Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 4 Jun 1924

Vol. 7 No. 19

DUBLIN ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL, 1924, and EAST LEINSTER ELECTRICITY SUPPLY BILL, 1924. - FINANCE BILL, 1924—SECOND STAGE.

I move the Second Reading of the Finance Bill. There is no matter of any importance in the Bill which has not already been dealt with in my statement introducing the Finance Resolutions, or in the course of the discussion on the Finance Resolutions themselves. I think it is not necessary at this Stage to repeat any of that matter. It is not necessary, either, to go into the details of the measure until we reach the Committee Stage, so that I will content myself with formally moving the Second Reading.

There is one matter of some little importance which has not been referred to on the Resolutions, which cannot be referred to in the Committee Stage, and which I think can only be discussed now. As there are certain remissions of taxation, I think one is in order in inquiring from the Minister why he has not proposed certain other remissions or alterations. I refer to the question of the Motor Vehicles Duty. There is a very large and widespread opinion amongst users of motor-cars and others that the Motor Vehicles Duty on present lines is a mistaken duty, that it hits the man who uses a car comparatively moderately, very hard, and that it would be better to replace it by a tax on petrol. We must deal with this matter now, because, owing to the remissness of the last Dáil, the then Minister for Finance was enabled to get the Motor Vehicles Duty imposed until the Dáil should determine otherwise. As no private member can bring in a measure imposing a tax on petrol, that means almost indefinitely. I do not know what Deputy Johnson was doing when the section passed. As far as I can gather, it passed without discussion at all, except on the subject of the sugar duty. I would suggest to the Minister that in this respect the British precedent that he is following—a convenient one, I do not deny—is not altogether a sound one. It would be much more satisfactory and much more businesslike if we had all the taxes we are going to levy before us, and if we were not merely called upon to vote for certain variations in some taxes, for reductions and increases in other taxes, and to allow certain taxes to go without discussion at all. In this case, owing to the wide-awakeness of the President, and the neglect of the rest of the last Dáil, the Motor Vehicles Duty and the Mineral Rights Duty will not be discussed at all. Deputies have no information before them as to the scale on which they are fixed, and I do say it would be wise if the Minister could get away from the British Treasury precedent and give us full particular of all these taxes, so that we would have a fair opportunity of discussin them. With regard to the Motor Vehicles Duty, it is a tax which militates severely against the individual Private motor user, who only uses his car to a limited extent. He has to pay exactly the same duty as the man who uses his car every day, either for business or for pleasure. The Motor Vehicles Duty is supposed to go to the upkeep of the roads. The man who uses the roads in excess pays no more than the man who uses the roads one day during his holidays. Again, it is a very rigid duty. It has to be paid for a fixed period. You have either to take out a licence for a year or, at best, for a period of three months. And not for those three months that happen to suit you. Say, you want to use your car in June and July. You have to take out the licence for the period from March to September.

I believe that certain concessions have been made in the British Parliament to motor users with respect to the period of these licences, and I had hoped that the Minister would be in a position to indicate that he would consider certain concessions with regard to the period for which licences should be held. Instead of having to take out their licences on the 1st of April or the 1st of July, holders might be allowed to take one out for the three months beginning on the 1st June. There are many people who leave their cars up for the winter, and who use them only during the summer months. They ought not to be asked to take out a licence for the whole period. In another way, the present system seriously affects not only the ordinary motor owner but the person who uses a commercial motor vehicle, such as a taxi or a char-a-banc. The owner of a char-a-banc finds that he cannot afford to take out a licence for the whole year; he probably takes out a licence for the three months of July, August and September. That means that if there is a fine day at Easter there are very few char-a-bancs going to the country, and people anxious to travel find there are practically no facilities for doing so. At Whitsuntide a similar condition of affairs exists.

That is my argument against the existing method of collecting these duties. The present method, in my opinion, is a wrong and mistaken one. I think the policy of charging a flat rate on the mere possession of a motor car, rather than having a tax on the use of the vehicle and on the damage done to the roads, is unsound. I have no doubt the Minister will say that petrol is used for more purposes than running motor cars. It is to a limited extent used for lighting, and it is also used for the cleaning of ladies' clothes.

There can be another argument put forward that other things are used for the propulsion of motor cars than petrol. There is, for instance, benzol. There are a number of people who use benzol, or a mixture of benzol and petrol. I do not see that there can be much difficulty in taxing benzol. When the Minister is taxing boots, bottles, and barley sugar, I do not not see why he should not tax benzol and have a four b's instead of three. It is easier to collect the tax on the motor car than on the petrol; that is a perfectly legitimate argument, but it does not go so far as the Minister and his officials want to go. Convenience of collection must be considered. The convenience of the public should be considered as well as the convenience of the collector. The present system is very inconvenient to the public; it is working unfairly and inequitably. There is a very strong feeling on this matter. The majority of people regard this as grossly inequitable, and there will be persistent discontent until the matter is remedied.

In the last Dáil we were promised by the President that by the next financial year this matter would have some attention. The question was raised in the last Dáil and debated for some time, and as far as I can remember the President gave an undertaking of that description. If there is one thing more than another upon which there is unanimity it is this question of motor taxation. I have yet to meet the individual in this country who thinks otherwise than we do on this subject, and I have met nobody who agrees with the Ministry. Everybody's idea is that the tax should be put on petrol. The users of petrol are the users of the roads, and the people who wear the roads most are the people who use most petrol, and therefore they should be taxed most. If the Minister has any regards for equity and fair play he cannot defend the present system. Deputy Cooper says it is easier to collect the tax on motors cars. I doubt that very much. I think it is very much easier to tax petrol coming into the country. It is quite true that there are a lot of people to do the work of collecting in the country, clerks of county councils and other people. I say it is much easier to collect a tax on petrol. It is neither fair to the motor car owners, the public nor the tax-payers who pay for the upkeep of the roads. I hope the Minister will meet us on this matter, because it is the unanimous wish of the country people. I hope the Minister will give effect to the public feeling on the subject, and to what seems to be the common law of equity.

I stand as a curiosity, because I am going to take up the position of opposing Deputy Cooper, and I am going to controvert the statement made by Deputy Gorey that it is the unanimous wish of the owners of motor cars that a tax should be put on petrol as compared with the car. Previously the tax was on petrol, and it was changed to the motor cars, and very properly too.

What about Heiton's lorries?

In my judgment, at all events, the tax as it exists at present is much more equitable.

