2026-04-21

231. Deputy Pearse Doherty asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance if he is aware of the issue around accessing and cash flow in relation to the diesel rebate scheme; if consideration has been given to providing the benefit of the diesel rebate scheme as a direct cut on excise on diesel at the pumps; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [26925/26]

Obviously, the priority questions were submitted before the announcements last week, which the Government was forced to make by people pressure and by parties in opposition like Sinn Féin, but we know that half measures do not cut it. Still we see so many people, particularly hauliers, who are locked out of the rebate scheme. There are reasons for this, such as if they are transporting livestock, their own product or if they do not have a haulage licence. There is a serious issue with cash flow. I have argued time and again with the Taoiseach that the direct reduction needs to be given at the fuel pumps. That would benefit not only hauliers but also everybody else who relies on petrol and diesel and who are paying extortionate prices during this time of crisis. Will the Tánaiste finally listen, see sense and actually cut fuel prices to affordable levels at the pumps?

I have looked at this issue in terms of both access and cash flow in relation to the diesel rebate scheme. As the Deputy knows, the diesel rebate scheme is a state aid that provides qualifying road haulage and passenger transport operators with a partial repayment of mineral oil tax paid on auto diesel. The scheme operates in accordance with the EU's energy tax directive, as it must, and with the general block exemption regulation on state aid. In 2025, almost €40 million was paid out under the scheme, providing targeted support to the road haulage and passenger transport sectors. The diesel rebate scheme rate of repayment is linked to the average retail price of auto diesel, based on data from the CSO. A 7.5 cent rebate has applied to all claims over the period from quarter 1 of 2021 to quarter 4 of 2025. In response to the current fuel crisis, I recently increased the repayment cap from 7.5 cent per litre to 12 cent per litre. This enhanced repayment rate applies to claims in respect of fuel purchased from 1 January to 30 June this year. The Deputy raised a genuinely interesting point regarding the point at which the rebate is applied. I have been looking into this. I am advised by Revenue that the operation of the diesel rebate scheme on a remission basis at the pump is not compatible with the legal basis of the scheme as repayment rates are determined on an ex-post basis. I looked at whether the scheme could be redesigned but, even if the scheme were redesigned, the application of mineral oil tax reductions at the pump to qualifying transport operators would require the introduction of complex real-time validation systems and shift compliance risks to fuel retailers. For these reasons, Revenue considers that improvements are more appropriately focused on administrative efficiencies to lead to faster repayments. Revenue encourages customers to file claims immediately when the period to claim opens, which I believe many do, and to ensure that claims are completed correctly and that supporting documentation is available if requested by Revenue. Revenue is mindful of the financial impact of the current increase in fuel prices and the importance of the rebate scheme to licensed operators. It will work with claimants who are unable to obtain tax clearance on a case-by-case basis. Where a claimant has tax clearance and yet has some tax liabilities, Revenue will process any claim and offset any refunds against liabilities. I will have another chance to come in but, as is always the case with cash flow issues, it is important that there is engagement with Revenue. I know that Revenue will be constructive in that regard.

The Tánaiste is missing the point here.

I am trying not to.

I do not know if he is doing it deliberately or not. If you cut excise duty directly at the pump, it benefits the hauliers, transport operators and bus companies that need that measure for cash flow, but it also benefits everybody else. It benefits carers, nurses, doctors, teachers, street cleaners and everybody else in society. That is what should be happening here. That is the best way to cut costs for the hauliers, who would then not have to wait three months and deal with more paperwork and red tape as they fill in applications to the rebate scheme. What people are demanding and took to the streets for, although the Tánaiste refused to listen to them, is a cut to excise duty at the pumps. They wanted costs driven down. There is still capacity to do some of that because we are still not at the minimum levels of excise duty on petrol and diesel. A carer who rocks up to the petrol station tomorrow will pay €2.07 per litre. He or she is paying more excise duty on that litre of diesel than is required under EU law. That is a fact and that is wrong. It is wrong at a time of huge surpluses in this State and when the Government now has €4.1 billion extra that it did not expect to have. People are really suffering but the Government is still refusing to listen, refusing to understand and, what is worse, refusing to act appropriately.

