David Norris (Independent)

I welcome the Minister. This is quite a technical Bill to read. The language is complicated and convoluted. I can give one random example which would do credit to the late Myles na gCopaleen. Section 7(c)(ii) states, "in respect of which the rate of duty that would have applied to it under subparagraph (d)(i), if that subparagraph had been in operation when it was so registered and had applied to it, is less than the rate of duty specified in relation to it in subparagraph (e)...". That would have been gloriously appropriate in "An Crúiscín Lán" when I used to read it. I am not professing any enormous capacity to follow the labyrinthine drafting of this Bill, although I do not intend to criticise the people who drafted it. I am just making the point that it is a complicated exercise, but the motivation behind it is uncomplicated. The motivation is to raise money. I am worried, however, because it is clear that in the first instance this money will not go for the provision of services to those who pay for them - at least, not for automobile drivers. That is a bad principle because once one establishes a procedure, it becomes extremely difficult to reverse the trend. This is particularly so with the Department of Finance which is a fairly tough, if sometimes inefficient, Department. If in year one, the revenue generated goes to the Exchequer, in my opinion - and I hope to be proved wrong - there is a strong likelihood that it will continue to go to the Exchequer. It would be a serious sign of the deterioration of living standards in this country if roads continue to disimprove. I could go on about that at length but I will not because it is only marginally relevant.

My difficulty with the Bill is that it does not follow another principle, which I addressed when a previous Minister was sitting in the current Minister's chair. Mr. Gormley introduced legislation which did not follow the "polluter pays" principle, which he so often advocated. I suggested for that reason that it would be much more logical, if one believed in environmental protection, to increase the duty on petrol and diesel. I am a realist and recognise that in circumstances where so many people are experiencing straitened situations with regard to their personal finances, this may impose a difficult burden for them and it could also impede industry. I know all the arguments but at the end of the day that is the one thing that addresses the matter

directly.

I want to declare a personal interest in this matter. I have a very beautiful motoring car. It is a Jaguar XJ6, which I bought for €6,000. The combined annual tax and insurance on it is €3,000. I use it once a week to go to St. Patrick's Cathedral and then to the club for lunch. That is it, unless it is pouring rain or I have an enormous amount of documents to bring to Leinster House. Apart from that, I walk and why would I not do so? I live within a mile or so of this building. However, if there are any more increases I will pay every single year in tax and insurance what I paid for the car originally. That would be completely and absolutely daft. If the tax were levied on fuel, however, I could continue to enjoy my car. It is probably the nicest looking vehicle in the Leinster House car park and is also certainly the cheapest. I know this is just one person's argument, but it is an argument with which other people in the same situation might also agree.

I accept we are in a difficult situation and I understand this is a revenue-generating measure. I have concerns, however, that it may never revert to being something that pays for motorists' interests. I do not see the logic of increasing taxation on old motor cars - that are pleasant to drive and are kept in immaculate condition - to such a level that it becomes impossible to maintain them.