Vol. 719 No. 1
61 Deputy Phil Hogan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government his views on circulars from his Department concerning commercial motor tax and their effect on small businesses; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37697/10]
There has been no change to the system of motor taxation in respect of goods vehicles. Accordingly, I am not aware of any negative impact on small businesses due to the continued implementation of existing motor tax legislation.
My Department issued a circular letter to motor tax offices in August 2010 reminding authorised officers of existing provisions with regard to the taxation of vehicles on a goods basis. This circular reiterated the terms of a 2005 circular letter. To be taxed as a goods vehicle, a vehicle must be constructed or adapted for that purpose and used solely in the course of trade or business. If a vehicle is adapted, it must have the same characteristics as a goods vehicle in respect of space and accommodation for carrying goods and it must have limited seating capacity. In effect, this means that in order to be taxed in the goods category, the goods-carrying area of the vehicle must be greater than the seating area; all seats to the rear of the driver's seat must be removed and seat bolt holes welded over and all rear seat belts must be removed and seat belt anchor points welded over.
Under Section 2 of the Finance (Excise Duties) (Vehicles) Act 1952, if a vehicle is used in a condition or manner which would attract motor tax at a higher rate, tax then becomes payable at that rate. In other words, if a goods vehicle is used in a private capacity, it must, like all other private vehicles, be taxed at the private rate of motor tax.
Under Article 3 of the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) (Amendment) Regulations 1992, a licensing authority must be satisfied that a vehicle is correctly taxed, and it is thus open to a motor tax office to seek additional documentation supporting a claim for the goods rate of motor tax. Such documentation may include a certificate of commercial insurance or evidence of registration for VAT purposes, or, at the discretion of the licensing authority concerned, any other appropriate document. In circumstances where an RF111A goods only declaration is required, an income tax registration number is now routinely sought. I would not expect that any person genuinely using a vehicle in the course of trade or business should have a difficulty supplying documentation to support a claim for what is, in effect, a concessionary rate of motor tax.
Additional information not given on the floor of the House.
The requirement to sign form RF 111A goods declaration form is not new and constitutes a statement by the applicant that the vehicle is being used in the course of trade or business. I would not expect that this declaration should need to be sought at every renewal once particulars of the vehicle and its use have not changed since the last renewal. The form would normally be sought at the time of first taxing as a goods vehicle and on change of ownership.
I reiterate that the legal provisions governing the taxation of goods vehicles have not changed.
The Department issued a circular to all local authorities on 10 August and this has caused major confusion in respect of the taxation of commercial vehicles. The tax could be €400 under the particular interpretation of one local authority, while it could be as high as €1,200 in the next local authority. The Minister has caused an enormous shambles with local government financing. Will he be issuing a new instruction to ensure that the wording of the declaration that has been insisted on will be changed so that the primary use of the vehicle is for business? There should be no doubt that if commercial vehicle owners drop off their children at school or engage in personal business, they do not have to pay the additional taxation.
There is no confusion. It is crystal clear. This was a reiteration of a previous circular issued in 2005. This legislation has been in place for quite some time. It was in place when the Deputy's party was in Government. He did not see fit at that stage to change——
The Minister fumbled the notice.
The Minister changed it.
These are the relevant points that the Deputy needs to bear in mind. There are no consequences. The Deputy says there is an inconsistency involved and if he can bring it to my attention, I would be happy to look at it. The authorised officers have always been allowed to use discretion on these matters. I reiterate that there has been no change in legislation or regulation. Any confusion has been caused quite deliberately for mischief making purposes.
The Minister is being disingenuous in his reply. There has been much confusion caused by this circular. Why did the Minister say that gardaí should look the other way if there was a problem with the interpretation of these matters? He said this last August and it was on the Green Party website to the effect that people should not worry about it because it will be okay on the day.
They should pull their cap over their brow.
Will the Minister issue a new circular to clarify that there is no difficulty with interpretation and that there is consistency across all local authority boundaries? Is he in a position to tell local authority officers this? Is he able to clarify that the commercial vehicles of small business people who wish to drop their children to school will not be subject to the new Gormley tax?
