Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, HERITAGE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 5 Mar 2008

Motor Vehicle (Duties and Licences) Bill 2008: Committee Stage.

This meeting has been convened to consider the Motor Vehicle (Duties and Licences) Bill 2008, which has been referred to the select committee by order of the Dáil of 26 February 2008.

I welcome the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Deputy John Gormley, and his officials to the meeting. Before we proceed may I have the agreement of members to the grouping schedule which has been circulated? It is proposed to group the following amendments for the purpose of debate, amendments Nos. 2, 6, 9 and 10. All other amendments that are not grouped will be discussed individually. Is that agreed? Agreed.

For the information of members, amendments Nos. 3, 4, 7 and 8 have been ruled out of order as they address the new motor tax system based on CO2 emissions. The Bill provides that the new tax rates will be applied to new cars registered after 1 July 2008. Amendments Nos. 3, 7 and 8 seek to remove the reference to "1 July 2008" while amendment No. 4 seeks to substitute "February" for "July". The effect of all these amendments is to apply the new rates, including the punitive rates for cars with high emission levels, from an earlier date than is provided for in the Bill. These amendments must be ruled out of order as having the potential to raise a charge on the people.

For the benefit of new members, will the Chairman explain his ruling because the Minister can introduce the same amendments?

It is a constitutional provision that the Oireachtas can only approve increases in taxation on the proposal of a Minister. No one other than a Minister can table an amendment that will involve raising a charge on the public. If people in the Opposition draft an amendment, their staff should be conscious of this provision and try to frame the amendment so that it is in order. Tabling an amendment from the Opposition benches that involves a cost to the Exchequer or a charge on the public is not in order.

On a point of order, perhaps the correspondence ruling the amendments out of order should have referred to a cost to the Exchequer rather than a cost to the people. The implication--

I apologise, but it is ultimately a cost to the people, as they pay the tax. When we are discussing the relevant sections, Deputies can raise the substance of most of the amendments ruled out of order.

Thank you.

SECTION 1.

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, line 12, to delete "Part" and substitute "Act".

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 1, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 2.

Amendments Nos. 2, 6, 9 and 10 are related and will be discussed together.

I move amendment No. 2:

In page 3, subsection (2), to delete lines 25 to 27 and substitute the following:

"to-

(a) paragraph 6(d) in that Part referring to anything registered under section 131 of the Finance Act 1992 as a category A vehicle on or after 1 July 2008, or

(b) paragraph 6(f) in that Part referring to anything registered under section 131 of the Finance Act 1992 as a category A vehicle during the period beginning on 1 January 2008 and ending on 30 June 2008.”.

I refer the committee to my concluding remarks on Second Stage last week when I indicated to the House that I had listened carefully to the points raised regarding the introduction of a new CO2-based motor tax system. Deputies raised issues relating to the starting date for the new system and the possible implications of second-hand imports for the present fleet. I indicated that, while I had already examined many of the issues raised, I would give further consideration to the points made. I advised the House that there was some scope to table amendments on Committee Stage to address some of the Deputies' concerns.

I have addressed the main concerns raised by Opposition Deputies and some backbenchers who raised pertinent points. These amendments address three issues. I propose that anyone purchasing a low CO2-emitting new car in the first six months of 2008 will be switched to the lower CO2 based motor tax rate on the first renewal of his or her motor tax after 1 July 2008. This is provided for in amendment No. 10. We are doing the switching. As it is not up to people to opt in or opt out, we are doing them a favour. They will get the best possible bargain.

To address the anomaly whereby an existing low CO2 emitting car would be at a disadvantage compared to an equivalent second-hand import post July 2008, I propose that such imports will be dealt with on the same basis as the present fleet. This is provided for in amendment No. 6. I propose that there will be equity between cars registered here as new from 2008 and future imports of equivalent second-hand cars. This is also provided for in amendment No. 6.

As originally drafted, subsection 2(2) provides for the introduction of the new CO2 based motor tax system from 1 July 2008. The purpose of amendment No. 2 is to amend this provision to provide for anyone who purchases a low CO2 emitting new car in the first six months of 2008 to switch to the lower CO2 based motor tax rate on first renewal of motor tax after 1 July 2008.

I welcome the change of mind indicated by the Minister in his amendments. It was a glaring anomaly referred to by many in their Second Stage speeches in respect of people who had made the sound environmental decision to buy a second-hand or new vehicle to address the new motor tax bands. I seek clarification in this regard. Will this amendment deal with new cars only or will it deal with all vehicles from 1 January, based on CO2 emissions?