It is simpler in operation and more effective. We have heard the case of the man who seldom uses his motor car, and who takes it out only now and again. What does the tax go to? The tax goes to maintain roads for the use of motor vehicles, and if a man is disposed to entertain the luxury of keeping a car in his garage and only uses it when the spirit moves him, he wants the roads maintained in good order and for his convenience.

What about Heiton's lorries?

If he wants the roads kept up for him, if he wants the roads kept up for his convenience, that is against all the ideas that have been expressed here in connection with another Bill as to the ultimate object of the use of the roads. Deputy Gorey is, of course, always personal. He makes reference to Heiton's motors. Well Heiton's have other motors besides heavy lorries, and irrespective of that, I do not stand up here with a mind biassed in any direction of that sort. If it is good generally that a tax should go on petrol, I certainly am no-one who will stand up here to deny the taxes on motor cars. I stand up with the conviction and with the clear assertion that for convenience of collection, for justice all round, the tax as at present applied to motor vehicles, is more just than the tax would be if it were upon petrol. One must remember also that petrol is a motive force. It is not altogether for cleansing ladies' dresses that petrol is used. It can be used as a motive force irrespective of motor cars altogether. It is a fuel, and you might as well, in my judgement, put a tax on any other fuel that comes into the country as to put it on petrol. I again repeat it is a motive force. Now, what does most damage to the roads? Is it a petrol-driven vehicle or a steam lorry? I will ask Deputy Gorey to say which does more harm? Steam motors do not use any petrol, and is the steam motor perambulating the country with a double weight of chassis and propelled by another fuel, to go scot free?

No, we will deal with that.

How then?

We are getting along. It is very instructive to come to this assembly and to find that the trend of the minds of some of the Deputies in this matter runs to the direction of taxing coal. Of course, Deputy O'Sullivan is only following up what he has declared by his vote, to protect the country against any importation. If that is so, then, irrespective of motor taxes, put an additional tax on petrol and on everything else. Then you are consistent. But to select an item of general use like petrol and to say that it is an equitable tax, because, forsooth some dandified gentlemen have motor cars lying in their garages and only want to use them once a month or once in six months—is that reasonable?

It is because they are working too hard.

Well, if they work too hard, they do not want motor cars. The sooner they get rid of them the better. If Deputy Gorey in connection with his motor car wants to lay it up for three months he is not charged anything at all. It would be cheaper for him, instead of having his car laid up for six months in his garage, to hire a taxi when he requires it.

When I interjected a question, Deputy Hewat ignored it. The question I asked him was why was the tax taken off petrol and put on the motor car? He knows perfectly well that it was done in the interests of the British manufacturer of light cars. The Government in England wanted to knock out the American high-power vehicle, and so they put a tax on the Ford car as against the English-made car. That was what was at the real bottom of it. But there is no equity in the change. I quite agree with Deputy Hewat that these heavy vehicles propelled by steam power should be taxed. The grievance is that those people, who use the road the most, are paying just the same as the other people, who use it on occasion, and that is not equitable.

The roads are there to use at any time they want to use them.

It is commonsense to look at it in this way: The roads are being damaged. Those who damage the roads should pay most. They will do that if there is a tax put on petrol. The change was introduced originally to help the English maker of light cars and we in this country are perpetuating that.

I controvert that altogether.

That is my assertion, and Deputies will understand that it is correct.

Because it is yours?

It was well known at the time that what I say was at the bottom of it. There is a great agitation for the removal of taxes on horse power. Everywhere you go, as Deputy Gorey says, the people talk of the injustice under which they suffer, and the question as to the amount which the collection would cost more than the present system costs is not one which should enter into the matter. There is an injustice to those who use the motor-cars, and at the present time if you examine into the amount it does cost to collect these taxes you will find that it is pretty high. I know in one county where the officer in charge is getting £150 a year for collecting a tax on motor-cars. If you examine the whole Twenty-six Counties you will find a similar state of affairs, and I am sure that under the present system the collection is more than it would amount to if petrol were taxed at the ports.

On this question of petrol versus car the experts differ, but it seems to me that the obvious deduction that the Minister for Finance should draw is to put a tax on both. Because it seems from one argument that petrol should be taxed more than it is, and from the other argument that the cars should be taxed more than they are or that they should be taxed on a different basis. To arrive at something like equity there should be perhaps an additional tax put upon either petrol or motor-cars. I do not know which, and I do not care which, if by its means it would allow of another halfpenny off tea or sugar. Perhaps that is quite impossible, but it suggests to me that if there is this luxury trade in motor-cars and motor traction, apart from industrial activity, it might well be used as a means of raising revenue for the benefit and for the relief of breakfast table duties. I want to raise the matter of the duties upon candles and soap which are coming into operation on the 1st July. I want to ask the Minister as to the effect of this deferring of the dates for the tax upon the importation of these commodities, and what is the report regarding the supplies that are coming in day by day upon the total estimated amount of the duty and the protective effect. Does he anticipate that the value of these duties for this year is nullified by the immense quantities of both soap and candles that are being imported and that are lying upon the quays in Cork, Dublin and other places?

The information I have received is that the quantities imported in recent weeks are so immense that the chances of any value coming out of these duties either to the Irish manufacturers or to the revenue will be very small indeed for the coming year, and that the tendency already is for the importers to delude the public by raising the prices of some articles on the plea that the tax is coming into operation. I do not know whether it is possible to amend this Bill. I suppose it is not possible to amend it by changing the date to an earlier one, or by charging upon the present imports, but it seems to me that the policy of the Minister has been shown to be faulty in the deferring of these duties, and that the only value to be got either of an experimental or revenue-producing kind can be counted as only from the 1st January next. I mentioned that there is a tendency already to increase the price on the score of the duty, although the duty is not yet in operation. I am informed, for instance, that in the case of candles prices were raised for certain qualities of candles by 25 per cent., partly on the grounds that there has been an increase in raw material and incidentally on the ground that there was a duty coming on the candles. On a protest being made an Irish importing firm—I do not think they are manufacturers—immediately said: "We will cut down the increase we made by one half." This was because a protest had been made, and information given that the tax was not in operation. That is the kind of thing that is happening in the case of more industries than one, and it is a pity that we had not some kind of assurance from the Ministry that they will deal with this kind of overcharging and defrauding the public on the score of the coming duty. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us what quantities of soap and candles over and above the normal importation is coming into the country since the date of the announcement in his Budget. So far as I can learn, the quantities are so great that we cannot anticipate any benefits of any kind either to manufacturers or to the revenue for many months to come. There may be a way to meet it. If the figures are such as I have heard it may not be a bad proposition to suggest the pushing forward of the date for a few months so as to checkmate the importers. There may be other matters one would have to raise in detail, but I shall defer them until we come to deal with the Committee Stage of the Bill.