It is clear that Deputy Hogan is the person being disingenuous. He finished his contribution by saying that this is some new tax. There is no new tax. There is no new legislation or regulation.
There is an interpretation.
I would not expect that any person genuinely using a vehicle in the course of his trade or business would have any difficulty supplying documentation to support a claim for what is effectively a concessionary rate of motor tax. I think the Deputy would agree with me on that. The requirement to sign the goods declaration form RF111A is not new and constitutes a statement by the applicant that the vehicle is being used in the course of trade or business. I would not expect that this declaration should need to be sought at every renewal, once particulars of the vehicle and its use have not changed since the last renewal. The form would normally be sought at the time of first taxing as a goods vehicle and on change of ownership.
The legal provisions governing the taxation of goods vehicles have not changed at all.
62 Deputy Joanna Tuffy asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the position regarding his policy on the planned incinerator at Poolbeg; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37671/10]
In accordance with the provisions of the waste management Acts, the preparation and adoption of a waste management plan, including infrastructure provision, is the statutory responsibility of the local authority or authorities concerned, and under section 60(3) of the Act I am precluded from exercising any power or control over the performance by a local authority, in particular circumstances, of a statutory function vested in it.
However, it is the role of the Minister and the Government to set the policy framework and I intend that Irish waste policy will focus on maximising what should be seen as a resource. Against that background I have expressed concerns regarding the potential implications of the large-scale Poolbeg waste facility for the more progressive approach to waste management I am determined to pursue.
On 15 July 2010, I published a draft statement of waste policy for public consultation. This set out the various elements being considered as part of the development of a new national waste management policy for the coming decade and beyond with a focus on a resource management approach. There will be clear implications for the provision of waste infrastructure as waste is driven away from residual treatment and towards recycling and reuse.
The consultation closed on 1 October and I am considering the submissions received with a view to bringing a final policy statement to Government for decision at the earliest opportunity. This will provide certainty for those in the waste management sector and a framework within which the necessary legislative changes can be brought forward.
Is the Minister suggesting that when his draft statement of waste policy is in place, the Poolbeg incinerator will be affected by it? What advice has the Minister received from his departmental officials on the likely cost to the local authority or the State generally if Covanta were not to proceed? A senior Covanta executive recently said that if the incinerator levies the Minister has been promising were imposed, the company would not proceed. What information does the Minister have on the cost to be incurred if Covanta pulls out of the project?
Just before the summer in a reply to Deputy Quinn the Minister gave an update on a report he was having carried out. He said he expected the report to be released shortly and that it would relate to the nature and extent of the financial and related risks and consequences which might be faced by Dublin City Council on the project. I ask the Minister for an update on those matters.
Regarding that report, in February 2010 I appointed Mr. John Hennessy SC under section 224 of the Local Government Act 2001 to prepare a report on risks which may be faced by the local authority in connection with this project. This report has recently been submitted and I am considering its findings in consultation with the Attorney General in advance of bringing it to Government. That report goes into considerable detail on the risks and future costs, with particular emphasis on the "put or pay" clause versus the costs that will ensue if the contract is broken. I have seen the exaggerated claims made by the company and Dublin City Council both in the media and at an Oireachtas joint committee hearing, to the effect that the taxpayer will have a substantial bill to pay. These claims are grossly exaggerated. In advance of the report being published I cannot say any more than that.
The company is very good at sending out its PR people. I have seen media reports suggesting that if I introduced these levies, it would not proceed. Government policy will not be determined by any multinational. We are the Government and will proceed with our policy on waste management and will not be intimidated or deterred by any company.
The Minister seems to be suggesting that his new waste policy can stop the incinerator proceeding. Can the Minister confirm that is the case? When does the Minister hope to report the figures, which would be of interest to taxpayers? If, as the Minister claims, it is not as bad as has been reported, that information should be published as quickly as possible. I do not understand why there might be a legal problem in publishing it.
A recent newspaper report quoted the American ambassador, Mr. Dan Rooney, as saying that the project should proceed. It also mentioned that the Minister had recently met representatives of Covanta. Can the Minister give details of the meeting and was the ambassador present?
