel rather than imposing additional taxes on beleaguered motorists.

The proposed road tax increases are anti-family because most family cars are in the low cc categories, which are being increased across the board. I cannot see anything family-friendly in the budget and this proposal will hit families again.

The Minister stated the "programme has also an important road safety dimension in the context of increasing road safety measures". This statement highlights once more how out of touch the Government is, particularly given yesterday's announcement by the National Roads Authority that it is abandoning its proposal to establish rest stations along national routes. In recent days, an unfortunate tragedy occurred when another vehicle struck the car of a family who had stopped on a national road killing an infant. The Minister's statement indicates how out of touch he is with the agencies over which he is supposed to have responsibility. On previous occasions, he has argued he has no responsibility for incineration. Now, he and his colleague, the Minister for Transport, argue they have no responsibility for road safety.

Deputy Kieran O'Donnell referred to the Green Party as the "mudguard" of the Government. The term "fig leaf" would be a more apt description, given that this proposal attempts to conceal the Government's intentions to squeeze more revenue out of motorists, despite the fact they contribute €5.2 billion per annum to the Exchequer. Given the Minister's Green credentials, I would not mind if the proposal was to fund public transport and provide car parking spaces at railway stations and bus centres so that people could use alternative transport. However, not one cent goes in that direction. The unfortunate Minister is the decoy for the Government. He is the victim. He has imposed extra taxation for no reason. I am sure if one was outside the door of the Department one would hear the officials laughing. No disrespect to the very good officials in the Department of Finance, but they must have thought Christmas had come early when they heard of this proposal. Santa Claus no longer comes down the chimney; he comes in with the Minister as far as the Department of Finance is concerned. It is appalling, given the Minister's Green credentials that he did not say this would go directly towards alleviating the emissions or providing for car parking spaces or encouraging public transport in some shape or form.

I ask Members to be brief so that everybody can get in.

This is not based on ability to pay. Somebody driving a 1997 car of the same cc as a 2007 car will be levied with the same motor tax demand annually. The other element is that many families today depend on dual incomes to make ends meet. Both parents are forced to work and often two cars are required particularly in rural Ireland where there is no public transport. That is the reality in my constituency. People have to travel to get to work. Both husband and wife, or partners, in whatever arrangement, will be doubly levied by this very punitive measure. The Minister makes a virtue of the fact that there has been no increase over the past four years. Where are the statistics on the intake on motor tax in each of the past four years? I warrant that with the increased number of vehicles on our roads there has been a significant increase in the graph which has risen in terms of the intake of motor tax in each of those four years. This is simply not an acceptable measure. It is punitive as other Members have described it and it is most unworthy of the Minister and his party.

This is a crippling and unfair tax on motorists. After all the huffing and puffing of the Greens before and during the election campaign and again tonight the Minister did not get his fair share of the Government cake when it was being dished out and he has to impose this extra tax on our motorists. He is imposing the "Dublin knows best" mentality on people in rural Ireland, people who have to commute from the midlands and other parts of the country to Dublin on a daily basis——

—— and who are stuck in traffic for hours on end. Shame on the Minister for the way he has behaved here tonight. I assure him and his party that in the next general election they will walk the plank in the same manner as the Progressive Democrats walked it after the last general election. The people are sick of its behaviour since it got into Government. Shame on the Minister for imposing this tax. I know the Minister cannot guarantee when local authorities meet in the coming months that they will not have to introduce higher local charges, higher business rates etc. on the local community because he has failed to deliver to them in the run up to the budget. The Minister has let us down. Infrastructure throughout the country is very poor.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

We have a shortfall in funding for regional roads and local improvement schemes——

We have a shortfall in time as well.

On top of that we have seen the public crippled with petrol, diesel, insurance and other charges. Shame on the Minister.

This is a con trick. It is wrong to abuse the goodwill of people who are concerned about protecting the environment and doing their bit to tackle climate change. In the budget money is being raised so that local authorities can pay their bills, particularly in regard to non-national roads. That is what this is about.

It is being presented as if it is an environmental measure when it is nothing of the sort.