I am glad that Deputy Cooper raised this question of motor duties, because certainly it is one that has been exercising the minds of motor users, both in this country and across the water, for a long time. This duty was changed from the petrol to the car and to the horse-power of the car, and, as Deputy Wilson, I think, very properly said, in order to meet the wishes of certain classes of motor-car manufacturers in England. No such condition at the time obtained here, but as we were subject then to the laws of another place we had to submit. Now times have changed, and I see no reason why we should follow the precedent that was set to us, and that was adopted in those days. My first objection to the present motor tax is this, that I cannot see upon what fair basis that tax is made. The car is taxed because it is a certain horse-power, and not only that, but all cars of equal horse-power are not equally taxed. You may have one car here which is of a certain horse-power, but has not the same diameter of cylinders, and that car is not taxed to the same degree as a car of the same horse-power but of another diameter of cylinder. There fore, I cannot see upon what fair, or equitable, or satisfactory basis, or even upon what profitable basis, from the point of view of the State, this tax exists at present, and will be maintained. The question of the collection of the tax seems to be much easier of determination. If the article is taxed in bulk, if the petrol is taxed as it comes into the country, just the same as all spirit is taxed, and if it is placed in bond and is removed by the same methods as spirit is removed, I think that this would be by far the easier method for the State, and its incidence would be the fairest all round. Take the present motoring public in Ireland, the great bulk of the cars used, especially among the working classes—and I include farmers in that designation—are Ford motor-cars. The Ford car is taxed very heavily, because of its horse-power, and some person who gets a light British-made car for pleasure purposes or otherwise gets off with less tax than the farmer down the country who requires a car which he can initially acquire at a cheap sum, and which has sufficient motor-power to do the work that he requires. I do not think that is fair to the great bulk of motor-car users and proprietors in the country.

We have heard of the use of the roads, and the damage that is done to them. Why, everyone knows that the greatest damage of all is done by motor lorries. I do not at all quarrel with what Deputy Hewat said about some lorries. There is no reason why there should not be a tax on steam lorries, but the great majority of the lorries used in this country are not steam lorries. They are rapidly disappearing, and motor lorries are being used that actually pay less tax than do some of the motor cars of the same horse-power. It is true that if the tax were placed once more on the petrol that motor lorries would have to pay more, because they consume more petrol, but besides consuming more petrol they do more damage to the roads. One of the reasons why roads are so bad in certain portions of the South of Ireland is that they have been cut to pieces by motor lorries. I think that it would, in all fairness, be better for the motoring community, and for the public at large, that this tax should be spread out upon the spirit, than that it should fall upon the individual make of car for no rhyme or reason, because there is no basis, there is no principle, certainly, involved in the method of taxation by horse-power or by the size of the cylinders. As this question was raised last year, and as an undertaking, according to Deputy Cooper, was given that it would be investigated and looked into, I hope that the Minister will have some reasons to give, when he comes to speak, why a change has not been made and why the present incidence of taxation is being maintained.

Now, sir, there is another question which I desire to refer to, and I think I am probably in the same category as Deputy Cooper in regard to it, for I may not have another opportunity of doing so. It is a question that I have already mentioned in regard to the Estimates, namely, the tax upon cider. As I stated previously, this is the only country probably in the world, where there is an Excise and a Customs duty upon cider. In the previous remarks which I had occasion to make, I stated that it was practically a one-man tax, and that there was but one cider manufacturer in the Free State. I am glad to be able to state, that I was wrong. Since then I have discovered that there is actually another. I have a communication from Messrs. Rutter and Company, of Cork, informing me that they manufacture cider, as well as Messrs. Power and Company, of Dungarvan. But these are the only two manufacturers of cider in the whole Free State. And what took place?

There is an Excise duty upon cider, and there is a Customs duty upon cider. That duty amounts to something like 4d. a gallon. The amount which is derived from the duty, and which the Exchequer gains, must be of very small dimensions. But when that amount has to be borne by two manufacturers, or, at any rate, by those who consume the products of those two manufacturers, I think that the burden they have to bear is a very heavy one, and I do not think it would be asking too much if I were to appeal once more to the Ministry of Finance and to ask if it would not be possible at any rate to abolish the Excise duty and to allow the import duty to continue. What would be the result? The result would be that the Exchequer would lose a very small sum—I do not know whether it even runs into thousands or not, I do not think it does—they would lose a very small sum and they would be promoting and encouraging the manufacturer of this very healthy beverage in this country. At the present time the Irish manufacturer is at a distinct disadvantage. He has not got the class of apples here in Ireland that they have in England, and, as well as using as many Irish-grown apples as he can, he has to import apples from abroad. I hope to have the support of the Minister for Agriculture on this point, and also, indeed, the support of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Because, in the first place, if cider manufacture was encouraged here, it would, undoubtedly, encourage farmers to grow the proper kind of apples, suitable to the manufacturer of that beverage, and I know as a fact that in the factory or brewery—I do not know which is the proper term—at Dungarvan, over 700 tons of Irish apples were used last year. Now, sir, if that is the case, and if this industry is managing to struggle along, which it is only barely doing, under the present conditions, I think that, if the Minister for Finance removed this duty, which means so very little to the Exchequer, he would encourage that industry. In that way, I hope I may succeed in getting the support of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. This is the only industry, practically, in the little town of Dungarvan. It has been a thriving industry, but in the last few years, of course, it has had a serious set-back, and I really think that it would be an act of grace on the part of the Minister for Finance—and certainly the Exchequer would lose nothing by it—if he would do away with the Excise duty on this article and maintain the import duty, and thus give to struggling Irish manufacturers, if not an advantage, at least an encouragement to proceed along their lines of industry and to compete on favourable terms with their rivals both in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. And, sir, I raise this question now because I do not know if I would have the opportunity later on. And I do hope that when the Minister comes to consider it he will not turn a deaf ear to my appeal.