In answer to the Deputy's last question, I met the American ambassador but have not met representatives of the company. Her previous question asked whether the project would proceed and she talked about my claims. However, the claims to which she referred were claims made by the company, Covanta, which stated, as far as I know in a newspaper article last week, that if these levies were introduced as part of the environment (miscellaneous provisions) Bill, it would not proceed. That is the latest information I have. I am saying unequivocally that I will be proceeding with that legislation. That has always been my policy and it is the policy which, from a sustainability point of view, makes total sense.
There was also a report about the Dublin City Council CPO decision to acquire lands from various landowners one of which is the Department of Finance. Will the Minister intervene to stop the Department of Finance from giving the land to Dublin City Council?
No, of course not. Those are issues that are treated in, I hope, an open and transparent way and are quite separate. I hope we will concentrate on the major issue, which is the policy and the forthcoming legislation. The Government is determined to proceed on that basis.
63 Deputy Phil Hogan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if, in tandem with the publication of the Bill to establish a directly elected mayor for Dublin, he will indicate the estimated cost for the establishment and running of the office; the way he intends to meet this cost; if he will publish a regulatory impact assessment with the Bill; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37698/10]
The Local Government (Mayor and Regional Authority of Dublin) Bill 2010, which sets out the powers, functions and financing arrangements for the mayor and authority, was presented to Dáil Éireann on 15 October 2010. I published a regulatory impact assessment on my Department's website on that date.
A precise costing is not possible at this time, pending decisions which will be made in the coming months, in consultation with the Dublin local authorities, on the number and grades of staff employed, the facilities which will be required, the location of offices and other organisational details. However, I can state unequivocally that the costs of funding the Dublin mayor and supporting structures will be met entirely from within the local government sector. Opportunities to reduce costs are being taken. The new, strengthened regional authority provided for in the Bill will have 16 elected members; the authority it will replace has 30. There will be offsetting savings on functions currently performed by other bodies. The staffing structure will be relatively modest and will be drawn from the local government sector. Costs will be significantly outweighed by anticipated benefits in a range of key areas.
It should be noted that in 2010, the net budgeted revenue expenditure of local government fell by €381 million compared to 2009, a 7.6% decrease. Local government will continue to play its role in the Government's determined efforts to restore balance and sustainability in the public finances.
Alongside the introduction of the Dublin mayor, efficiency and saving measures will continue to be pursued across the local government sector arising from the report of the local government efficiency review group and related initiatives. In Dublin alone, these savings are estimated at €40 million per annum over time. In particular, it is my intention that the staffing complement, including senior manager numbers in Dublin City Council, will be reviewed in line with a recommendation made in the efficiency review, and this will be put in hand as soon as possible.
From the Minister's statement it is clear that he has no notion about the cost of this office. He is disingenuous again today in saying he has no idea of the ballpark figure for this new office because the local authorities in Dublin have been briefed by the Department on the potential cost. I have access to documentation from Fingal County Council indicating that this office will cost €8 million over five years and that €1.6 million will need to be provided in its estimates based on the Minister's decision to proceed with this office immediately. This cost will ultimately need to be borne by the small business sector, the business sector generally and the consumers of services in those local authorities given that the Minister has just said it will need to be funded from existing resources.
While there is no difficulty with the principle of the Bill, I ask the Minister to postpone it until 2014 when the local government elections will be held and then let us have a directly elected mayor for Dublin in the context of overall reform of the existing structures. The Minister is satisfied to leave 133 councillors in four local authorities in place along with four county managers and an overarching regional authority with a directly elected mayor of Dublin at a cost of €8 million over five years. In these critical economic times for businesses and consumers, I ask the Minister to postpone this until 2014.
The Deputy has again quoted this document, as I have seen him do on numerous occasions, but it has no basis.
So it is a figment.
A document was presented to——
A figment of our imagination.
Allow the Minister to reply.
