Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Apr 1926

Vol. 15 No. 2

CUSTOMS RESOLUTIONS. - RESOLUTION No. 10.—EXCISE.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move Resolution No. 10:—

(1) That the excise duties chargeable under Section 13 of the Finance Act, 1920, on the classes of mechanically propelled vehicles mentioned in the Schedule to this Resolution shall, as on and from the 1st day of January, 1927, be charged, levied, and paid at the rates specified in the said Schedule to this Resolution in lieu of the rates specified in the Second Schedule to the said Act.

(2) That whenever, on or after the 22nd day of May, 1926, and before the 1st day of January, 1927, duty is paid under the said Section 13 of the Finance Act, 1920, on a vehicle of the class mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 3 of the Schedule to this Resolution, such duty shall be charged, levied, and paid at the rate specified in the said sub-paragraph (with the reduction appropriate to the period in respect of which the duty is paid) in lieu of the rate specified in the Second Schedule to the said Act.

(3) That sub-sections (2), (3), (4), and (5) of the said Section 13 of the Finance Act, 1920, as amended and adapted by subsequent enactments, and also all orders and regulations heretofore made thereunder and for the time being in force shall apply to the said duties when charged at the rates specified in the Schedule to this Resolution as fully as they apply to the said duties when charged at the rates specified in the Second Schedule to the said Act.

(4) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913.

SCHEDULE.

Excise Duties on mechanically propelled vehicles used on public roads.

(1) Vehicles being hackney carriages as defined in Section 4 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888:— #

Tramcars	15s.
Other vehicles:
Seating more than 6 but not more than 14 persons	£28
Seating more than 14 but not more than 20 persons	£40
Seating more than 20 but not more than 26 persons	£52
Seating more than 26 but not more than 32 persons	£64
Seating more than 32 persons	£2 for each seat

In this paragraph the number of persons or seats mentioned does not include the driver or his seat.

(2) Vehicles (including tricycles weighing more than 8 cwt. unladen) constructed or adapted for use and used solely for the conveyance of goods in the course of trade—

Being vehicles which are electrically propelled and which
do not exceed 25 cwt. in
weight unladen	£6
Being vehicles other than such
electrically propelled vehicles
as aforesaid—
Not exceeding 12 cwt. in weight unladen	£10
Exceeding 12 cwt. but not exceeding 1 ton in weight unladen	£16
Exceeding 1 ton but not exceeding 2 tons in weight unladen	£30
Exceeding 2 tons but not exceeding 3 tons in weight unladen	£45
Exceeding 3 tons but not exceeding 4 tons in weight unladen	£60
Exceeding 4 tons but not exceeding 5 tons in weight unladen	£75
Exceeding 5 tons but not exceeding 6 tons in weight unladen	£90
Exceeding 6 tons in weight unladen	£105
With an additional duty, in any case if used for drawing a trailer, of	£12

(3) Any vehicle other than those charged with duty under paragraphs 1, 2 and 4 of the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1920, and other than those charged with duty under the foregoing provisions of this Schedule:—

(a) vehicles in respect of which it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health that seventy-five per cent. of the cost of producing the vehicle is attributable to manufacturing operations performed thereon or in relation thereto in Saorstát Eireann, £10.

(b) other vehicles to which this paragraph applies—

Not exceeding 8 horse-power or electrically propelled, £8.

Exceeding 8 horse-power, £1 for each unit or part of a unit of horse-power.

In the case of vehicles to which this paragraph applies which are hackney carriages as defined in section 4 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888, and exceed twenty horse-power, no duty shall be payable in respect of the excess of the horse-power above twenty horse-power.

If any person proves to the satisfaction of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health that he has paid in respect of any vehicle to which this paragraph applies, the duty chargeable under this paragraph and that the engine of the vehicle was constructed before the 1st day of January, 1913, he shall be entitled to repayment of twenty-five per cent. of the duty so paid.

The most interesting part of this resolution is the Schedule. In the Schedule to the resolution are set out the charges which it is proposed to levy in respect of motor vehicles. In the case of 'buses and char-a-banes the increase is not very considerable. Deputies will see that the duty on tramcars is not touched. The duty on cars seating more than six but not more than fourteen persons, it is proposed to make £28, the existing tax being £24. In fact, right on down the list the increase is simply an increase of £4 in each stage. We propose to make the charge £40 where it was £36, £52 where it was £48, and £64 where it was £60. With regard to the other vehicles, however, there is a considerable difference. In the first category are electrically-propelled vehicles, which do not exceed 25 cwt. in weight unladen. The tax in that case was £6, and it remains as it was. In the second category are vehicles other than these electrically-propelled vehicles. In the case of vehicles not exceeding 12 cwt. in weight unladen, the tax was £10, and it remains the same; where these vehicles exceed 12 cwt. but do not exceed one ton, the tax which was £16, remains as it was. We now come to the changes. The tax on these vehicles exceeding one ton but not exceeding two tons was £21, and we propose to make it £30; exceeding two tons but not exceeding three tons—it was £25, and we propose to make it £45; exceeding three tons but not exceeding four tons—it was £28 and we propose to make it £60; exceeding four tons but not exceeding five tons—it was £30, and we propose to make it £75. Thirty pounds was the maximum, no matter how the weight increased. We have added two higher sums: exceeding five tons but not exceeding six tons—the tax is to be £90. Up to the £75 point our proposed scale is the same as the scale in Northern Ireland, except that instead of £75 they have an £80 tax, but their tax does not begin at one ton. It begins at one and a quarter tons, and ends with one and a quarter tons, so that the £80 tax would be for a vehicle exceeding four and a quarter tons, and not exceeding five and a quarter tons. As I have said, the tax on a vehicle exceeding five tons and not exceeding six tons is to be £90. The former figure was, of course, £30, and the Northern Ireland scale is £100. For vehicles exceeding six tons the tax is to be £105, the Northern tax being £100.

