Noel Harrington (Cork South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Bill. It is interesting to note some of the differing views put forward by members of the Technical Group. I welcome Deputy Finian McGrath's support for the Bill. However, I am disappointed with those Members who have used this debate as an opportunity to attack the Government for not funding local government and roads infrastructure throughout rural Ireland. To be honest, that approach is somewhat perplexing.

The purpose of the Bill is to close off a loophole which, as the digest produced by the Oireachtas Library and Research Service indicates, could conceivably cost the State in the region of €88 million. The actual amount might not be as much as that. However, if it is in the correct ballpark then a huge amount of money which should be taken in is going uncollected. It is difficult to listen to some people accusing the Minister of accusing the Garda and public of some kind of conspiracy. Accusations were put forward to the effect that the Minister had admitted that gardaí and members of the public had been complicit in tax evasion. That is completely off the point. This matter is somewhat more nuanced than that and perhaps certain Members just do not get what is involved. The lack of controls relating to this matter could lead to a perception whereby motor tax evasion could conceivably occur. The position in this regard must be tightened up.

The motor taxation collected by local authorities is submitted directly to the Exchequer and then redistributed to those authorities through the local government fund. Ultimately, some but not all of this money is spent on our roads. I am of the view that the majority of moneys collected through the motor taxation system is not reinvested in the national and non-national road networks. I accept that the following matter may not be capable of being addressed in the Bill before the House. However, as time passes and as the position relating to the amount of funding available to local authorities via the property tax, etc., becomes clear, in circumstances where local authorities can raise their own funding then the motor taxation that is collected by them or other agencies should be ring-fenced for road maintenance, reconstruction and resurfacing. Road users are extremely concerned that the tax they pay is not invested in these areas. There is an element of cross-subsidisation in this regard and its days are numbered. I look forward to such cross-subsidisation coming to an end.

I raised a particular matter last week and I was disappointed that the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government was not in a position to provide the relevant figures. I refer to the motor taxation which applies in respect of vintage cars.

In the UK, the taxation on vintage cars is nil in most cases. I ask that consideration be given to minimising or removing the taxation of vintage car owners through registered clubs. These clubs do fantastic work in raising money for charities and they would welcome an alleviation of their tax contributions. I was hoping to have the figures for this debate, but they are not significant. Treating the clubs in this way would benefit them and acknowledge the fact that we value their work on behalf of charities throughout the country.

I am concerned about the administrative charge for the pre-removal declaration. It discourages compliance with the legislation. I accept that mandarins within the Department would like to maximise the revenue accruing from the closing of this anomaly, but if we are asking people to take steps to pre-declare so that they can be more tax compliant and responsible car users, it is unfair to charge them as well. We should encourage the declaration system, not discourage it.

I have noted the scale of the problem. According to the research done by the Library service, which I commend, the Comptroller and Auditor General's figures on vehicles using the M50 identified a significant problem, in that cars that had been declared as being off the road were using the tolls. The figures speak for themselves.

The Bill's measures would go a long way towards acknowledging the immense tax contribution of road users to road maintenance. Regrettably, not all of their taxes are used for the roads. This issue should be addressed.

I wish to ask a technical question on arrears. If a car is sold with motor tax arrears outstanding, the new owner should not be liable to pay them. We need a system to ensure that this does not happen. It is already the case in respect of commercial rates. If a tenant takes over a vacant building on which rates arrears are outstanding, he or she must pay them if they have not been settled by the landlord. This inhibitive system should be addressed.

I welcome the Bill. It is a necessary step in bringing compliance and fairness. For those who are compliant and pay their motor tax, it is inherently unfair that others take advantage of a loophole in the system. If the Bill accrues additional revenue for the Local Government Fund, so be it, but that revenue should be ring-fenced in future for car users and enthusiasts. We would all like this to be the case, particularly those of us in areas of rural Ireland where public transport is sporadic at best and non-existent at worst. Our road network is our lifeline and we would like to see greater investment in maintenance, reconstruction and resurfacing works through the local authorities, which could do with the extra money necessary. I thank the Acting Chairman for the opportunity to contribute on the Bill.

See this speech in context