It is not entirely in my own interest, as a motor user, that I raise to press upon the Minister to change the incidence of this tax. I think I spoke at least twice in the last Dáil in regard to this matter, and I speak more particularly on behalf of my less fortunate brethren who are practising in the country, particularly in wild regions that are sparsely populated. These men do not use their motor cars for luxury. Not only do they use a cheap car, an American car on which the tax is high, a tax of £18——

£20 on the Ford car. Not only have they to pay that high tax for one car, but, in order to keep themselves going in the dispensary districts, many of them are forced to keep an old worn-out car as well, so that if anything should happen to the car they are customarily using they can fall back upon this old car; and they have to pay, not only the £20 tax on the car that they are using every day, but £20 also for the car that they may bring into use while the other car is being repaired. This is a very distinct and a very heavy burden that the doctors have to bear throughout the country, particularly the dispensary doctors.

About a dozen years ago I was paying £2 2s. 0d. as a licence tax. The ordinary public were paying £4 4s. 0d. where I was paying £2 2s. 0d. because the medical practitioners were allowed by the British Government to use their cars at half the rate that was imposed upon the general public and, in addition to that, we received an abatement —I cannot remember at the moment whether it was 3d. a tin or 3d. a gallon —on petrol. For the same car for which I was paying tax of £2 2s. 0d. in those days, I am now paying a tax of £15 or £16. And the petrol abatement is gone. I say it is hardly worth my while to make a complaint about it, because I can afford, I suppose, to pay the tax. But I do think that it is a very serious matter for the majority of doctors throughout the country who require to have cars going and who, if they were able to use horse power, would not have to pay any tax whatever. In districts where they have to cover an area of 10 or 15 square miles, when they come back in the evening from a journey of, say, 10 miles, they find perhaps a red ticket waiting for them to go back in the same direction again.

If they were using horse-power they would not be able to take their horse back again; they would wait till the next day. Using a motor, which does not get tired in the same way as the horse does, they are able to make the journey again. I hope when we come to the Committee Stage of the Bill that the Minister will listen to arguments for the better treatment of the doctors. The British Government for many years considered that doctors in particular ought to be treated differently because they were not using their motors as a luxury. I do not like to hear talk about luxury. There is no great luxury as far as I am concerned. My car is now in its thirteenth year. I have taken as much care as possible of it, and the incidence of taxation as far as I am concerned would fall much more fairly upon me if I were paying a duty on petrol instead of this tax of £15 a year. As far as Deputy Cooper's assertion that this matter received no attention in the last Dáil is concerned, I cannot agree with it, and I cannot agree with Deputy Hewat that it is fair that the man who does not use his car should pay as much as the man who is using big lorries and destroying the roads. Is this money spent on the roads at all? It struck me, and I use the roads fairly considerably, that there was practically no money spent on the roads. I had to go out beyond Balbriggan the week before last. When I reached Balbriggan I said to the people I visited that if I had known the state of the road from Dublin to Swords I would never have brought my car. I would have waited until the following day and taken the train. I think it is a disgraceful thing to talk about bringing people here to the Tailteann Games and other things if they are going to have roads of this sort.

I suppose in considering any Finance Bill in the early stages of the establishment of this State it is inevitable that it should be as this Bill is, very largely bearing the imprint of financial conditions and financial policies that are not of our own devising, and not drafted for our own particular specific needs. We have taken over in this Finance Bill a number of policies that were originally devised for conditions entirely separate from ours and wholly different from ours. Mention has been made of the motor tax. That is only one of them. An attempt is being made in this Finance Bill to make a change in that particular respect. That change, in so far as it is a change, is for the good, but we nevertheless have here in this Finance Bill, and I think it right to mention it at this moment, the embodiment of a policy, woven in with the beginnings of a new policy, that was drafted originally by Great Britain, for the needs of a purely industrial State. We have added to that what the Minister has described already in the Dáil an experiment in protection. I feel it is a matter for regret that the word protection should ever have been used. I have said earlier in this House, and I repeat it, that I think the words protection and free trade are words that have no application to this country at all. What we really do want is something far more fundamental than the consideration of either of those theories. What is wanted is a fiscal policy, the parts of which are to be explained by reference to the whole, not introduced piecemeal, something thought out as one considered system which may be tried and approved. I take one case particularly of a tax that appears in this Finance Bill, and to which I refer now, because I think this is the proper time to deal with it, and because being a matter of detail, it cannot be considered adequately in Committee. It is with regard to a matter which has been discussed many times here; that is in regard to the tax on boots and shoes. This Finance Bill proposes to tax, and earlier resolutions of this Dáil have already taxed, not alone boots and shoes, but the parts that go to the making of boots and shoes, the uppers, as well as the soles. If my information is correct, there are no manufacturers of uppers whatever in this country. We only manufacture soles. In other words, although we are to charge a duty upon the manufacture of boots in order to encourage the manufacture of boots at home, we are, nevertheless, going to charge on nearly all the material that goes to the manufacture of boots. What benefit will accrue to the manufacturer at home will be very small indeed, whereas the real method of creating an industry of this sort, I suggest, would rather have been to consider a different type of policy altogether, to let the financial and the fiscal grow out of the purely industrial and commercial, and by advocating and developing the dead-meat industry in this country to have grown up to the creation of an industry that will never be created properly by the method advocated and sought in the Finance Bill. In other words a financial policy or a fiscal policy, and the two are closely interwoven, although they are not exactly the same thing, is really part of a national policy. I fail to find anywhere in this Finance Bill any parts of a coherent and co-ordinated fiscal system. I believe the country is looking just for that kind of coherency, so that its attention will not be directed to this duty or that duty, but only to this duty or that duty as explaining a general system that will benefit the trade of the country, and at the same time benefit the yield of revenue. I feel that we have here embodied in the Finance Bill a number of duties, the yield from which is very small indeed. I dealt with this matter on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill of last year, and I refer to it again now. We have duties taken over here that were intended originally for the protection of certain British industries, and adopted for that sake. They are transferred here, and they actually turn against that original purpose. They serve no purpose here except to yield a very small amount of revenue, wholly disproportionate to the amount of administration that is required for their collection.