I have heard Ministers and other Departments stating that backdating a measure was very difficult and that all sorts of advice has been received on retrospection from Attorneys General. Did the Minister receive advice from the Attorney General to the effect that it was in order to backdate this measure to 1 January? What is the impact on those who already have paid their motor tax since 1 January? Will a refund be made or what administrative arrangements can be set out to deal with this issue?

This point is highly relevant. People who buy new cars, especially at the beginning of the year, naturally tend to tax them for a year because they believe they will be in possession of such cars for at least a year. Therefore, an anomaly again arises in the Minister's amendment, in that the concession will be made from the first renewal of one's tax. Consequently, when compared with those who taxed their cars for six months, as one is likely to do with a second-hand car, those who taxed their cars for a year will be discriminated against. Is this the case? What will happen in respect of cars purchased early in 2008 to those who taxed their cars for a full year? Such people will not receive the benefit of this amendment until 1 January 2009. This would constitute a severe penalty on those who own the same type of cars as those who taxed their vehicles for three or six months.

The Labour Party welcomes the Bill's overall intent, which is to move from a taxation system based on engine size to a carbon emissions-based system. All members welcome this. I seek clarification from the Minister because there appears to have been something of a moveable feast since the Bill was last discussed in the Dáil Chamber. This was followed by the announcement by the Minister last Thursday morning and again this morning. The Minister's comments last Thursday morning have allowed the idea of retrospection to enter the domain. While listening to "Morning Ireland" last week, I heard a representative of the motor trade welcome such a move. This is understandable, given that many cars stuck on forecourts would not have been shifted in 2008 unless something was done.

I acknowledge the Minister has taken on board a number of the concerns raised and I hope that other concerns will be dealt with this morning. From members' perspectives it does not matter who tabled the amendments once the desired outcome is achieved. During my Second Stage contribution, I raised the issue of Japanese imports with the Minister. He should revert to me on this subject because my research has revealed an anomaly pertaining to Japanese imports to Ireland. Although second-hand Northern Irish, British and European cars that are imported will benefit from the new regime, it appears that Japanese imports will not. This appears anomalous as cars that have been manufactured by the same company will be treated differently because the country from which they are being imported differs. The Minister should clarify the position.

Last week, the date of 1 July applied to all new cars and, in addition, the categories would be put in place for any car imported after 1 July. However, the Minister has now indicated that the date is being brought back to 1 January for new cars. Will this also apply to imported second-hand cars? Has the Minister indicated there is scope to deal with the key point under debate this morning? I refer to those who bought low-emissions cars in recent years when it was neither fashionable nor profitable and who did so with no other motivation than to improve the environment. Will such people continue to be out of the loop in respect of this new taxation system?

To whom is the Deputy referring?

The people who in the past couple of years, when it was neither fashionable nor profitable, purchased low CO2 emission vehicles. Under the proposed amendment, will they remain outside the loop after 1 January or 1 July?

I will start by answering the Deputy's final question. We must have a starting date which has been fixed as 1 January this year. Many, including myself, will say they went green a number of years ago. I test drove the Prius when I was Lord Mayor of Dublin some 13 or 14 years ago. Clearly, we cannot go back that far. My information is that most are satisfied with how this matter is being progressed. I will come back to the other questions later.

Deputy Hogan asked if this measure would apply to all new vehicles.

Will it apply to second-hand vehicles or to new vehicles only from 1 January?

It will apply to new vehicles only. The Deputy also asked about retrospection and whether I had received advice from the Attorney General. We could not progress without first receiving the go-ahead from the Attorney General.

It is a moveable feast for the Attorney General. However, I will come back to that matter another day.

The word "retrospection" is probably not the correct one in this regard. The Deputy has used it a lot but in this case it is not applicable. It is not an appropriate word to use.

What would the Minister call it?

It is a common-sense decision.

I agree, although it took us a while to get through to the Minister.

He is starting to see the light.

Is it backdating or retrospection?

I will sit down and discuss with Deputies any good ideas they may have on the matter. Let us be honest. As Deputy Lynch said, we were facing a difficult situation in that the success of the measure would radically change behaviour to the extent that vehicles would remain in garage forecourts. The reality is that VRT returns and local government funds will be greatly reduced by this measure. Many advertisements on radio relate to the level of CO2 emissions from cars. This measure will result in an enormous change in motorists' behaviour. I am glad we can do this now.