Thank you, a Leas Cheann-Comhairle. A document was presented to Fingal County Council elected members on proposals for a Dublin mayor in September 2010. The document contained factual inaccuracies, unfounded speculation and offered a hostile perspective——
That is all wrong.
——on the introduction of a Dublin mayor. The document overstates anticipated expenditure considerably. For example, an estimate of not less than €1 million in consultants' fees to assist with a mayoral strategy is cited. There is no basis whatsoever to conclude that consultants would even be required to produce such a document. A figure of €1 million is misleading in the extreme. The Deputy should bear in mind — I hope he will never cite this document again — that Fingal County Council issued a press release stating:
Some personal conjecture regarding the cost of running the Mayoral Office and the wider implications of the proposal was inappropriately contained in this report. Any confusion or misunderstanding caused is regretted.
I hope that future debate on a mayoral office will be based on the facts and not any hostile or adversarial conjecture.
These are the facts.
I will make it a little bit easier for the Minister. Will he accept there will be a cost to businesses and to consumers of services in Dublin arising from the enactment of this legislation? For the Minister's information, Fingal County Council has indicated that 35 to 40 staff will be needed, plus a ministerial salary or Minister of State salary that the Minister has projected, plus a home for the new officeholder and a regional authority to support it with the consequent staff that it would require.
To give an impression that such an office would pose no additional cost to the taxpayers or consumers of services or to the estimates of Dublin City Council or any other local authority in the Dublin area is off the mark. I ask the Minister again not to introduce another charge or tax on businesses and consumers of services in 2011 and to postpone the introduction of this legislation until 2014.
If this was to include an extra charge on business, why in the name of God would the Dublin Chamber of Commerce be so supportive of this legislation?
It is wrong.
It is my intention to appoint——
It does not know the facts.
Allow the Minister to speak.
——a member of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce to the new efficiency group. I hope Deputy Hogan will support the changes which will mean that we will get greater efficiency in the Dublin——
I am certainly not going to support the Minister's vanity project.
Please, Deputy.
You are not supporting anything.
I am.
It is all "no, no, no".
The Minister should address his remarks through the Chair and I will do my best to allow him to speak, if he does not directly refer his remarks to individual Members.
I believe the Leas-Cheann Comhairle will accept that this continual heckling——
I will do my best to protect the Minister.
——is not conducive to any sort of constructive debate.
The Minister should not be upsetting us.
It is important that we get the facts. I am absolutely committed to lowering the charges for businesses and I believe that having a mayor for this region will improve the business environment for the city and make it far more competitive. I can assure the Deputy opposite that what will follow from this innovative initiative is that the city will be far more competitive and cost effective.
64 Deputy Phil Hogan asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government if his Department, in its role of overseeing electoral law, has incurred any expense in court cases relating to interpretation of electoral law to date in 2010; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37699/10]
My Department is involved from time to time in court cases relating to operational matters arising at elections, the consideration of which may involve the interpretation of electoral law. My Department has not directly incurred costs in any such cases in 2010.
Deputy Hogan will be aware of the judicial review being heard in the High Court this week in the matter of a by-election in the Donegal South West Dáil constituency. My Department is not a respondent in this case and it would not be appropriate to discuss the case in the House as the hearing has not concluded.
I would have thought it was appropriate for the Minister in charge of electoral matters to ensure that by-elections are held much earlier. He indicated he had an open mind on the matter, but when we moved a Fine Gael Bill to ensure a time limit applied to the holding of Dáil by-elections, he subsequently voted it down — so much for consensus on these matters.
Will he indicate the estimated cost to the Exchequer and to his Department arising from the court proceedings that are now the subject of a judicial review in the High Court?
I would rather the Minister did not estimate the outcome of a case.
No, I am talking about its cost.
The awarding of costs is a matter for the courts, not for this House.
I am sure that the Leas-Cheann Comhairle would agree that there is an estimate of costs that will be associated with these proceedings on behalf of the taxpayer.
It would be better if that question was put once the case was concluded and determined by the courts.
Will the Minister accede to the provision in the Fine Gael Private Members' Bill to apply a limit of six months on the filling of future by-election vacancies in light of the judicial review that is taking place in the High Court?