There is the tax on motor cars. I am not now referring to the particular aspect of it that has been referred to. There is a tax on musical instruments and a whole lot of different matters that are really only taken over because it is a well-known habit of the human mind that once you have adopted a certain tax or policy it wants very little less than a mine to shift or disturb it. I support all that has been said by previous speakers, following Deputy Cooper, in dealing with the question of the motor tax. The equitable method of dealing with this is the method that will make the yield in revenue proportionate to the use of the item that is taxed. By charging the duty upon the motor car that essential principle in equity is wholly lost sight of. Cases have been brought to my attention of people who use motor cars occasionally for the purpose of business and far less occasionally for their own pleasure. But at certain periods of the year they use those cars very frequently. When the total amount of use, spread throughout the year, is considered their actual use of the car is very small. Notwithstanding that, they are charged on exactly the same basis as the persons who have their cares in constant commission day after day. I should have thought that it appeared on the face of it that no tax that gave so disproportionate a result as that was a tax that was equitable in its incidence. I hope it will be possible on the Committee Stage to effect a change in that particular matter and in several other matters. I hope that between now and the introduction of the next Finance Bill an examination will be made in order that the next Finance Bill will be of a kind different from this one and different from that of last year, and that it will be, as these are not, a Bill framed by reference to some definite policy that has been adopted and the parts of which can be explained and justified before the people as parts of a coherent and co-ordinated system. I think if that were done, we would be able to avoid a good deal of what has been already heard in the different arguments put before in the Dáil. It is inevitable that Deputies will have had brought before them, as we all have had brought before us, particular cases of industries in our own constituencies where our own constituents have urged, seeing that Protection is to be considered, Protection for a specific industry that would help their own constituency and so far help the nation. How far that is likely to be carried the future alone can say. But it is not likely to be carried very far if all these matters have not a standard by which they can be judged. That standard can only be arrived at by seeking to devise a system which, as I said before, can be justified because it will yield the maximum of industrial benefit, proportionate with the maximum of financial yield.

I cannot let the Second Reading of this Bill pass without registering, at least, a formal protest against the protective duties that are imposed by it. I do not intend to go over the old arguments again. I think the matter has been argued threadbare, but I would like to say that I am convinced that these protective duties are going to increase the cost of living and that the benefit which will result from them will not be commensurate with the loss which will accrue to the ordinary person living in the country. It has been said that those are to be experimental duties. I sincerely trust the Minister will see that they are experimental duties and that he will be able to resist the efforts that will be made by every manufacturer in the country to get special protective duties for his particular industry. I am quite confident that, between now and the next Budget, pressure of all kinds and from all sides will be brought to bear on the Minister to have protective duties imposed on other articles. He will find it very difficult indeed to resist the attempts that will be made in this regard.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE took the Chair.

I am sorry also that the Minister did not see his way to take off portion of the duty on sugar and at least to keep on the same level in that regard as the British Budget. I know he will say that the finances of the country would not allow him to take such a step. But I am inclined to think that a special effort might be made in the direction of reducing the cost of living by reducing the cost of those articles, tea and sugar, which are so much used by the poorer classes and which constitute such a large proportion of their daily sustenance.

I referred, on the debate which took place on the Financial Resolutions, to the question of income tax, and I proposed then that there should be a reduction of 6d. in the £1. I am sorry that the Minister did not see his way to agree with the suggestion which I made. I think it would be a very useful thing if the income tax and the other taxes in this country, such as the sugar tax and tea tax, could be put on a level with the British taxes. I think the present system will induce the people who are free to leave the country to do so, and live in other countries and spend their income in those countries where taxation is lower.

I would like to support Deputy Redmond in his suggestion that the excise duty on cider should be removed. As he stated, it only applies to two cider manufacturers in this country, and I think the result from this duty cannot be at all equal to the trouble involved in the collection of those taxes. I know that there are possibilities of this industry becoming of considerable importance, at any rate in the South of Ireland. There are a great many orchards and it is well known that it is rather difficult to bring the fruit grown in this country to the same state of perfection as the fruit grown in the warmer countries, with the result that it does not sell easily in the market. It does not appeal so well to the eye, and for that reason it might be useful to divert the attention of the apple-growers to the making of cider. I know that this industry has been greatly hampered by the excise duty of 4d. per gallon on the cider made in this country. I need hardly tell the Minister that there is very little alcohol contained in cider and that it is almost impossible to get intoxicated on cider, except it is subjected to special fermentation or special treatment. The ordinary cider is almost a non-intoxicant. The farmer who manufactures cider at his home is, strictly speaking, liable for this excise duty, and there is a considerable amount of difficulty in the collection of it. It would free those people from the tendency to evade the law and it would free the officers of the law from a very onerous and troublesome duty which produces very little result. I would impress upon the Minister the necessity for giving his attention to this matter and seeing if anything can be done.

With regard to the duties on foreign motor-cars, commonly known here and in England as the McKenna duties, I understand from the Minister that these are purely revenue duties in this country. There is no manufacturer of motor-cars in the Saorstát. The actual result is that the users of the cheaper types of motor-cars, American and Canadian, have to pay the extra duties of 33? or 22½ per cent., according to whether they are manufactured in the United States or in Canada.

It is well known here that the users of these cheap motor-cars are mostly people who use them for business or for hiring purposes, and the actual result of these duties is that in England the buyers are already getting these cars at a considerable reduction in anticipation of the abolition of these taxes. The agents are selling these cars already at the lower prices. Of course the wholesale abolition of these taxes would have the effect of allowing all classes of cars at very high prices to come into this country free. Although I am not going to advocate that the duty should be maintained against these cars—it may not be found a practical proposition—yet if the idea were entertained that it would be inadvisable to allow these cars in free, there still could be a duty kept on them. In the interests of the users of motor-cars and trade and commerce, and in the interests of those who have to earn their living by the use of motor-cars, I think that these duties should be removed.

I was pleased to see that the English Labour Government have the courage to face this matter despite strong agitation to the contrary. As regards the import duty on the spare parts of motor-cars, I believe it is still maintained, and I know from actual practice that it is causing a great deal of inconvenience. I do not know that it is fulfilling any useful purpose, either from a revenue or any other point of view. It was suggested that the maximum value of the parts which might be imported free should be placed at £1, and I thought that the Minister was going to give that favourable consideration.

I am sorry that the Minister insists on retaining the duty of sixpence on packets coming by post or by any other means into the country. I believe that will have the effect of keeping out a great many articles which people get in this country by means of advertisements and which are not obtainable at the same price here. I believe it is an obstructive duty, and it will not have the effect of increasing any industry in this country. It will have the effect of preventing cheap articles being brought in. I would suggest that some consideration should be given to the removal of these small duties.

I hope I shall not be condemned by the highbrow intellectuals who advocate pure politics if I speak on this matter professedly on behalf of my constituents. Most of my constituents, who are not teachers or barristers, are doctors and clergymen, and they are very intimately affected by the taxes so much under discussion this afternoon. There is a great deal of difficulty in differentiating between the motor car that is bought and used as a luxury article, and the motor car that is part of a man's business equipment and which he employs in the exercise of his profession or business. That there are luxury cars is beyond all dispute, and many of these cars are highly expensive, ranging from £1,500 to £3,000. The car itself provides no comfort or convenience either as a carriage or as a speedy means of transit over a less expensive article, but it asserts the social position, and affords a certain amount of additional kudos to the owner, and it has always been the practice to extract revenue for the State from the vanity of the citizens who are in a position to pay for the indulgence of their vanity.