As regards whether motorists who have already paid motor tax will receive a refund, the answer is no. They will obtain the benefit when they next pay their motor tax. They understand this. People can opt to pay motor tax on a three month, six month or yearly basis. The benefits will kick in when they next pay motor tax. That is how it will work.

The Minister did not clarify the situation in respect of a person who taxed his or her car for 12 months. Most Deputies change their cars after rather than prior to a general election for various reasons. In most cases the vehicle is hardly worth keeping following an election. I changed my car after the election, bearing in mind the environmental benefits associated with car I purchased. However, I will not qualify for a refund because I changed my car in 2007. The person who changed his or her car in January this year and taxed it for 12 months will not gain any benefit in the first year.

Not in the first year but after that they will benefit. I am sure the Deputy will appreciate that administratively it would be difficult. It is a long-standing practice in tax matters.

Does everybody who bought a car prior to 2008 benefit when he or she next pays motor tax?

They are out of the loop.

Deputy McCormack's question illustrates that the implementation of the changes that will come into effect on 1 July 2008 raises practical issues. VRT will also pose difficulties. In hindsight, it would have been better if 1 January had been the date set for the implementation of all measures. I know the question of a lead in time was debated.

The Deputy referred to the radio programme last week, where the gentleman from SIMI welcomed these measures. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government was specifically asked by the motor industry to have a lead in time.

They were wrong.

The industry saw the effect it was having and then asked us to deal with it.

They got it in the neck from the dealers.

Did the Minister consider a general system of rewarding owners of low emission cars? The changes are welcome, but only people who buy a new car are rewarded, whereas people with low emission cars which do not come under the legislation are ignored. The legislation encourages people to buy a new low emission car and some people will buy one just for the badge of being "greener".

I know what the Deputy is saying. I referred previously to those who were very conscientious and bought the Prius ten years ago. They are not seeing a benefit from this measure. However, in all legislation, one must have a starting point and no matter what way one approaches the issue, there are complexities and difficulties. I think we have ironed out as many as we possibly can at this stage. Deputy Hogan is quite right that it is very hard to predict behaviour, but it is evident from the initial figures that a major switch over has already taken place. Many people believed this measure was coming in January and there has been a major switch to the diesel car. We are quite low down in the European diesel car league table, but that is now set to change. With that change come further environment difficulties because although the diesel car has lower emissions of CO2, in terms of PM 10s and 2.5s emissions are much higher and we must address that. In some cities which are very conscious of the particulate matter, they say a diesel car should not be allowed into a city because of the particulate matter. Those are the complexities we and this committee must address at a future date.

The Minister referred to the dramatic change to diesel cars. When I first drove a diesel car the cost of diesel was 30 or 40 pence lower than petrol, while now it is 3 cent or 4 cent dearer than petrol. Is there an explanation as to the reason diesel has become dearer than petrol? I cannot understand why the price of diesel has shot above the price of petrol when previously it was much cheaper.

That is the subject matter of the Bill. We are intrigued. Diesel used to be cheaper, but now it is as dear or dearer.

I do not have an answer to that question. As the Chairperson knows, it is not my direct responsibility.

I was certain the Minister would know the answer.

I agree with the Minister that this has resulted in a massive cultural change in the motor industry in terms of how cars are marketed and advertised and in respect of consumer choice.

Perhaps the Minister will elaborate on tax renewal. The message is going out that people who have already purchased a car will be included. However, I do not believe that is what he is saying. As regards diesel, the AA and other motoring organisations are predicting that under the new regime which will come into force on 1 July diesel cars will account for 60% of cars in the market. What will be the net revenue implications of that? Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 have been ruled out of order as they would result in a cost to the Exchequer. What would be the Exchequer implications of 60% of the car fleet operating on diesel?

An issue also arises in respect of bio-fuel. My car runs on bio-fuel. One would use almost a gallon of petrol trying to find a bio-fuel station. Where does one purchase bio-fuel? Does the Minister envisage the introduction of tax or promotional incentives to facilitate more bio-fuel depots coming on stream? The Minister in an article in The Irish Examiner last weekend outlined the conflict of the Bill in terms of whether it is revenue or environmentally driven. I acknowledge he must jostle this issue. The reality is that less than 2% of the motoring public, not a large number of the population, drive cars with low CO2 emissions. We need a renewal process which could be administered by either the local authorities or local tax offices.