In the next section of the schedule we do not interfere with bicycles, invalid cars or heavy tractors. They are merely mentioned in paragraphs 1, 2, and 4. Our new scale applies to motor vehicles other than those vehicles in respect of which it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health that 75 per cent. of the cost of producing the vehicle is attributable to manufacturing operations performed thereon or in relation thereto in Saorstát Eireann. There the tax is £10. That at present applies to the Ford car only. The old minimum was £6 for 6 h.-p. or under. We have raised the minimum charge on cars from £6 to £8 and then, from £8 onwards, it is £1 for each unit or part of a unit of horse-power. We exempt taxis from a higher tax than £20. IIeretofore, a taxi which did not seat more than six people paid £12. That was a flat £12 rate. We propose to charge them as private cars for the future with this exemption—that the upper limit shall not exceed £20. It was thought undesirable that a certain class of taxi, which might serve purposes of utility and be an attraction to tourists, should be put off the road by a high tax. There are probably very few of these vehicles and the amount of tax involved is not very large.

The rebate allowed in respect of engines constructed before 1st January, 1913, is continued, because it is intended, by Order, to go back to the method of calculating horse-power which was in use prior to January, 1923. When I was Minister for Local Government, the basis for calculation of horse-power was changed. It was changed because the British basis of the bore was extremely unfavourable to the Ford car. It meant that the Ford car was paying £23 when what you might call the corresponding car was paying only about £10 or £11.

We adopted the new basis of cubic capacity of the cylinder instead of bore, and that new basis gave the reduction to £18 for the Ford car. It operated to reduce the tax on most cars as well. There were a few increases, but, in general, the new basis we adopted reduced the taxation on cars. It is proposed to go back to that new basis which will give something over 15 per cent., in general, in additional taxation, on cars other than Ford cars. Going back to that makes it necessary to continue the rebate made on engines before 1913, because they were engines of a very wide bore. They were made before the manufacturers began to adopt the make of their engines to pay as little tax as possible, and they would pay an extremely high rate. It is an exemption which is in existence. It would not have been necessary to continue it if it was not intended to go back to the old basis of calculating horse-power.

The changes we have made in regard to char-a-bancs and goods vehicles will give us, it is calculated—having statistics of the numbers and various weights in existence—an all-round fifty per cent. increase in the amount of taxation paid by these vehicles. I think that is not unfair at all, because, as a matter of fact, it is that class of vehicle that does damage to the roads. As Deputies will see, we have not increased the tax on the lighter vehicles. Any vehicle not exceeding a ton weight will pay as heretofore; on the vehicle not exceeding two tons the tax has not gone up so tremendously—it is gone up £9. On ordinary roads the ordinary private car does not do a lot of damage. The damage is mostly done by the heavier vehicles, and we feel it is fair that a fairly substantial tax should be extracted, and that perhaps the really heavier ones should be discouraged somewhat.

The net result of the changes proposed in this resolution, taken with the next resolution, will be that there will be about £133,000 extra for the Road Fund. We believe that that substantial addition to the Road Fund will ultimately help to bring about a very considerable reduction in local taxation.

It is, as I said, proposed to borrow on the strength of the Road Fund, and to carry out works of a somewhat substantial character over a considerable mileage of roads. That, for all practical purposes, is only made possible by an increase of the Road Fund, because, as a matter of fact, there must be a year to year distribution. That is a practical necessity. In order to have a substantial borrowing this increase, or some increase, in the Road Fund was necessary. With the borrowing now possible, and the prospect of a fairly considerable increase in the Road Fund, we believe it will be possible to put the roads into such a condition that the maintenance cost will be lower, and we can probably get to this position: that the cost to the rates of the roads will not be more than 50 or 60 per cent. over the pre-war cost to the rates. If we can do that, we will be in a not unsatisfactory position at all.

Mr. GOREY

Does the Minister think he is to be congratulated upon this particular resolution? The amount of the increase that he proposes— £133,000—is to try to make good the damage that has been done and is likely to be done to the roads of the country. In my opinion, this is only a drop in the ocean to meet the situation. An increase of a flat rate of £4 on charabancs is no good whatsoever, and does not at all meet the situation. It is a very doubtful matter whether charabancs are not more damaging to the roads than very heavy lorries. They can go much faster, carry heavy loads. As a matter of fact, any road on which they travel is the first that breaks up. I think there is very little doubt in anybody's mind that this class of traffic is more damaging than the heavy lorries. Where they travel you have regular graves along the road, not merely pot holes. I say that this £4 flat rate increase is only tinkering with the question. It is not an honest attempt to deal with the matter. I should like to get from the Minister, in connection with heavy lorries, the comparative figures for the several classes of vehicles.

Mr. BLYTHE

I will give the figures again: One ton to two tons, present tax, £21, proposed tax, £30; two tons to three tons, present tax, £25, proposed tax, £45; three tons to four tons, present tax, £28, proposed tax, £60; four tons to five tons, present tax, £30, proposed tax, £75. There is no tax higher than £30 at present, so that there are no comparative figures for the remainder: Five tons to six tons, £90; exceeding six tons, £105. I should mention that the existing duty on a trailer is £2, and it will be increased to £12.

Mr. GOREY

Here we have a more serious attempt to deal with the problem. The tax is not anything like what it should be and not at all as much as a fuel tax would give. The most that a six-ton lorry would be able to do would be between five and six miles to the gallon. A fuel tax on that class of lorry would produce more than is proposed here.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

A fuel tax at how much?