I will make a couple of points. We are not refusing to listen and we are certainly not refusing to act. We have brought in one of the largest packages of support in the European Union. That is a statement of fact. That is the right thing to do because our economy enables us to. Second, I do not say this to be argumentative but, on diesel, the advice available to me is that we have actually gone further than the energy tax directive allows. We have had to write to Europe to seek a derogation in that regard. That is genuinely advice that has been made available to me. We have gone further than we should have under the EU energy tax directive, such is the scale of the challenge around diesel. Third, I am answering the specific question the Deputy tabled, No. 231, which relates to the diesel rebate scheme. This is a very valuable scheme. Hauliers value it and farm contractors sought it. The sector sees value in the scheme. The Deputy asked me what I thought was a very legitimate question and I am endeavouring to answer it in good faith. He asked whether there is a better way of administering the scheme. The specific question I was asked was whether we should look at trying to provide the benefit of this scheme as a direct cut. The advice available to me suggests that would not be the most effective way to go about it and that it could actually lead to a greater administrative burden. Cash flow is a real issue and the Deputy is right to highlight it. I have asked the Revenue Commissioners to try to identify further administrative efficiencies to further improve this scheme from a cash flow perspective.

Does the Minister accept that the nurse pulling up to a petrol station, putting diesel into her car and paying €2.07 per litre, the price I was seeing last night, is paying more excise duty on that fuel than is required under EU law? It is a simple question.

Is the Deputy asking about excise duty on petrol or on diesel?

I am asking about diesel. Under European law, the minimum excise duty to be imposed on her diesel is €330 per 1,000 litres. She is paying more than that. That is the reality. The issue here is that the resources are in the State. The Minister knows that. The money is there. The money is there to help people. It is there to help hauliers, nurses and gardaí. It is there to help the people but the Minister is refusing to do that. His head has been seriously stuck in the sand for the past two weeks. People power had to be employed in ways it had never been before to get Deputies Simon Harris and Micheál Martin to wake up and listen. These half jobs are not good enough. Some €2.07 is far too high when it comes on top of everything else, including all of the pressures and the withdrawal of various supports from families last October. That is what the Minister is missing and what he is failing to understand. This question was very simple. The Minister can do this in a different way, which would benefit everybody but he does not want to do it because he is penny-pinching.

We really are not. Significant lessons have been learned from the past number of weeks. The Deputy and I might agree on some and completely and utterly disagree on others. I was disappointed to see his support for blockades. I was not disappointed to see him joining protests. In fact, I would expect him to do so. That is fine in a democracy.

I was disappointed when you threatened them with the Army.

I was genuinely disappointed to see several of the Deputy's colleagues refuse to condemn illegal action. I do think that is genuinely disappointing. We have to pull together and do our best. What I would say to those the Deputy has highlighted in this House, the nurses and those in other professions, is that the actions we have taken are real. There is €750 million worth of measures. The Deputy knows this brief well so he will know that not only will this package have a particular benefit in reducing the price of diesel and petrol compared to what it would have been and do things like extending the fuel allowance period and putting in place a diesel rebate scheme for hauliers and a package for farmers, but that it will also have the effect of reducing the inflation rate by about 0.6%. That is the advice of the chief economist. Although the inflation we will end up seeing in supermarkets will be too high as a result of this war, the rate would have been 0.6% higher were it not for this package. That also has a real and genuine benefit in trying to insulate people. We also have to keep some firepower for the winter. I have no doubt but that the Deputy will, quite rightly, have many ideas on what we should do to help people through a winter challenge. An energy crisis in the winter is even more challenging than one in the summer. This is a balance. I think the step-by-step approach is genuinely the right one.