I did not say that.

The Minister, as a kind of fig leaf to protect the Greens says that tomorrow, like a magician, he will produce measures that will ensure there is a rebalancing towards new cars and new imports.

Is that for a year or six months?

The result of that rebalancing will mean increased sales of new cars. Is that what the Greens stand for? I represent a constituency where most people cannot live without a car. Public transport in many parts of the constituency simply does not exist. The Minister stands over a budget where €2.7 billion will be spent on transport, approximately one third of which will go into public transport, including airports and ports. That is a very poor record on which to go before his party and his voters and say it was worthwhile making the sacrifice, that he got all his promises on incineration, Tara and so on fulfilled. The Greens went into Government to change the way things were done——

——to produce the environmental budget. The Minister has not done that. While that failure is evident he is trying to cloak the failure and pretend somehow that this is an environmental measure. It is not. Let us be honest; it is about generating revenue that local authorities need to ensure that non-national roads are maintained in good order. That is not about ensuring a fundamental change towards protecting our environment and tacking climate change.

I am afraid I have run out of time.

Unfortunately no, I am out of time.

Can you give me two minutes?

Hold on for a minute.

A Cheann Comhairle, on a point of order——

I have to put the question.

On a point of order, I have taken extensive notes and I have listened carefully to what everyone has said and, perhaps, I can be given one minute to sum up.

I am in the unfortunate situation——

(Interruptions).

There must be order in the House.

On a point of order.

There is no point of order. This is the point of order. I am subject to the Order of the House which was to the effect that I was to put this vote at 9.05 p.m. It is well beyond that time now.

A Cheann Comhairle——

Please, Minister. The time permitted for this debate has expired. The Minister is not the only person offering. There are a number of Members offering. If I allow the Minister to intervene again I will have to allow other Members who are offering to do so also.

I will not delay. The Minister has his hands in the pockets of every motorist across the country. I wish to put one simple question to the Minister. Has he ring-fenced any of this tax raising revenue for local government, for County Wexford or any other county or for environmental matters? When a person pays his road tax he expects good roads——

——which he has not got with this Government. I assure the Minister he will not get it with the Green Government either. Deputy Mary White is the only rural based Deputy within the Green Party. I am surprised she has not advised the Green Party to reverse what has been proposed here this evening. I am disappointed she has not proposed to reverse this matter.

The Deputy should not be surprised.

She should know what it is like for a rural motorist to pay for insurance, petrol, diesel, and now a heavy road tax. The Minister should be ashamed of himself. His party should be ashamed. He has been hoodwinked by a Fianna Fáil-led Government and is making himself look foolish.

The Minister has lost the battle with regard to obtaining funding for local government. In a very unimaginative way, he has tackled family income. I am not sure whether he knows the following information but Deputy White should as she comes from roughly the same area as myself.

She believes she is a Minister also.

Data recently released suggests 150,000 people leave home at 6.30 a.m. each morning. Of those, 130,000 travel more than 50 miles. This is an attack on the income of those who need a car for employment.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Deputy Ó Caoláin rightly stated that in practically all cases the family needs two cars because if one family member must travel 50 miles to work, there is a need for a second car to, for example, bring children to school from rural areas, such as the area Deputy White represents, although she shows no respect for that area. The Minister caved in because the only thing he wants is to hold his seat. He did not have the guts or the determination to fight the Department of Finance and its Minister to get the money for local authorities.

The Minister is weakening.

A Deputy

He took the shilling.

There was no greater exponent of moral indignation than the Minister, Deputy Gormley, when he was on this side of the House. Sometimes I can still hear the wail from behind me despite the fact that he has moved across the House.

We are not here to discuss moral indignation; we are here to discuss the resolution before us.

Most of my constituents would like to have the luxury of being able to come here with a bicycle clip around the bottom of their trousers, but unfortunately they cannot do so. The Minister, Deputy Gormley, is putting us to the sword. He has been six months in the job and he had better do something about local government funding.

The Deputy is voting against local government funding.