Mr. GOREY

Eightpence per gallon or one shilling per gallon. I am sorry that the Minister has not faced up to the position, and put the tax on motor fuel. He said the reason for not adopting it was the difficulty in administration. That, however, should not stand in the way of equity. If the matter were approached properly there would be very little difficulty. The Road Advisory Board was advised that there would be little or no difficulty.

Mr. BLYTHE

There would be very little difficulty with a low duty on petrol, because evasions that might be theoretically possible would not be worth while bothering about, but when you come to a higher duty you are faced with real difficulty.

Mr. GOREY

No matter what the advice given to the Minister is, I do not believe that. It is very easy to deal with the matter in any form that may arise. It is only moonshine to try and gull the people with that sort of hogwash.

Mr. BLYTHE

The Deputy is a great scientist, I know, but at the same time I am afraid he cannot solve it in that way.

Mr. GOREY

The Minister speaks about £133,000 meeting the situation. Perhaps the Minister for Local Government will tell us the cost per mile for constructing an ordinary trunk road, say from Dublin to Naas, by any of the new methods. He has made experiments out there, some of them good, some of them probably not so good. Some of these methods, or even a better method, will have to be adopted in order that the roads will be able to bear the traffic in future. These experiments are costing up to 16/- per square yard. I do not know how many yards in width the roads are. If the Minister will tell us what the construction of these roads cost per mile, we will be able to form an idea as to how far this £133,000 will go to meet the situation.

The PRESIDENT

I think it is only fair to examine the Deputy's concluding remarks. The £133,000 is not intended to make good the cost of this service. What we had in mind was the amount contributed by the rates towards the upkeep of the roads in 1914. That sum amounted to about £670,000.

Mr. GOOD

£695,000, I think.

The PRESIDENT

Excluding what we will call the incidence of the motor traffic on the roads, the actual cost to the ratepayers, excluding boroughs and urban districts, was £670,000. The question then arises as to what is the fair charge, by reason of the changed conditions, and 60 per cent. has been estimated as a fair increase. That brings that particular amount to about £1,100,000. In considering this matter, perhaps the best estimate to go on would be the estimated cost of the upkeep of the roads last year, including the contributions from the rates and from the Road Fund. That might be calculated by adding those two sums together, and that amounts to about one and three-quarter millions. The Road Fund contribution last year was about £540,000, and in order not to place a higher burden on the rates, you want a sum approximately of £650,000 or £680,000—I forget the exact figure. The difference then between the income from the Road Fund last year and the figure in question, is approximately £133,000, and that sum is made up by the new scale of charges, including the increase in the drivers' licence.

In his statement this evening the Minister for Finance stated that a capital sum of about two million pounds was to be provided for our road programme, leaving a sufficient sum to deal with counties in respect of which this capital sum might not be spent. The condition of the roads at present does not warrant all the criticism that we hear from platforms and from writers in the Press. The roads are in a fairly satisfactory condition. I have had, perhaps, as much experience as anybody else in motoring over the roads. I think I have covered something like 25,000 miles a year for the last three years. There has been a marked improvement in the condition of the roads.

Mr. GOREY

The main roads?

The PRESIDENT

Yes, and even the by-roads, in the Deputy's own county.

Mr. GOREY

The by-roads are improved?

The PRESIDENT

The by-roads there are as good as in any other county. The Deputy knows very well that in the southern portion of his own county there is a specialist in roads— Mr. Walsh, of Templeorum—and the roads in his area are by far the best in the country.

Mr. BAXTER

Has the President seen the roads in the Minister for Agriculture's constituency?

The PRESIDENT

I have not been in Galway for a long time.

Mr. BAXTER

I have, and I can tell you.

The PRESIDENT

Taking all these things into consideration, the number of counties in which the roads are in excellent condition considerably outnumbers those in which the roads are not in good condition. This is a road programme which will possibly require some revision, but it is a constructive attempt to deal with the problem. When this programme is completed, we will have roads which can only be surpassed—if they are surpassed—by one country in Europe—England. When speaking of roads here people usually compare them with English roads. There is a difference between Continental and English roads. The Irish roads are better than the Continental roads. They are not as good as the English roads. A great many visitors from the Continent who travelled over our roads, and quite a number of Americans that I have met, have expressed some surprise that we did not consider our roads to be in very good condition. They have been more than astonished on various occasions, when told that certain roads were bad, to find they were in good condition.

The average price which may be estimated in respect of re-conditioning a road would be about £2,500 per mile. The cost of doing a road in the same way as it was done in Merrion Street or the Naas Road from Inchicore would be much higher than £2,500 per mile, but the average cost may be said to be that amount. The Roads Engineer is satisfied that a very considerable improvement in the main and trunk roads will be effected by the expenditure of a sum of £2,000,000. Deputy Gorey suggested a tax on fuel. The Minister has dealt with the possibility of the introduction of some other forms of spirit than that which would be specified. Apart from that there are other users of petrol, stationary engine owners, dyers, cleaners and other people of that sort.

Mr. GOREY

Very little.

The PRESIDENT

Very little, but I understand the experience of people who had to deal with applications for rebate when the fuel tax was on was that the expense of the distribution of the money practically equalled, if it did not exceed, the amount handed back. In addition to that we have a Border 250 miles in length, and it can be quite understood what difficulties would ensue in examining a quantity of petrol going out in a particular car and examining the quantity in it coming back. There is also the inducement to smuggling, and very many other complications.

Mr. GOREY

What about poteen coming across?

The PRESIDENT

I am dealing with petrol now.

Mr. MORRISSEY

What is the difference?

The PRESIDENT

Poteen is a spirit that I never consumed and that I would not advise anyone else to consume. There are two very strong arguments against the fuel tax. There is the fact that there is manufactured in this country one particular type of car, which, experts say, consumes a considerable amount of petrol. The incidence of the tax in that case would not make that car an attractive proposition to prospective purchasers. That is a consideration we cannot afford to overlook. The exports of that firm's manufactures represent about 80 or 90 per cent. of their entire output. That is one of the most economic propositions in the State. It can be seen that if a few more concerns of that kind were established in the country it would be a distinct economic advantage. Something should be done to stimulate the purchase of such cars in this country.