The Government, prior to my election to the Dáil, introduced some strange legislation to accommodate all sorts of tax arrangements. The only benefit of the Bill was tax relief on a particular house. The Government introduced legislation to bail out AIB following the ICI debacle. Precedents have been created in many instances. Surely people who make environmentally sound decisions that are neither fashionable nor profitable at a particular time should benefit for doing so. Tax incentives should not be available only to those who do so now. Those who previously purchased low CO2 emission cars should be able to avail of this retrospectively.

The Minister is correct that the motor industry welcomed this measure because it was faced with a difficult situation. However, this is not about the motor industry or first or second-hand purchasing of cars. It is about the general public and consumers. The introduction of the vehicle registration tax will result in cars having a shelf life of only ten to 12 years. This will mean that subsequent owners of cars purchased on 31 December 2007 will never benefit from this new tax regime and older cars imported into this country will benefit from it. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that matter. I will reiterate the point before the Minister's official clarifies it for him.

Will a low CO2 emissions car manufactured in 2007, imported into Ireland in 2009 as a second-hand car which enters the VRT system, be covered by the new regime?

No, because it is based on the cc. Look at the amendment I am tabling today.

What the Minister is indicating is that there will be no motivation for people in the second-hand car industry to import low CO2 emission cars because there will be no profit when selling them on to customers.

No, I think we have addressed all those issues. We are introducing a measure to provide equity. There was an anomaly before we introduced this amendment. This amendment will mean that the imports are based on cc. That was to address the fleets of second-hand cars, which are based on cc as well and that evens it out.

So we will be unfair to everybody to iron out the difficulties.

One can say that we will be fair to everyone.

This will be unfair equally to everybody.

It is equity. Let me come back to the points Deputy Lynch made. Like Deputy Tuffy, he raised the whole question of the existing car fleet and those who have been green for many years. I take it the Deputy is referring to category A vehicles. If you open it up for category A, you can be sure the phone will be ringing and those in category B who have been green will want it opened up to them. Then it is a can of worms. Nothing motivates people more than something that will impact on their pockets. They will look at the Joneses, who they say are getting the benefit, and want it for themselves. It becomes untenable. I look at all of this because my natural inclination would be to say to those who were green before it was fashionable--

Environmentally conscious.

I like to use the word "green", I do not know why.

"Environmentally friendly" would be the term.

The Deputy can say environmentally friendly, but I will stick to "green" for the present.

That is ridiculous.

That would be desirable but whether it is practical is another question. At present, having looked at it in detail, it is not.

The Deputy also raised the question of the diesel fleet and the expert prediction that it will rise to 60%, when currently we are about at 16%. On average, Europe has about 50% diesel cars and the trend is upwards. It could well be that we get up to 60% within a certain period. I mentioned an important issue, the particulate matter from the diesel fleet. It has been discussed at the Council of Ministers and we need to go to Euro 5 standard so that we have filters on cars to take out the particulate matter. The sooner we do that the better. Believe it or not, in some cases we have clearer air because our cars have petrol engines. In places such as Holland, they have a serious problem with particulate matter. That is an issue we must address because we are beginning to understand that PM 10s and PM 2.5s are having an effect on people's respiratory system and have implications for heart and lungs. It is a major issue and it is calculated that quite a number of premature deaths are as a result of the PM content of diesel. We must seriously address this issue. I am not sure if there were other issues--

The Minister is able to go back retrospectively to August 2001 because the information is available.

That is debatable. I will talk about that later.

My understanding is that all cars going back to August 2001 are required to give the necessary emissions information on the manufacturing base. When the Minister is in the mood to go back retrospectively to January, he can do it for everybody who has bought a car manufactured since August 2001. That is the point Deputy Lynch is making and that would cover everybody who has made a sound environmental decision going back that far. I would not expect the Minister to go back any further to the time he was Lord Mayor of Dublin because that information would not have been available. Anyone who has been issued with a motor tax renewal would be in a position to avail of the benefits, going back to August 2001, of making those sound environmental decisions to which we referred, whether it is a new or a second-hand car.

The Minister has been up-front about the revenue implications and the impact this would have on the local government fund. That is a consideration and a balance must be struck. No matter where the cut-off point is there will be an administrative problem. However, we can have a better system than if we were only applying it to new cars. This is one of the anomalies raised on Second Stage that has not been addressed. Applying this measure to new cars from 1 January does not deal with people who criss-cross the Border with imported vehicles. Even though they may be doing the right thing by registering in this jurisdiction from 1 January 2008, they are not getting the benefit of the new motor tax regime though they have an imported vehicle.