We have seen changes to stamp duty. The Minister is presiding over a regime in which young people pay €20,000 in levies on a new house.

These are unfair taxes.

Reference was made to roads. Any time we try to do anything about roads in my constituency, the Minister's party members generally object.

The Taoiseach yesterday described someone as deaf. I do not believe the Deputies opposite have listened to what I have said.

If the Minister was on this side of the House, he would understand.

(Interruptions).

These are the facts. At no stage——

The Minister was not listening to himself.

Deputies should allow the Minister to proceed without interruption.

At no stage this evening did I say this was an environmental measure, I said it was——

It is in the Budget Statement.

——a revenue raising measure. The Deputies should listen to what I say. It is revenue raising and the revenue will go towards the local government fund.

Why did the Minister not get the money from the Minister for Finance?

Deputy Tuffy asked why I am introducing this now and why we have waited four years. Do I take it Deputies want this every year? Is that what the Labour Party wants?

The way the Minister is going on, we might get it every six months.

The Minister will not be over there in four years. He need not worry.

The Minister should proceed without interruption.

Some of the Deputies opposite will come to me claiming they need X, Y and Z for local government in their constituencies. Deputy Kehoe came to me with regard to the EPA in his constituency.

Has the Deputy seen the budget, which contains a 43% increase for the EPA in his constituency?

Did that come from motor tax?

Why is the Deputy not saying: "Hallelujah, thank you, Minister"? I hear nothing from him, not as much as a "thank you".

Did that come from motor tax?

We cannot have a conversation about it now, Deputy Kehoe.

In response to Deputy Coveney, I said at the end of my speech that I would introduce measures tomorrow. I explained this was about revenue raising and that we had to move very quickly towards reducing CO2 emissions, which is what we are doing. I will announce that tomorrow. I say clearly to Deputy McManus that this is revenue raising——

On a point of order——

How can the Minister stand over this?

On a point of order——

We must allow the Minister to proceed without interruption.

There is another issue——

I am sorry, a Cheann Comhairle, on a point of order, the Minister is misleading the House.

He is misleading the House.

A Deputy

He is telling lies.

Deputies should let me finish. The Minister for Finance flagged today that we will introduce a carbon levy.

A Deputy

When?

On top of this increase.

Given what I have heard today, will the Deputies opposite, who claim they agree with environmentally friendly measures, support a carbon levy?

It is more taxation which hurts people.

Will they? Do I hear them say they will support the carbon levy?

(Interruptions).

This is not a joke. Car owners must pay an extra €80 million to the Minister this year.

Deputy Deenihan at least recognised that these were very small increases. I have heard it stated that this is anti-family, but how can it be suggested that an increase of 27 cent per week is anti-family? It is not. That is completely over the top.

It is an increase.

We did not get the big increases that Ministers got.

This system of raising money for local government has been in place for some time, as all the Deputies opposite know.

Where is the Minister's increase?

To come to Deputy Ó Caoláin's point, I do not believe this measure is punitive when one considers the amount of time that has elapsed and that the charge has not been increased for some time.

A Cheann Comhairle, we are out of time. I ask that the question be put.

I will allow the Minister to finish.

Where is the Minister's increase?

With regard to Deputy P. J. Sheehan, I am delighted diesel is so reasonably priced in west Cork. As the Deputy knows, I am a frequent visitor there and look forward to returning.

Why does the Minister not take steps to stop ripping off the public between Skibbereen and Dublin?

Deputy Bannon is the one person who would ask what we are doing for local government. If the Deputy votes against this resolution, he is voting against extra revenue for local government. That is the bottom line.

We have seen a worrying deterioration in local government under the Minister's regime.

Deputy Kehoe should know this money is going towards local government.

(Interruptions).

Where are the statistics on motor tax for the past four years? The Minister should produce them.

Question put: "That Financial Resolution No. 3 be agreed to."
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 83; Níl, 69.