Mr. GOREY

With that particular type of engine?

The PRESIDENT

It is a very satisfactory engine. I have never seen it fail to take a hill and I have seen other very expensive cars unable to climb hills. Motoring may be divided, I suppose, roughly into three or four classes. The first class consists of persons who require a motor for business. The second class consists of those persons who combine business with pleasure. The third class are those who run goods vehicles, including charabancs. The other class would be persons who use a car only during the week-ends. A case has been made in respect of the latter class, that the annual tax bears unfairly on them. What do they ask? They ask for excellent roads to be provided for seven days of the week but they use them only one or two days and for luxury purposes. They are entitled to do so but their contribution towards the upkeep of the roads would be very small if the fuel tax only were imposed. The last point I have to deal with is that concerning charabancs. Deputy Gorey thinks that the tax is not sufficiently high.

Mr. GOREY

They do not do 25,000 miles, like the President.

The PRESIDENT

No.

Mr. GOREY

The President is getting very decent value.

The PRESIDENT

At the present moment I have three cars and my contribution in respect of tax is considerable. I think if Deputy Gorey takes the average weight in respect of the charabancs and compares that with the goods vehicle he will find a very close parity between the two. The charabanc is an attraction. There are comparatively few of them in the State. They are used only in the summer months.

Mr. GOREY

What about the new company?

The PRESIDENT

It has not arrived yet. It is a tourist traffic proposition, and as such it is undesirable to tax unduly that particular form of income to the country. I suppose it is generally known that on the Continent the charabanc is, perhaps, the cheapest possible form of travelling. It is possible to drive something like 20 or 30 miles there for 2/6. Any steep increase in the incidence of the tax in respect of charabancs might injure the tourist traffic which it is desired to stimulate in this country. But even taking it that you were satisfied that something should be done, it would be unfair to make a higher charge in respect of the charabanc than for goods vehicles. If you are calculating the damage that is done to the roads——

Mr. GOREY

Does the President refer to the Sunday tourist traffic, and charabancs, for instance, leaving Dublin for Wicklow and the danger they are to the ordinary pedestrian coming back?

The PRESIDENT

I can answer that by putting a question to Deputy Wilson, as to whether Wicklow benefits by the fact that it is a tourist centre, in connection with the sums given from the Road Fund.

Major COOPER

Is the President aware that all the people going out in charabancs are going to listen to Deputy Wilson's speeches?

Mr. WILSON

The President has outlined the road policy on this particular resolution, and perhaps it is just as well that we should know exactly how the finances of that fund are being dealt with. I notice that the Minister has forgotten that there has been a 6d. tax levied on all ratepayers for the last three or four years so that this great advantage we are getting of £600,000 by way of additional agricultural grant, is merely returning to the ratepayers the 6d. tax that they have been paying during that period. It balances exactly, and so far as we are concerned, it is of no use. It is only giving us our own money back. If it is the right policy to pass compensation for damage on to the future, why should the ratepayers for the past four years have had to contribute £300,000 yearly out of revenue for damage to roads, while in the case of other property it is to be all passed on?

If you include that £300,000 in the figures for the roads, you will find that the contributions from the ratepayers should not be anything like sixty per cent. On £670,000 a sixty per cent. increase gives £1,073,000. The new duties, plus the £300,000 and the sixpenny tax, would total £800,000. That would give you close on two million pounds per annum, but last year it was only £1,700,000. In respect of the ratepayers, sixty per cent. is too large an addition to the 1914 rate, and is not doing justice to them. We are not quite so pleased with that part of the programme. If you said that the increase in our selling price was 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. it would be nearer to the truth.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

It was stated yesterday that it was 53 per cent.

Mr. WILSON

These figures which the Minister gave ended with 1925. The figures for the prices this year are on a different scale absolutely, and are fully 20 per cent. less.

Mr. HOGAN (Minister for Lands and Agriculture)

Have they fallen by 20 per cent.?

Mr. WILSON

They have fallen by 20 per cent. since last year, and every one will agree with that.

Mr. HOGAN

I will not.

Mr. WILSON

I will not argue that point, but there has been a decline in the price of agricultural produce this year as compared with 1925. When you estimate that 55 per cent. is a fair increase on the 1914 rate you do not take this year into account. The prices for this year have not been produced by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. HOGAN

You will want to give also the fall in the price of manures.

Mr. WILSON

I am placing the matter in this way: that if you could relieve the local rates you would be doing something which might not alone help the farmer, but which might help to remove the idea that there is too much expense as regards administration. The local rate is a cash payment, and he feels that very much. If you could do that you would be taking a step towards preventing the grumbling that is necessary to get anything.

The PRESIDENT

As regards the sixpenny rate, we are not putting it in our pockets. Every penny of it has been spent or will be spent on the roads.

Mr. WILSON

You are excluding it from the figures here.

The PRESIDENT

Quite so. It is on a different footing. Repairs and things of that sort must be effected, and it can scarcely be looked upon as a sum for re-conditioning and surfacing the roads. It does not come into the Central Fund. It goes into the Road Fund, every penny of it, and it must in turn go out.