Legal expenses incurred by my Department in regard to the oversight of electoral law and policy relate primarily to operational matters arising at elections. No legal firms are retained by my Department directly. All cases are handled in the first instance by the Chief State Solicitor's office and no costs have arisen in 2010. The State Claims Agency deals with election injury cases and no costs in regard to such cases have arisen for my Department in 2010, to answer those questions directly.
As for the latter question, that is something that we will have to consider when it arises.
65 Deputy James Bannon asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government the cost to date of the electronic voting machines; when and the way the Government will dispose of the machines; if there is a case for compensation from the manufacturer who provided the equipment and software; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [37700/10]
The total expenditure on the electronic voting project to date, including on storage, is some €54 million.
Following the Government decision not to proceed with implementation of electronic voting in Ireland, an interdepartmental task force, chaired by my Department, was established to bring the project to an orderly conclusion and to oversee disposal of the equipment and termination of storage arrangements. The task force aims to complete its work as soon as possible.
In disposing of the equipment, the priority is to pursue the most economically advantageous approach, with a view to achieving the maximum recovery of cost possible in the circumstances, consistent with environmental and other obligations.
Issues with regard to the fitness for purpose of the electronic voting equipment were addressed comprehensively in the reports published by the Commission on Electronic Voting. The commission was established in 2004 to report on the secrecy and accuracy of the chosen electronic voting and counting system. It published an interim report in April 2004, followed by its first report later that year in December 2004. The commission's second and final report was published in July 2006.
In dealing with the legacy of electronic voting, my main concerns are to bring the project to a close, dispose of the equipment and deal with lease arrangements for the remaining premises where the equipment is stored. The work of the Department and the task force set up to bring the project to a conclusion has been focused on these areas.
The Minister said the interdepartmental task force was set up to bring the e-voting project to an orderly conclusion. Does he accept that if a little order had been applied initially the Government would have squandered less taxpayers' money on this expensive project? The sum of €54 million is a huge amount of money to have been squandered by the Government. We hear of what will happen in hospitals throughout the country following cutbacks to be introduced in the budget and the life-threatening consequences of those. The Minister, Deputy Harney spoke today about the serious cutbacks that will be made to health services It is a shame and a sin for such an amount of money to have been squandered by the Government.
Can the Minister provide a more comprehensive figure for the buy-out associated with the termination of storage leases which he admitted will be payable? Leases were taken out for 20 to 25 years to store machines that we all know were obsolete eight years ago — they were duds eight years ago.
I call the Minister.
I would like to——
I will call the Deputy again.
The Deputy raised a number of issues. If the Deputy is seeking the costs in regard to storage, as I understand it, cessation of the electronic voting project involves dealing with the legacy of storage. Pending the disposal of the equipment, the machines must still be stored somewhere.
The cost of storing the machines at local premises has been significantly reduced in recent years. In 2004 up to €658,000 was spent on storage, which was reduced to €204,000 in 2008 and to €182,000 in 2009. It is important the job be done right in line with legal and regulatory requirements. We do not want to expose the Exchequer to further risks or liabilities arising from the disposal of the equipment. The key objective is to achieve the most economically advantageous outcome while limiting any further potential costs and, where possible, recovering some of the investment.
Will the Minister concede that public confidence has been badly shaken by the Government's lack of judgment in this matter? If there proves to be no liability on the part of the manufacturer and the responsibility for the blind purchase of these unfit dud machines and software is laid at the Minister's door, will the taxpayer be entitled to compensation from the Government?
The Deputy knows the answer to that question. When I came into office, I examined this matter to ensure best value for money. It was a painstaking process but I was determined to look at the issue in detail. For that reason, I have done this methodically and thoroughly to ensure it is done right in line with legal and regulatory requirements. A decision was made over a year ago which I announced. Many people on the other side of the House urged me then to make the decision. I did so and now we are in the process of finalising its outcome.
Will the taxpayer receive compensation from the Government?
Sorry, Deputy Bannon that concludes priority questions.
The Minister did not answer my question.
