Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Cuirim fáilte roimh an Aire Stáit. Tá pointí suimiúla sa reachtaíocht seo. Is dóigh liom go bhfuil an Teideal mícheart ar an mBille, áfach.

I thank the Minister of State, as always, for coming to the House. We always have good debates when he is here. He is supported on all sides of the House for trying to clamp down on the evasion of motor tax. However, in some cases, as Senator Keane mentioned, it might not be a matter of evasion and it may relate to the nature of what is going on in the economy. The business of car hire companies is not even throughout the year. They have to make a gamble in putting their cars into the various airports throughout the country without any guarantee that they will be hired. What is the position in that respect? There are difficulties in anticipating in advance how the tourism season will go and I am saying that at a time when there is optimism in that sector.

The same issue applies to plant hire companies. Their outlook has been very bad but it may improve. We hear plans for increases in capital expenditure but there was an immense decline in such expenditure in the past five or six years. It might be difficult for those companies to gauge the level of business they would have and how they should arrange the taxation of their vehicles.

Dublin Bus has a huge car park at Pace near Dunboyne that was built to facilitate rail commuters to and from the Docklands, Connolly and Pearse Stations. Dublin Bus has many buses parked there and it obviously felt there were good prospects in having that facility there but this was before the recession started to bite.

There are 5,000 fewer taxis on the road, and this is an issue we discussed with the Minister of State, Deputy Kelly. The number of taxis has decreased by 5,000 since 2008. We have to allow people to adjust to what is happening in the economy and to be flexible, being mindful that nobody in this House will support anybody engaged in tax evasion or avoidance. The Minister of State has our support on that.

Ideally in economics, and this relates to what Senator Keane said about the M50, the charge should be for using the road. That is where the cost arises for the State and perhaps increasingly more of the cost of road use should be taken through tolls or through the kind of monitoring that is done on the M50, and in a sense the fuel tax covers that in any event. Possession of a vehicle does not necessarily involve the Minister of State's Department in any expenditure, rather it is the use of the vehicle that requires his Department to construct and maintain roads.

With the recession, there is a seasonal migration of people from places such as Donegal and so on. Can arrangements be made to collect the tax when cars are used in this country as opposed to when the cars are not in use when people are in other countries? The level of migration from Ireland unfortunately has increased substantially during the recession. Those issues are covered in the Minister of State's speech and he has shown himself to be flexible but not where evasion is concerned. He has caught the feeling of the House and I hope he will be able to address some of those points.

On the Title of the Bill, the simple point is that the Title "Non-Use of Motor Vehicles" absolutely describes what is in the Bill until one gets to Part 4, which deals with the amendments of sections 4 and 6 of the Local Government Act 1998 covering arrangements for the payment of motor tax into the local government fund, the transfer of the driving licence function to the RSA, allowing payments from the local government fund to the RSA at section 12(a), provisional arrangements and the cost of administrating them and so on. As Senator Mooney said, the evasion rate of 5% is costing us €50 million annually, and we are talking about €1 billion in this context. There is a considerable amount to be disbursed and controlled and, as the Minister of State mentioned, the Comptroller and Auditor General has investigated it. I am in agreement with both parts of the Bill but the part at the end of the Bill is completely different and does not refer to the non-use of motor vehicles. Rather it refers to the use of vehicles, the taxes to be paid and how those taxes worth more than €1 billion in revenue are to be dispensed. In the era of transparency the Title of the Bill should reflect what is in it. What the Minister of State seeks to do in both parts of the Bill is important and I support it but the Title should incorporate that. A person trying to figure out the details of how this €1 billion plus is disbursed would need to be fairly inspired to know that the rules are contained under the Non-Use of Motor Vehicles Bill. I will leave that with the Minister of State. It is not a matter I would push at any Stage of the Bill. The Title of the Bill in general should reflect what the Bill seeks to do. This Bill will do two important things. I wish the Minister of State the best of good luck with both, but the later one should feature in the Title.