Mr. LEONARD

The Minister is to be congratulated on his efforts to encourage the manufacture of motor cars in Ireland. He is evidently putting what appears to be a flat rate of £10 per car, no matter what its horse-power. That is how I understand his speech. We have a company manufacturing motor cars in Ireland, and they export 80 per cent. of their output, not in cars, but in parts. These parts are made into the perfect car. A great many of these cars return to Ireland, and the company complain they have to pay a duty to England on the parts imported there, and to Ireland on the complete car which is returned to Ireland. In paragraph (a), section 3, it is stated that any vehicle which to the satisfaction of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health consists of 75 per cent. of work done in Ireland shall be subject to the duty of £10. How is a buyer of one of those cars, which is made of parts which were manufactured in Ireland, assembled in England, and returned to Ireland as a perfect car, to prove to the Minister that that particular car, though of the same make as the whole car manufactured in Ireland, contains 75 per cent. of work that has been done in Ireland? There is a conundrum for the Minister.

Mr. GOREY

I would like to deal with some remarks made by the President in his comparison of the expenditure on roads at present with the expenditure in 1914. He has tried to compare the total expenditure, regardless altogether of how it was spent then and how it is spent now, and regardless altogether of the condition of the main body of the roads in the country then as compared with their present condition. When Ministers speak of 1914 they ought to remember that the roads in every county, both main roads and by-roads, and no matter how small the by-roads, were of uniform quality. They were all reasonably good, and the main road of its class was no better than the by-road of its class. Will the Minister or somebody tell us authoritatively how much of the money of the people is now spent on main roads, and how much on the by-roads, and how do these figures compare with 1914? I would say, subject to correction, that practically all the money is now spent on main roads, and that the by-roads are neglected, or very nearly so. The totals that have been given to us are absolutely misleading. I hope somebody in authority will be able to give us the exact figures showing the proportions spent on the different classes of roads.

The PRESIDENT

With reference to the incidence of charge that would fall on the main and trunk roads on the one hand, and on the other roads on the other hand, there are 8,400 miles of main and trunk roads, and there are 38,000 miles odd of the other roads, making in all something like 46,000 or 47,000 miles. The estimated cost of the upkeep of the 38,000 odd miles at the rate of one shilling per perch, is £612,000. It is calculated the balance would be sufficient for the main roads in respect of the capital expenditure, and the other sum of £300,000 will be in the Road Fund, having met the liabilities in respect to capital expenditure. I wonder have I made it clear to Deputy Gorey?

Mr. GOREY

I am afraid you have not.

The PRESIDENT

I will go over it again. The total cost at 1/- per perch, to deal with the 38,000 miles, is £612,000. The maintenance in respect of the main roads is estimated at a cost of £60 per mile. That for 8,400 miles would total £504,000. That makes a total sum of £1,116,000.

Mr. GOREY

That is spent now.

The PRESIDENT

That is spent now. That is the second calculation as to how the £1,116,000 would be spent. The difference between the £1,116,000 and the £1,750,000 is £633,000 odd, of which £223,000 would be absorbed in dealing with principal and interest on the £2,000,000 capital expenditure on the roads, leaving £300,000 for big construction work, apart and separate from capital charges in respect of the capital sum.

Mr. GOREY

Does the President tell us that £612,000 is spent on the by-roads?

The PRESIDENT

That is the proposal, starting from now, we might say.

Mr. GOREY

It is still misleading, but I contend the amount spent on the by-roads was not anything like that. The condition of the by-roads is much worse than in 1914.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

That is not right at all. It is quite wrong.

Mr. GOREY

I admit that the condition of a lot of the main roads where work has been done in recent times is better but considerable stretches of the main roads of the country are impassable, even of the trunk roads from here to Cork. The condition of the main road between Callan and Clonmel inside the Tipperary border, is such that it would knock the teeth out of the Minister himself and out of his car. I also take exception to the flat rate. I do not care what argument is used to justify it. It cannot be justified—a flat rate on cars and on lorries. For lorries used frequently, that are all day on the road, that make two or three journeys a day, it will be all right, but in the case of a lorry which is used only occasionally, sometimes used by farmers to bring their lambs here to market, how is it suggested that they should pay this tax? They will make very little use of their lorries, perhaps not a dozen times in the year. What equity is in that compared with the case of the lorry of the same description that is every day on the road? What equity is there as between the private or other car that is used occasionally as compared with the President's 25,000 miles? What is the value of a car to the man who does 2,000, or 3,000, miles compared with the President's 25,000, for that tax? There is no equity about it and it could not be justified. This flat rate will never do justice either in the case of a lorry or private car or any other fuel-propelled vehicle. Many farmers throughout the country have got light lorries.

The PRESIDENT

The tax is low on them.

Mr. GOREY

This will prevent them using them and prevent them taking out a licence or buying new lorries.

The PRESIDENT

What is the weight of the lorry you refer to?

Mr. GOREY

A ton or two.

The PRESIDENT

It does not interfere with them.

Mr. GOREY

It applies to lorries exceeding one ton.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

You mentioned lorries of a ton and half a ton.

Mr. GOREY

I did not say half a ton. There is no such lorry made as half a ton lorry.

Mr. McGILLIGAN

We had it on your authority.

Mr. HOGAN

Ton lorries are quite common.

Mr. GOREY

There may be such a thing as a ton lorry made.

The PRESIDENT

A Ford ton truck.

Mr. GOREY

It is a lorry of no use except to an eggler or people of that description. The lorry that will carry in a load of lambs or farm produce will be over a ton. It will be used very seldom and you can give up the idea of development in that direction. They will not have it at this price. If equity is any guide at all to Ministers, I think the sooner that they decide to face the motor fuel tax the better. No matter what obstacles are in the way they can very easily get rid of them if they have a mind to do it. They have got over greater difficulties than that, and if they make up their minds to get over this they can do it very easily. I am not prepared at all to accept the comparisons that have been made between money expended on the roads at present and in 1914. They are misleading and they cannot be made with any authority. I dispute all these sums, especially that stated to have been spent on the by-roads.

