Dan Boyle (Cork South Central, Green Party)

If that is the case, the Minister could have chosen in advance of that review to terminate reliefs that are obviously inequitable. He could have chosen to put maximum tax reliefs in place on a cumulative basis and on an individual basis in terms of each tax relief that is being offered. He has chosen not to do so. That he has chosen not to do so means he has decided that the tax inequity that exists will continue under his stewardship. I find that most regrettable.

There are two measures concerning how the Minister has treated the environment. One is a measure that has been forced on the Minister and one is an extension of a measure that already exists. The Minister is introducing the concept through the European energy directive of a European Union energy tax as it applies to coal. He accepts this will be minimal because it does not apply to domestic coal. I find it strange, in view of his predecessor's decision not to proceed with an energy or carbon tax, that the only allowance to introduce such a tax has been the obligation forced on it by the EU.

The second measure extending the VRT exemption on hybrid cars has been patronisingly presented by the Minister as an environmental measure. The only reference in the Finance Act 2004 was a small but significant measure that has yet to be introduced providing support for the extra biofuels. While this measure has been described as a political State aid by the European Commission, the Government's efforts to challenge and change this opinion is in marked contrast to its efforts to challenge the State aid designation of the tax exemption on stallion fees, which it has approached with something of a panic reaction.

See this speech in context