Now, none of those, I fear, are among my constituents, and I therefore raise no plea of mercy on their behalf. The car which is part of the farmer's equipment, replacing the old familiar horse and gig, for the purpose of visiting fairs and markets, and for getting to the trains, is to the farmer —if the farmer Deputies will forgive me putting it in this fashion—very much what the milkman's delivery car is; it is a part of his ordinary day's routine, and it is in the same category as his ploughs. No tax has been yet inflicted upon the plough, harrow or the reaping machine.

They will think of them next.

As regards these gigantic lorries and vans which are used for the quick delivery of very heavy traffic material, they are part and parcel of the national life. The more of these there are and the more they use the roads, the better for the whole community. Therefore, though they do proportionately destroy the roads more than any other users, and consequently in equity should be made to pay a fairly large contribution to the upkeep of the roads, at the same time I would not agree that they should be treated in a spirit of penalising them, and saying to them: "You destroy the roads and therefore you must pay heavily." After all, the users of the roads contribute their share to business and commerce, and assist materially in the progress of the State.

Under the old regime these questions were discussed in very great detail and a modification of the incidence of the tax upon motor cars was made to meet the case of the country doctor. The clergyman at that time was not included in the scope of the survey, because clergymen had not realised the advantages of reaching their congregation and of visiting the members of their flock during the week, and they had not realised the spiritual advantages that the facilities of motoring provide. At that time half the tax imposed upon the ordinary motorist was what was chargeable to the doctor. Where an ordinary citizen paid four or six or eight guineas, the doctor correspondingly paid two or three or four guineas. Not only that, but he paid only half the tax imposed on the spirit, whether you call it petrol or not. Something of an allowance, I forget how much, was made also to the business man, and immediately, as is usual in cases where exceptional treatment is allowed, abuses crept in. Doctors in the cities were allowed petrol at the diminished rate, and their wives and sisters, and their cousins and their aunts, motored in their own vehicles with the doctor's petrol. Similarly, those who were on friendly relations with business men were able to get the loan of their tins of their petrol from time to time. They motored at less cost than the ordinary citizen. There will be that difficulty if the tax is transferred from horse-power to petrol.

Deputy Johnson spoke as if he thought those who advocated the transfer of the tax to petrol did so because they had in view some reduction in the cost of tea and sugar for the non-motorist. The idea prevails that you have an increase in the consumption of petrol for the amount of use of the roadways, and that in that oblique or intricate fashion, by taxing the petrol you are taxing the use of the roads. The same argument would justify the imposition of a tax on tyres, and it would be just as readily collectable. If you think this out into the furthest detail of practice, you will see that the country doctor or clergyman who has to cover a wide area and wants to be preserved against the inclemency of the Irish climate, which is one of the things which we are not in a position to boast about, will be very seriously affected. If we wish to protect these classes and do it by the transfer of tax from horse-power to petrol, how does it work out? The Chevrolet car, as was mentioned by Deputy Heffernan, has a tax of £18, and the tax on the Ford is £20. These are usually the cars employed by the country practitioner. Suppose he does 20 miles to the gallon, and we have a sixpenny tax per gallon on petrol, he will pay anything between £12 10s. and £18 a year as petrol tax.

Or one and three pence?

With 1/3, we would have something like £30 to £45 a year. No reduction in the licence tax would compensate for that. The thing in practice presents quite a number of difficulties. I quite agree with Deputy Sir James Craig that it is an exceptional hardship on the country practitioner that he should be taxed on his car in the earning of a very meagre income. His professional brother who lives in the big city obtains a relief which he does not get, because just as in the case of a barrister, who deducts as part of his costs the rent of his study and so on, for the deduction of overhead charges the medical man in the City of Dublin is allowed to deduct from his taxed income his outlay on his motor-car, his chauffeur and his petrol. I do not mean to suggest that they deduct unfairly, but they are in a position legitimately to deduct from £300 to £500 under that head. That accounts for quite a considerable amount, whereas the ordinary country practitioner would not make an income of £300 a year. He would not make an income which would bring him within that privilege, so that the tax he pays for his car is totally without reduction, and there is no rebate and no equivalent reduction to him.

It is not for me to suggest how this difficulty is to be met. It might be met in the case of cars that are and can be used for business if the tax could be reduced, say, to half. That would meet the case only to a very slight extent; at any rate, it would have the psychological advantage, which is something after all, that it would relieve the sense of grievance in a measure. The future of transit is undoubtedly with the motor. There was a time when it was merely a carriage. Unfortunately for this country our carriage and coach-builders and the men engaged in cognate industries have been gravely affected. They have gone to Coventry, not in the sense in which we familiarly know, but they have gone to work there, and efforts to restore the trade here are useless. It is irretrievably gone. This is a case where the experiment of protection might usefully be applied.

The Minister has gone some way. Help is given to those who build motor bodies for motor lorries and motor vans, but if chassis of foreign manufacture were allowed in with a very slight tax, and the tax imposed on the ready-to-drive-away car, opportunity would be provided, as I pointed out before, during a number of years for the experiment of reviving the coach building, coach painting, and coach upholstering, and all the cognate and subsidiary industries. Closely connected with this subject is the question of income tax. Deputies on the Labour Benches are the strongest supporters of the Ministry in regard to this income tax policy. I wonder is that because their constituents, as a general rule, pay so little income tax, if they pay any at all? Now, I would like the Minister to make all incomes that can be estimated, that can be set down in writing, that can be traced, subject to income tax, however slight. There is an association of ideas at work between income tax and the rich. Why should that be? It is one of the checks upon the growth of a full sense of patriotism. It is impossible to persaude a man who does not pay direct taxation that the administration of the country is carried on not merely for him and through representatives voted into power by him, but carried on at his cost, at his expense, and that he is entitled, not as a mere growler, to utter his comment on the administration if it displeases him, or to praise it if it pleases him, but that actually it is his, something that he pays for, something that he is deeply and vitally interested in, in every relation and every direction of its operation. That will not be brought home to the ordinary mind until we have a system of direct taxation universally applied.