I referred to this on Second Stage when I spoke about the national vehicle driver file and the fact that it does not have data on CO2 ratings in respect of new cars registered prior to May 2004, nor does it have CO2 ratings on previously owned imported cars. This is the reality with which we must deal. In the case of cars registered post May 2004, there are some discrepancies in the data in the national vehicle driver files. This has been supplied by Revenue. The CO2 values have not been used for business purposes heretofore, have not been collected as the basis for a fiscal charge and have not been authenticated to any degree.

The application of CO2 ratings to VRT and motor tax from July 2008 places a definite emphasis on the accuracy of the detail on the Revenue system. It is getting up to speed in this respect, ensuring we have accuracy on this point. The labelling system will be introduced soon in a short Bill that will be considered by this committee. I am introducing an environment miscellaneous Bill that will address a number of issues of major interest to this committee.

Revenue, through the use of CO2 values for VRT purposes, will automatically validate them for motor tax purposes. Legally, this Department is liable for the accuracy of CO2 data on the national vehicle driver file system where it is used for motor tax purposes. We examined this in detail but we must ensure the data are absolutely accurate. If we were to consider any other system, it would be extremely difficult in terms of administration.

What will the Government do to ensure local authorities are not left short if there is a shortfall in funding? It is possible that this change will not make much difference to those who can afford new cars. It may not affect their behaviour. Will the Minister check what the impact has been on buyer behaviour?

It is clear that it is having an effect on buyer behaviour. The likelihood is that it will be even more pronounced after July. People are not going to postpone their purchasing options. There was a legitimate concern that people would have waited until July and, having gone on summer holidays, could have decided to wait until January. That was a legitimate concern of the Minister for Finance and others who considered the depletion of VRT revenue.

We are in uncharted territory in respect of the local government fund. We must see how successful we are. If we are successful, we will have less money. This is the balancing act to which I referred in the Irish Examiner. As the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government I want people to drive low emission cars and I want them to use their cars less. This has revenue implications. If one is buying less petrol that has implications for the Exchequer, as does driving a low emission car. The driver will pay less but the Exchequer will receive less money. We must examine the purchasing behaviour of people and track it. I and the Minister for Finance must examine the revenue implications of what we are doing. It is an obvious point but one that must be addressed. We will see its impact in a year. I am confident we will see a radical shift in behaviour. We will consider the implications for the local government fund at a later stage.

There are other indications. The 2007 purchaser will be doubly penalised. If he or she trades in the car, it is not nearly as valuable as the 2008 car, yet by keeping the car, the person gets no benefit from the new regime. The people consciously bought cars with a lower level of emissions with the environment in mind, long before this was considered. The garage will tell the seller that the 2007 car cannot be sold and that waiting until 2008 would have increased the value of the car by up to €2,000. If the person holds on to the car, there is also a penalty. The person will gain nothing by selling the car in 2008 or 2009 because he or she will be penalised on the sale of the old car. Does the Minister agree that these people are seriously discriminated against?

There is a good cop, bad cop routine here, with Deputy Hogan talking about the environmental benefits and Deputy McCormack talking about--

He is looking for the money for them.

I am as conscious of the environment as is the Minister. The person who bought the car in 2007 succeeded in being more environmentally friendly but has been penalised severely financially.

The main anomaly pointed out and addressed this morning is that these people would be penalised because allowing imports to be based on CO2 would have led to discrimination. That matter has been addressed and we have equity across the board in terms of second-hand imports. Regarding the point about selling the car, people on the old system are obviously disadvantaged but one must start and allow the legislation to take effect at some point. There is no way of doing otherwise.

The people who will import cars manufactured after 2001 will be at a disadvantage.

One could get a good deal on a second-hand car later in the year, but it might not be environmentally friendly.

Market forces come into play.

I thank the Minister for his ongoing contribution. I am trying to get my head around the latest revelation or announcement of policy this morning, as a significant jump has been taken that I wish to clarify before we adjourn. Otherwise, I will need to watch "Oireachtas Report" tonight to find out what occurred in this room.

The date of 1 July has been repeated a number of times in terms of the new system. Motor dealers in the first-hand market were anxious that something would be done. They welcome what is occurring, which is necessary given the subsequent domino effect. A twin-track taxation system after 1 July is envisaged, that is, cars bought this year and afterwards and cars bought before this year will be in separate taxation systems. Were one the owner of a company selling new cars, it would appear to be a wise business decision to pre-register cars of a particular engine design before 1 July and sell them afterwards as pre-registered, zero mileage 2008 cars to avail of the lower taxation system of the old band. Is this correct?