Mr. JOHNSON

I do not want to deal with the question of the roads at this stage, but I want to make a suggestion regarding the proposed tax on other vehicles. The third paragraph of this schedule intimates that it is proposed to make a charge of £10 in respect of vehicles of which it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health that seventy-five per cent. is attributable to manufacturing operations performed in the Saorstát. I want to suggest that the same principles should be applied in respect of charabancs and 'buses, that is to say, that there should be a lower charge as an annual licence fee where it can be shown to the Minister responsible that the 'buses and charabancs have been manufactured, the main parts or any other part perhaps, even in respect of the bodybuilding, in Ireland. I am sure Deputy Hewat, in view of the very big increase in the number of motor-buses, would support me in that proposition. I think the business houses, the railway companies and the tramway companies, and the like, prepared to give assistance in respect of the building of bodies in this country, should have some encouragement in that action and inasmuch as the principle of preferential treatment is embodied in this very resolution, I urge that it should be made applicable in respect of these other classes, namely, 'buses, charabancs. I hope an opportunity will arise at later stages of this discussion to set forth that proposition in a more detailed form.

Mr. BAXTER

The point has been brought to my notice more than once, that the method of collection in this matter of tax on cars at present is such that if a motor owner, a man making his living on a motor car, paid his tax at the beginning of the year, he gets off with perhaps £2 or £3 less than if he paid his tax quarterly. It is very difficult to justify an extra £2 or £3 per year on a car if the owner decides to pay the first half-year's tax in two quarterly instalments and the last half-year's tax at the beginning of the last half-year. The work of administration is practically nothing, and why that extra charge is made in this case is very difficult to explain. I think it is really no justification, and in as much as the the cost of collection is nothing more, and as the owner of the car is going to pay this tax before he goes out to use the road, because he must pay at the beginning of the quarter anyway, I think it is a matter that the Minister should reconsider and make some arrangements other than the arrangements that exist at present.

Mr. GOOD

There is a much larger question to my mind involved in this particular resolution than appears evident from any of the speeches that we have listened to. I gather from this resolution that the passing of it will bind us to the road policy as outlined in it.

Mr. BLYTHE

No.

Mr. GOOD

I have read the Minister's statement to-day and he refers in his statement to the road problem and the method of dealing with it. He went on to give us the information that we are now discussing in this particular resolution. That being so I cannot separate this resolution from the Government's road policy. It will be remembered that before the adjournment we pressed the Government for a definition and a clear statement of road policy in the immediate future. We got an assurance immediately before the adjournment that that road policy would be outlined in the Budget. Now following on that we are called upon here to deal with the resolution that sets up the methods which are to be followed in that road policy. Therefore, I take it that if we approve of this resolution, we are approving of that policy.

The PRESIDENT

Not necessarily.

Mr. GOOD

Well, of course, I can only deal with these matters as I find them.

Mr. JOHNSON

May I raise a point of order and perhaps explanation, because the whole question that is involved in the passing of this resolution is involved here? I have taken it that this year, as in previous years, the passing of these resolutions at this stage does not by any means bind the Dáil to agree with them on Report; that this is a formal process legalising something that is happening to-day, and we may renounce them to-morrow or when they come up on Report. We are not binding ourselves and committing ourselves to support in future these resolutions by passing them tonight. I take it that that is right.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Some of the resolutions in particular will come into operation in the morning, if passed this evening, and will have to be reported within a fixed period. They will then have to go into a Bill and go through the usual stages, so that six further opportunities will occur to review this particular matter.

Mr. GOOD

Quite so. But I want the Committee to understand the policy of this resolution and what is embodied in it. Page forty-two of the Minister's statement deals largely with the different figures that we have been discussing during the last hour on this resolution. I will just give you the opening words of the statement:—"I now come to deal with what has been designated the road problem." Then he proceeds to outline the Government's view on this road problem and the methods by which he hopes to deal with that problem, so that there is in this resolution, as I said, a great deal more than has been read into it by the preceding speakers.

As I understand that road policy, as outlined in this resolution, it is very much on the lines of the road policy at the present moment. The roads, as I understand it, are to be maintained by the local authorities. These local authorities are to be assisted with a grant from the Government. Now let us see where that leads us. The roads have to be dealt with by the local authorities. Take the road from Dublin to Dunlaoghaire. It is some six miles. That road is known to most of us. That particular roadway comes within the jurisdiction of four local authorities—four local authorities in six miles.

Mr. HEWAT

What about the Tramways Company?

Mr. GOOD

I will deal with that later. These four local authorities have four staffs, four sets of plant, for dealing with six miles of main roadway, plus by-roads, and I may say that in addition to having four local authorities you have four methods of dealing with the roadways, very different in character. I only quote that to show the Deputies what this system of road maintenance, as outlined in this resolution, means. I, for one, most strongly object to that method of dealing with our roads. I have contended from the start that our roadways ought be under one authority. To set up a series of plants, a series of staffs, a series of methods for dealing with our roadways all over the country is the most wasteful system that I can conceive. I want that aspect of the question to be considered before we pass this resolution. Let me just give you one example, one unfortunate example of that method of dealing with roads. In the South of Ireland there is a great deal of limestone in many of the local areas. In order to give employment in a particular local area every surveyor dealing with that local area has to use the local quarries. If he attempted to say that that limestone is unsuitable he possibly would hear other views from the labour representatives or the local authorities. That being so, he is compelled to use what is admittedly unsuitable material for modern roadmaking. I think even the President, who stands as the largest user of roads in this particular gathering, will agree that limestone roads blow away in the summer time and turn into mud in the winter time. Anybody who has any experience of roadmaking will agree that that is a most unsuitable material. The present system compels those authorities to use that unsuitable material. The approval of this resolution maintains that system. These are points that I hope will be elucidated more fully when we get to the clauses in the Bill, but I only want to point out to the Deputies exactly what that means.