It seems to me unfair that those who pay income tax, and especially those who pay a high amount of income tax, should be left under the impression that they are the financial supporters of the State, and that those who do not pay any income tax do not contribute. It is said, of course, that it is easier to collect a tax that a man does not know he is paying. I dare say from the point of view of those who collect the tax that is a very sound argument. On the other hand, there are those who are interested in the development of the civic sense which is so lacking in Ireland at the moment that it would be a very valuable policy, if only for its educational force, to make the incidence of income tax go lower down than at present. The Minister is aware that, like Deputy Heffernan, I would like to vote, only that I know the vote would be ineffectual, against the retention of the income tax at the present level. I have argued this before, but argued it in vain. I hold, and I submit, that a great deal of what is said about the necessity of balancing the Budget while thoroughly sound, is misunderstood and misapplied. It is, of course, the duty of the Minister and of the Exchequer to keep the expenditure in any given year in proper balance with the national income, but let us not forget that until quite recently we had an army at a charge of 11½ millions sterling a year. We have a huge and bloated Civil Service, which we have taken over, and which we dare not reduce because of the operations of the Act, facetiously known as the Better Government of Ireland Act, 1920. There are ever so many charges I could enumerate that are really overhead establishment charges in connection with the setting up and stabilising of the Free State. Is it right, or is it equitable, to call upon the taxpayers of these years immediately following the setting up of the State to bear the total cost of that? I used the analogy to the President in the last Dáil, when he was Minister for Finance, and he refused to see the analogy.

No township or corporation laying down new roads, creating new sewerage, providing for the better housing and the better living of its taxpayers, would dream of raising the total cost of these services out of revenue of a single year, or even of two or three years. These things should be met by a loan, and while I advocate as strongly as the Minister the policy of balancing the Budget, I would distinguish between meeting the expenses of the current year out of revenue raisable in the current year and this particular sort of charge which presses so heavily on the Free State. I think neither the Minister nor his predecessor cares to have a deficit. It is natural for everyone who is responsible for the balancing of books to like to have them well balanced and to have something to carry over to the profit side if possible, but, on the other hand, look at the damage that is done in the zealous pursuit of good book-keeping. I believe, if we were only to consider it as politicians, that the value of the political pull would more than compensate for the five millions that would be lost by the foregoing of 6d. in the income tax. What is more, I am confident, and I believe my confidence is shared by others, and is justified, that no better advertisement to the world of the healthy state of Ireland under the new administration, and no better indication of the absolute faith that we have in its future, could be given than that, even now at the very moment when we are demobilising our Army, when we are introducing so many Bills and when so many different projects are in contemplation involving the expenditure of money, we should cut down the income tax. There is such a thing as advertising in the State as well as advertising in business. If we are to raise another loan, undoubtedly the loan will be more freely, forthcoming, and at a lower rate, if the money-public, who are the people who pay income tax, are made to feel that all is well. I believe that all is well, and that is one of the reasons why I advocate this policy. There is no reason why these extra charges that have been incurred in the setting up of the Free State, and in the warding off from it of an attack which might have unsettled its foundations, should not be met out of loans, so that the generations after this would bear a share of the cost of creating that which yielded to them the advantages which they after us would enjoy.

The President promised last year that he would look into the question of the road tax on motor vehicles, and I know that he did look into it. I myself, as Minister for Local Government, discussed it with him several times, and we felt that it would not be advantageous to make any change. We felt that this clamour about the motor tax is simply the usual one that arises against a direct tax. A person who has to pay £15 or £10, or £20, wants an indirect tax which he will pay out in small driblets week by week, but there is very little further behind the agitation about the motor tax than that. A person who can afford to have a motor-car lying up in his garage, really, I think, can afford to pay the tax, and the injustice is not worth talking about. It would require a very substantial petrol tax to give the same amount of revenue as is given by the vehicle tax. It would require about 1/3 a gallon, and if you were to have petrol taxed at 1/3 a gallon it would press very hard upon people like doctors, clergymen and others of that kind, who have to go about a great deal in their cars. And we should have an agitation arising, as Deputy Magennis has indicated, that some exemption or rebate be given to them. We should have abuses arising or people getting tax-free petrol, or petrol that is partially free of tax, from those people; and the abuses that existed in regard to the petrol tax in the past would arise again; the difficulties and the cost of administration would be greatly increased; and we would have no greater fairness than we have at the present time. I do not say that it may not be possible to adjust the present tax by including something else than merely horse-power, as it is calculated. It may be quite desirable to include weight as a factor, but as between the vehicle tax and the petrol tax, I think it is much more desirable to continue the vehicle tax than to attempt to substitute a petrol tax. If we did substitute the petrol tax, in addition to the doctors and others who may justly claim a rebate in the petrol tax, we should also have to give rebates to those who use petrol for lighting, for driving Ford tractors, or anything like that, and in the case of fishermen who use petrol for their boats. And in all those cases there would be leakage and evasion of the duty, and the discontent that arises from the knowledge that your neighbours are evading the law. President Cosgrave and myself having considered the matter, were clearly of the opinion that, because of these difficulties, and because of the difficulties of giving a definition of motor spirit and because of the difficulties that would arise out of the use of substitutes, it would be quite undesirable to propose any spirit tax in substitution for the vehicle tax.

Other matters have been mentioned, such as the forestalling in the case of soap and candles. In regard to this matter, I have not, unfortunately, information that is quite up to date. But, up to about ten days ago, although there had been, undoubtedly, a certain excess of importation over the normal importation, it was not at all as serious as Deputy Johnson has been indicating. It was appreciable, but nothing such as one should get excited about.

Would the Minister take a walk down the quays?

No; but I will look at the figures. I can get my reports, but I do not look for personal evidence. I could not undertake to do that at all.

Deputy Sir James Craig referred to the state of the roads. It seems to me that he wants to have the road tax increased. The money that is raised is spent on the roads, and if it does not make them good enough, obviously the remedy would be an increased tax.

Pay the men decently.

I do not know whether that was what he had in mind. I do not think that I need reply any more to Deputy Heffernan's remarks in reference to the remission of the duty on sugar. I think he will recognise himself that we could not do what the British did, or that, if we did do it, we should have to put on other taxes that would be in no way preferable.

The difficulty about the remission of the Excise duty on cider lies in the fact that we have a duty on spirits, on beer, on cider, and on table waters. If we were to remit the duty on table waters, we could very well remit the duty on cider. But I do not see how we could, at the request of a couple of firms or Deputies take cider out of the list, and leave the tax upon table waters. The tax on table waters does give a substantial revenue, and I do not think we could afford to lose that, and, under the circumstances, I do not see that we could agree to take the tax off cider.

