The issue I raise is hydrotreated vegetable oil, HVO, which is an alternative to diesel. It is an extraordinary product that comes from the treatment of plant matter with hydrogen. I am not going to pretend for a moment that I understand how it works, but I know that the product that results from it is interchangeable with diesel in cars, for example, and results in a 90% reduction in carbon emissions when it is used. We have this fuel and 20% of the global output, which is over 30 million tonnes, originates within the European Union. It is sustainable from the point of view of carbon emissions, the sourcing of the fuel and energy security within the European Union. It is a fuel that is key to making our targets under the obligation to reduce our carbon emissions by 50% by 2030. It is committed to in the programme for Government, which specifically commits to increasing the use of HVO and carbon-reducing fuels. It also commits to better tracking to ensure HVO comes from sustainable sources, reviewing tax policy to encourage HVO use and engaging with the EU to allow incentives for low-emission fuels. All of that is great, but at the moment HVO is subject essentially to the same tax regime as its much more carbon-heavy cousin, the traditional diesel that is put into cars. HVO does not result in a drop in performance or damage to the engine. It is endorsed by major car manufacturers. It is used by large companies, including the Dublin Airport Authority and Sisk contractors. It is already in use. It is available on forecourts in centres such as Maxol in Inver. This is the real question: why are we charging the same rate of tax on HVO as we are on diesel when there are myriad benefits to using HVO instead of diesel and when we are reducing our carbon emissions by 90%? We are not losing anything and are using a sustainable fuel that can be sourced right here in the European Union. The fuel is subject to 23% VAT, which I do not really have a problem with. It is also subject to the biofuels levy, which, at 0.1 of a cent per litre, is not a big deal. However, it is also subject to the mineral oil tax. HVO biofuel substituted for auto diesel is subject to the same non-carbon component of excise. That makes no sense at all. We have committed in the programme for Government to going down the road of finding alternative fuels that are going to reduce our emissions. Let us be honest, transport is one of the major sources of emissions in this country. I should say that HVO is taxed less through VAT when it is used as home heating oil, but as a vehicle fuel it is taxed at the same rate as diesel. Why are we not saying that this is a way we can address one of the major sources of carbon emissions in Ireland, that is, transport? This fuel can be used in buses and cars. Whatever uses diesel can also use HVO. Everybody in this House knows how important it is that we meet those 2030 targets. It is important not just because of the financial aspect of the potential fines, which will increase as the availability of carbon emissions trading reduces, but also because the value of making those targets to secure this country and this world against the effects of climate change is enormous. If we are serious about that, why are we saying to people who are using diesel cars or diesel fuel that it does not matter if they use HVO or diesel, when we know that, in fact, it does matter? Why are we telling them they will pay the same amount of tax and the same levies, and that it will cost them the same to use diesel, which is a massive pollutant, as HVO, which has 90% less carbon emissions? Can we not get our act together enough to implement the promises we made in the programme for Government to make it easier for people to chose the sustainable fuel that HVO is?

Sentiment score: 0.16

Topical Issue Debates are a really important way that we can raise issues and get direct answers. I entirely respect that the Minister of State is taking a number of matters that do not come under his Department’s remit. However, it is a source of some frustration that the line Minister from the Department is not here because that would be much more useful. I could just have tabled a written question on the matter. It would have been more helpful if a Minister from the Department to which this issue relates had been here. I appreciate what the Minister of State said. I recognise the veracity of everything in his response and the progress being made. As stated, however, HVO is a perfectly adequate substitute for traditional diesel. It emits 90% less carbon without compromising the energy it provides as fuel for diesel engines. The transport sector is one of the larger emitters of carbon in our economy. In the climate action plan, we have committed to reducing our carbon emissions by 50% by 2030. This is a key way in which we could do that. I do not know whether the decision not to reduce the tax on HVO is based on the loss the Exchequer might suffer as a result. That is fine, but whatever loss the Exchequer suffers would pale in comparison with the fines we will face after 2030 if we do not meet our target of reducing emissions by 50%. Let us get serious about implementing real tax changes, and just not for the sake of it. We must say to consumers that doing this would be to their benefit, not just in terms of the environmental impact or reducing the emissions from their cars but also because they will feel the impact in their pockets. We must also informed that, as well as saving 90% on emissions, it would be cheaper to put HVO into their cars. Let us make this a real choice for consumers who drive diesel cars. Let us make it easy for them to chose a more sustainable and less carbon-emitting fuel.

Sentiment score: 0.13