Eamonn Maloney (Dublin South West, Labour)

I acknowledge and to some extent anticipated the arguments that would be presented against my argument.

However, my argument, based on other jurisdictions, is that when one considers the value for money for the State, meaning the taxpayer, and when one adds in all the examples I have illustrated such as policing, police time in court and so on, it is more beneficial. I forgot to include the most important factor, that is, the avoidance of motor tax. I do not wish to use figures from the United Kingdom as comparisons are difficult but I am aware of them and this factor gives rise to a substantial loss to the Exchequer. My point is that were one to accumulate what is lost by the State in respect of motor tax avoidance and what it loses in policing time, court time and so on, the gain for the State and for the taxpayer becomes evident. I do not suggest this proposed system is perfect but in terms of cost efficiency, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government should consider the position in other jurisdictions and then raise the argument as to how it continues with that system. I argue that we lose more money for the State by continuing with the present archaic system.

See this speech in context