In dealing with the question of cider, Deputy Heffernan was quite inconsistent, it seems to me. He was clamouring for Protection, although he poses, in general, as a staunch Free Trader. The Customs duty imposes no hardship on cider manufacturers, and there is a general feeling that with the Excise duty they are not a bit worse off than if the tax were removed from cider altogether. Deputy Heffernan advocates Protection for one particular article; perhaps he is coming around.

Take the Excise duty off the home cider and the duty remains only on the imported cider.

I will leave the Deputy to think it over. I promised to consider any representation that the motor traders would put up in regard to the duty on parts. I hope to see them. I have not seen them, but I have had written communications from them, and, on an examination of them, I found that they were not able to put up anything. I could not, as I explained in the Dáil, remit the duty on parts. That would be facing a loss of £100,000 a year in revenue, and that is a thing that we could not afford. If they could put up anything that is practicable, I should be very glad to have it, but they have not been able to do so, so far.

With regard to Deputy Magennis's remarks about encouraging the building of motor bodies here, the position is that there is actually protection to the extent of 33 1-3rd per cent. on motor bodies, or 22 2-9th per cent., as the case may be. That is the duty paid on motor bodies at the present time. Anybody who sets up the manufacture of motor bodies here is free of that duty. I do not know whether, after the lapse of some time, that duty will prove sufficient to encourage people to undertake the building of motor bodies here or not. I do not know. But I believe that the duty which is being imposed in this particular Bill on commercial bodies will cause the building of commercial bodies here to a very considerable extent; and perhaps firms which have developed the manufacture of commercial bodies may turn to the making of bodies for ordinary cars. They certainly have a very substantial degree of protection at the present time; and we would have to consider, and, I think, very seriously, before we should propose to give a protection exceeding 33 1-3 per cent. in any particular duty, which is what would be really involved if we made the change suggested by Deputy Magennis.

The Deputy recognises that the commercial users pay the tax.

I hope they will not have to pay it all. I think I need hardly say much more in reference to the question of the reduction of income tax. I appreciate the arguments in favour of a reduction of income tax, and I would be most anxious to propose it to the Dáil, but I think I should say that we are not endeavouring to meet out of revenue any of these abnormal expenses such as arise from Army charges or from the cost of compensation. We are simply trying to bring ourselves to the point of being able to meet our current expenses out of revenue. Those ordinary current expenses, in certain respects, might be regarded as swollen. The establishment expenses might be regarded, I think, as somewhat excessive. The superannuation charges are excessive, but still I think that if they were normal we would not be able to do more than simply meet the expenditure from what we get in.

In those circumstances, and having regard to the debt charges which we must meet, we cannot proceed to reduce taxation. I think you can only reduce taxation if you have a surplus secured either by an improved yield in your taxation or by reduced expenditure, or if you can anticipate from your reductions some speedy imporvement in the situation that will give you back your revenue and restore the balance. So far as I have been able to learn— and the matter has been gone into— there is no doubt that the reduction of the income tax by 6d. would involve the loss of half a million. For some time, at any rate, that would be a net loss, so that our position would be that we were going on to the market to borrow, and that we were facing that borrowing with measures that were leading to an increase in our deficit—a deficit which took into account only current expenditure and not expenditure on the Army or on compensation. I cannot feel that it would be at all prudent—although we would desire it very much—to reduce income tax at the present time. It is a handicap. The difference between the rates in this country and in England perhaps further operate to increase the handicap that arises from the very weight of the tax. That is a matter we cannot afford to overlook, but, at the same time, I think, as we stand at the moment, we must keep our taxation at the level that it exists at. When we are dealing with the question of unemployment or discontent in the country, that is a matter that can be faced by expenditure on works of construction. I think that no matter what our position might be financially, if we can see the possibility of spending well on constructive works, which will remain as value for the money spent, it would be the greatest wisdom to spend in that way. The Government is dealing with such matters. The question of the scheme on the River Shannon should indicate to anybody—even to the least informed—that that aspect of matters is kept in mind. There is also the question of the Barrow, on plans for which we have people working at the present time. That is expenditure that would be justifiable as constructive work, no matter what our financial position was. But, at the same time, even work such as that you can only do, especially in a country weak financially, as we are, if you take every care to see that the capital expended is really capital invested and that there is value got for the money spent. We have to look into matters, and we must have a technical examination and other examinations that make it difficult to rush ahead, as some people would desire.

Might I ask the Minister if he would say something about the motor duties?

I referred to one portion of it—the duty on parts. As regards the duty on cars generally, it seems to me to be quite a good revenue tax, a very easily collected tax, a tax which does come off people who can afford moderately well to pay, and it does seem to me a duty that we should retain.

Question put—"That the Bill be read a second time."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 37; Níl, 18.

  • Earnán de Blaghd.
  • Séamus Breathnach.
  • Seoirse de Bhulbh.
  • Séamus de Burca.
  • Sir James Craig.
  • Louis J. D'Alton.
  • Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí
  • Dhrisceóil.
  • Patrick J. Egan.
  • John Good.
  • John Hennigan.
  • William Hewat.
  • Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
  • Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
  • Seán Mac Giolla'n Riogh.
  • Eoin Mac Néill.
  • Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
  • Liam Mac Sioghaird.
  • Liam Mag Aonghusa.
  • Martin M. Nally.
  • John T. Nolan.
  • Peadar O hAodha.
  • Mícheál O hAonghusa.
  • Ailfrid O Broin.
  • Criostóir O Broin.
  • Seán O Bruadair.
  • Aodh Ua Cinnéidigh.
  • Partholán O Conchubhair.
  • Conchubhair O Conghaile.
  • Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
  • Séamus N.O Dóláin.
  • Peadar S.O Dubhghaill.
  • Eamon S.O Dúgáin.
  • Seán O Laidhin.
  • Fionán O Loingsigh.
  • Séamus O Murchadha.
  • Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
  • Liam Thrift.

Níl

  • Pádraig F. Baxter.
  • Seán Buitléir.
  • John Conlan.
  • Osmond Grattan Esmonde.
  • Connor Hogan.
  • Tomás Mac Eoin.
  • Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
  • Risteárd Mac Liam.
  • Patrick McKenna.
  • Tomás de Nógla.
  • Aodh O Cúlacháin.
  • Liam O Daimhín.
  • Tadhg O Donnabháin.
  • Seán O Duinnín.
  • Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
  • Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
  • Tadhg O Murchadha.
  • Patrick K. Hogan (Luimneach).
Motion declared carried.

resumed the Chair.

Top
Share