The Deputy is stating that people who want to pre-register would choose - they could not opt under the legislation - the cc or CO2 system, depending on which was more beneficial.

If someone has a large CO2 emitting gas guzzler on the forecourt, pre-registers it in June and sells it in July as a 2008 pre-registered zero mileage car, he or she would be able to opt into the old system. Is this correct?

It is not a question of opting. Let us examine the Deputy's statement.

People can do it. It would make business sense for someone to do so.

Is the Deputy referring to SUVs and so on?

It is a consequence of the legislation, but I have examined the figures and, at this stage, there is a clear move away from SUVs. People should not be encouraged to go down the SUV or gas guzzler route, although it is not just a matter of SUVs. During the coming years, there will be additional penalties or discouragement in terms of those who wish to buy gas guzzlers. People have got the message and know that it does not make sense environmentally or, the most important aspect, economically. Not everyone is environmentally conscious, but the majority is aware of its pockets.

As we leave the committee room this morning and move to Report Stage in the Dáil next week, we are clear that the Minister's primary amendment means that the House intends to legislate to treat everyone in the second-hand car market equally. No one in that category will avail of the low taxation system, irrespective of whether the second-hand car is Irish or an import.

That point was made on Second Stage. People requested a level playing field, which is what they are getting.

We have had a good discussion. Does anyone have final points to make?

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.
Section 2, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
SECTION 5.

I move amendment No. 5:

In page 4, line 35, to delete "vehicle concerned;"," and substitute the following:

"vehicle concerned;

'new vehicle' has the same meaning as it has in section 133 of the Finance Act 1992;",".

Amendment agreed to.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
Sections 6 and 7 agreed to.
SCHEDULE.

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 9, to delete lines 52 to 61 and in page 10, to delete lines 3 to 28 and substitute the following:

"(d) any vehicle which is—

(i) a new vehicle which is registered on or after 1 July 2008 under section 131 of the Finance Act 1992 as a category A vehicle, or

(ii) registered outside of the State on or after 1 January 2008 and which is subsequently registered in the State on or after 1 July 2008 under section 131 of the Finance Act 1992 as a category A vehicle and which has an identification mark assigned by the Revenue Commissioners under section 131(5) of the Finance Act 1992 which signifies that the vehicle was first brought into use during or after the year 2008,

and which has a CO2 emissions level—

(I) not exceeding 120 grams per kilometre,€100

(II) exceeding 120 grams per kilometre but not exceeding 140 grams per kilometre,€150

(III) exceeding 140 grams per kilometre but not exceeding 155 grams per kilometre,€290

(IV) exceeding 155 grams per kilometre but not exceeding 170 grams per kilometre,€430

(V) exceeding 170 grams per kilometre but not exceeding 190 grams per kilometre,€600

(VI) exceeding 190 grams per kilometre but not exceeding 225 grams per kilometre,€1,000

(VII) exceeding 225 grams per kilometre,€2,000

(VIII) that—

(A) cannot be confirmed by the Revenue Commissioners by reference to therelevant EC type-approval certificate or EC certificate of conformity, and

(B) the Revenue Commissioners are not satisfied of by reference to any otherdocument produced in support of the declaration for registration pursuant to thatsection 131, €2,000”

Amendment agreed to.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 not moved.

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 10, line 29, column (1), to delete "other vehicles" and substitute

"subject to subparagraph (f) of this paragraph, other vehicles”.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 10.

In page 11, to delete line 37 and substitute the following:

"(xxiii) electrically propelled,€146

(f) where a vehicle mentioned in paragraph 6(e) which at the time of registration is a new vehicle—

(i) which is registered under section 131 of the Finance Act 1992 as a category A vehicle during the period beginning on 1 January 2008 and ending on 30 June 2008, and

(ii) in respect of which the rate of duty that would have applied to it under paragraph 6(d)(i), if that paragraph had been in operation when it was so registered, is less than the rate of duty specified in relation to it in paragraph 6(e),

then, the rate of duty as respects that vehicle for licences taken out under section 1 of this Act on or after 1 July 2008 for periods beginning on or after that date shall be the rate of duty specified in paragraph 6(d)(i).”

Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Title agreed to.

I thank the Minister and his officials for their attendance.

I thank the Chair and members for their input. If Deputies opposite have outstanding issues they wish to address or if ideas occur to them in the next few days, they should contact me. I will be happy to address such issues and examine them in detail so that they can be considered on Report Stage. I again thank members for their co-operation.

Bill reported with amendments.
Barr
Roinn