The President has been good enough to give us some figures in connection with the cost of roads. He mentioned what roads cost in 1926—£1,750,000. He said that in 1914 the roads cost £670,000 to maintain. I hope I am quoting the figures correctly. If you take the difference between the two figures you have an increase of £1,080,000 this year as against 1914. That increase falls very largely on the local authorities. Take, in conjunction with that figure, the fact that within the last two years the rates levied by local authorities have increased by 30 per cent. The figures given in the Dáil by the Minister for Finance showed that in 1922-23 local taxation per head amounted to £1 3s. 1d., and in the year 1924-25 it was £1 13s. 5d., or an increase of 30 per cent.

The PRESIDENT

For the information of the Deputy, I might say that the incidence of road taxation has decreased during the last three years.

Mr. GOOD

I just want to couple the two. We are laying burdens on local authorities for the maintenance of roads. I hold the increase in the expenses of local authorities has very largely accrued from the increased cost of road maintenance. That is not right in principle, and I want to get that burden off the shoulders of the local authorities, not alone from the financial point of view, but from the point of view of having the work done thoroughly and in the most economical manner. I think it is advisable to get the burden off the shoulders of local authorities.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

took the Chair.

Mr. GOOD

When we are considering this resolution I hope those points will be given attention. I do not want to press those points unduly at the moment. There is also involved in this question of roadways the problem of the size of vehicles. Some motor lorry bodies and many charabanc bodies have attained such dimensions that practically no other road user can use by-roads in many districts. That is a point that ought to be dealt with. Not alone should we limit the weight of these vehicles, but we should also limit their size so that other road users will be able to use the by-roads in addition to users of charabanc and motor lorries.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

They should be confined to the main roads.

Mr. GOOD

There is another point that I would like to bring forward; it is embodied in the last paragraph of this resolution. If it can be shown to the Minister that the engine of any vehicle was manufactured prior to January 1st, 1913, the owner of that vehicle shall be refunded 25 per cent. of the motor duty. I have not been able to find out when the present system of taxation became operative; I should think it has been in force from four to five years.

Mr. LEONARD

Since 1919.

Mr. GOOD

This principle was, no doubt, in operation when the Act came into force. I take it that an engine seven years old in 1919 was entitled to a refund of 25 per cent. of the duty. That principle has been maintained in each Budget. I hold that if an engine manufactured in 1913 was entitled to a remission of 25 per cent. of duty in 1919, the same principle should hold good to-day in respect of engines of a similar age. The year of manufacture will, of course, have to be advanced, and in the circumstances an engine manufactured in 1916 or 1917 should be entitled to a remission of 25 per cent. duty. The users of old engines and old chassis should be given some advantage. I think that is a point that was overlooked.

The PRESIDENT

In 1913 or in 1916 they had not to meet much in the way of expense. The car manufactured then was a very different car to what has been manufactured since or what is being manufactured to-day.

Mr. GOOD

I happen to be running an old car.

The PRESIDENT

How much did it cost?

Mr. GOOD

It costs considerably more to run than a modern car would cost. In fact it has become so costly that I am considering the question of dropping it.

The PRESIDENT

The McKenna duties came into force in 1919 and that added considerably to the cost. The incidence of costs increased at a very steep curve from 1918 to 1921; since then they are on the down grade.

Mr. GOOD

I do not desire to argue that particular point with the President. I submit that an engine of equal if not greater efficiency could be bought for the same money to-day. These are points that I hope will be borne in mind when the resolution is under consideration. I look on this resolution, particularly from the point of view of road policy, as one of the most important resolutions submitted and I would like to see every consideration given to it so that when we are adopting a road policy we will adopt the wisest policy possible.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

There is a comparatively small but important matter in connection with the third paragraph of the resolution to which I would like to refer. We are all pleased and satisfied that the Minister has reduced the tax on the Ford car to £10. There will, however, be pretty general objection to what is tantamount to an increase in the tax on other cars. That, I assume, will be the effect of the proposal to take the horse-power as a unit of taxation and charge £1 for each unit of horse-power as against the present system. This will hit especially the cheap American car, the car that comes next in price to the Ford. This particular type of car is made in the United States and in Canada. It includes such makes as the Chevrolet, the Overland and the Maxwell. These cars generally reach 20 or 21 horse-power; they are rated at that horse-power. Very much more powerful and more expensive cars are built in Britain and are rated at 14 and 16 horse-power. The tax on these cars will be much cheaper than the tax on cheap American and Canadian cars.

There is no justification for increasing the present rate on these cars. There is an average increase of £3, and when you have that in addition to the proposed increase which comes in under the next resolution, increasing driving licence from 5/- to £1, it will be a very considerable increase in taxation on this particular type of car user, because the majority of these people will be in the class the President spoke of—using the cars mainly for their own business.

I think that the Minister might very well allow the present basis of taxation to continue in the case of cars other than the Ford. He gave as a reason for adopting that system of 1922, or 1923, that it was in order to give a special advantage to the Ford car. I think that the Ford car is getting a very substantial advantage in this resolution, that no good case is made for going back to the unit of horse-power, and that the tax as far as these cars are concerned should be left as it is.

Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY

The concessions that the Minister has made with regard to the Ford car are very highly deserving and are very gratifying to me because the industry is so unique and so valuable. But I wish to suggest that the Minister will see that the new tax is put into operation as soon as possible and that it will not be deferred until next year.