  • Ahern, Dermot.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Ahern, Noel.
  • Andrews, Barry.
  • Andrews, Chris.
  • Ardagh, Seán.
  • Aylward, Bobby.
  • Behan, Joe.
  • Blaney, Niall.
  • Brady, Áine.
  • Brady, Cyprian.
  • Brady, Johnny.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Browne, John.
  • Byrne, Thomas.
  • Calleary, Dara.
  • Carey, Pat.
  • Collins, Niall.
  • Conlon, Margaret.
  • Connick, Seán.
  • Coughlan, Mary.
  • Cregan, John.
  • Cuffe, Ciarán.
  • Curran, John.
  • Dempsey, Noel.
  • Devins, Jimmy.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Fahey, Frank.
  • Finneran, Michael.
  • Fitzpatrick, Michael.
  • Fleming, Seán.
  • Flynn, Beverley.
  • Gogarty, Paul.
  • Gormley, John.
  • Grealish, Noel.
  • Hanafin, Mary.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Seán.
  • Healy-Rae, Jackie.
  • Hoctor, Máire.
  • Kelly, Peter.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kennedy, Michael.
  • Killeen, Tony.
  • Kirk, Seamus.
  • Kitt, Tom.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Lenihan, Conor.
  • Lowry, Michael.
  • McDaid, James.
  • McEllistrim, Thomas.
  • McGrath, Finian.
  • McGrath, Mattie.
  • McGrath, Michael.
  • McGuinness, John.
  • Mansergh, Martin.
  • Martin, Micheál.
  • Moloney, John.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Mulcahy, Michael.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • Ó Cuív, Éamon.
  • Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
  • O’Brien, Darragh.
  • O’Connor, Charlie.
  • O’Dea, Willie.
  • O’Flynn, Noel.
  • O’Hanlon, Rory.
  • O’Keeffe, Batt.
  • O’Keeffe, Edward.
  • O’Rourke, Mary.
  • O’Sullivan, Christy.
  • Power, Peter.
  • Power, Seán.
  • Roche, Dick.
  • Ryan, Eamon.
  • Sargent, Trevor.
  • Scanlon, Eamon.
  • Smith, Brendan.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Wallace, Mary.
  • White, Mary Alexandra.
  • Woods, Michael.

Níl

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Bannon, James.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Breen, Pat.
  • Broughan, Thomas P.
  • Burke, Ulick.
  • Burton, Joan.
  • Byrne, Catherine.
  • Carey, Joe.
  • Clune, Deirdre.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Coonan, Noel J.
  • Costello, Joe.
  • Coveney, Simon.
  • Crawford, Seymour.
  • Creed, Michael.
  • Creighton, Lucinda.
  • D’Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, John.
  • Deenihan, Jimmy.
  • Doyle, Andrew.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • English, Damien.
  • Enright, Olwyn.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Ferris, Martin.
  • Flanagan, Charles.
  • Flanagan, Terence.
  • Gilmore, Eamon.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • Hayes, Tom.
  • Higgins, Michael D.
  • Hogan, Phil.
  • Howlin, Brendan.
  • Kehoe, Paul.
  • Lynch, Ciarán.
  • McCormack, Pádraic.
  • McEntee, Shane.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McHugh, Joe.
  • McManus, Liz.
  • Mitchell, Olivia.
  • Morgan, Arthur.
  • Naughten, Denis.
  • Neville, Dan.
  • Ó Caoláin, Caoimhghín.
  • O’Donnell, Kieran.
  • O’Dowd, Fergus.
  • O’Keeffe, Jim.
  • O’Mahony, John.
  • O’Shea, Brian.
  • O’Sullivan, Jan.
  • Penrose, Willie.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Rabbitte, Pat.
  • Reilly, James.
  • Ring, Michael.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheahan, Tom.
  • Sheehan, P. J.
  • Sherlock, Seán.
  • Shortall, Róisín.
  • Stagg, Emmet.
  • Stanton, David.
  • Timmins, Billy.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
  • Upton, Mary.
  • Varadkar, Leo.
  • Wall, Jack.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Tom Kitt and John Curran; Níl, Deputies Paul Kehoe and Emmet Stagg.
Question declared carried.
Barr
Roinn