Mr. BLYTHE

It is proposed that the tax will come into operation in about a month. It is not one of the things we can put into operation to-morrow, because certain administrative arrangements have to be made. With regard to what Deputy O'Connell has said, the position is that it is, of course, the horse-power basis at present. We are not altering the horse-power basis; what we propose to do is to go back to the old method of calculating the horse-power basis. We calculate it, under an Order which I made as Minister for Local Government, on the cubic content of the cylinder. Previously it was calculated on the bore of the cylinder, and we propose to go back to that. That will mean an increase in about 64 per cent. of cars; it will mean a decrease in about 24 per cent. of cars, and it will mean that about 16 per cent. of the cars will remain as they are.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

Has the Minister looked into the point that the increase will be largely on the cheaper type of cars?

Mr. BLYTHE

It possibly will. I know that the Chevrolet is one of the cars that will be increased, but our reason for this was to get the £133,000 for the Road Fund. We felt that more money was wanted for the Road Fund. At the same time we wanted to remove the handicap on the Ford car, and it was really a question of how we could best spread it out to get the money. This was the best conclusion we could arrive at. Some suggestions might be made for improving it.

Mr. SEARS

I wish to express my pleasure at the fact that the Ford car has been dealt with. Its case has been considered for a long time, and it laboured under a great disadvantage in having to pay a very heavy tax as compared with other cars. It has now been put on the same level as a number of light English cars, and I welcome that. I would be prepared to go even further because of the fact that the parts of the car are made in Ireland. I do not think Deputy O'Connell fully considered all that underlay his suggestion. If the Minister adopted this suggestion it would be a good thing for the Overland and other cars that he mentioned. If a few hundred of these cars were brought into the country there would be a few hundred less Ford cars here, and in that case there would be, perhaps, a few score more Cork men walking the streets idle. That is a consideration that he should remember. I remember Arthur Griffith stating that if we had power in Ireland to put on tariffs he was sure that the first thing an Irish Government would do would be to put a tax on foreign motor cars and enable an Irish industry to prosper as it should prosper. He said that in a few years under such a tax nine out of ten cars used in Ireland would be Irish made. I would like to see a policy adopted that would lead to that result. The policy as outlined in the Budget is a slight help to the Ford industry, but it will be a long time before we arrive at the result that Arthur Griffith hoped and wished for. At all events it is on the right lines. I welcome it, and I hope that the Minister will not take away any of the benefits which he is now conferring on the Ford car.

Major MYLES

I would like to refer the Minister back to the last paragraph, as well as Deputy Good. This is the first time I ever heard this explanation that the Minister has given, and I was very keen on the matter when the Finance Act of 1920 came into vogue. In common with Deputy Good, all the motorists that I have ever heard discussing it were of the opinion that it was to be a concession to poor men with old, second-hand cars on which they would not have to pay the full tax, and who would keep these cars on the road at a reduced tax. I never heard the explanations given by the Minister or the President before. I would ask the Minister to reconsider the matter on the lines that I have suggested.

The PRESIDENT

Is it in order to libel Deputy Good?

Mr. GOOD

Oh, quite. It is not the first time it has been done.

Mr. CORISH

But not from the same quarter.

Major MYLES

Nobody can quarrel with the Minister's idea that articles manufactured in this country should get a preference, but I would ask the Minister to inform the Committee what is the reason, with all the advantages that the Ford car has already, in being free of duty in the country, that we pay £25 to £30 more in the Free State for it than is paid for the same car in Northern Ireland, where it has had to pay duty somewhere, and why it is possible to-day to buy a Ford car in Belfast and import it into Southern Ireland for practically the same price as the article manufactured in Cork? I hope that the Minister will go into that point. Otherwise, with the reduction in tax, which I agree with in principle, he will only be assisting profiteering.

I would like the Minister to put the larger tax he is placing on the lorries on the 'buses, because there is no doubt about it—those of us who live in the northern end of the country have, perhaps, seen these 'buses more in operation than those in the southern part of the Free State—that for damage to roads and for inconvenience to other road users they beat everything on the road. I understand that in Northern Ireland there are 'buses to-day that can do, and have done, between sixty and sixty-five miles an hour. The Minister will say that we have a remedy against that, that is, that the Gárdaí can take steps to stop it. But the Gárdaí cannot be everywhere and it is on the open road that it happens, which is, perhaps, the best place where it could happen. But that is what is tearing up the roads. You have a speed limit of 12 miles an hour for all heavy lorries, but is it ever enforced in the Free State? I never heard of it. It is being enforced in the North, and Free State drivers find that when they go across the border. I reckon that there is more damage done to the roads by the speed at which heavy lorries and 'buses travel than by the actual weight of them. The greatest inconvenience of all is the enormous width of these vehicles, particularly when you meet them on narrow roads. In our end of the country we have not the fine wide roads that you have here about Dublin, and it would be very hard for the ordinary Deputy from this part of the country to visualise what he might meet with up in our part of the country. It frequently happens that you have to pull right into the ditch and wait until one of these charabancs, lorries, or 'buses passes.

There is one other point I wish to touch on, and it is the question of fines. I do not know whether, at this stage, it comes into the discussion, but I would ask the Minister to make some change in the method that obtains with regard to fines under the Motor Acts. The minimum fine, I think, for not taking out a licence is £20. The usual procedure, when a case goes before the District Justice, is that he may think it a hard one in this respect that the person charged was only a fortnight or three weeks late in taking out the licence. It means that the man has been caught a little bit earlier than usual. The District Justice proposed to recommend the case to the mercy of the county council and the unfortunate members of the county council are written to and canvassed for weeks asking them to reduce the fine. The fine is reduced in nearly every case, so that in the end the fines for non-compliance with this regulation requiring people to take out the road tax, that we fix here, is practically a farce.

MINISTER for LOCAL GOVERNMENT and PUBLIC HEALTH (Mr. Burke)

There is no longer an appeal to the county council.

Major MYLES

I am glad to hear that. That disposes of my argument.

Professor THRIFT

I want to say that I do not think Deputy Sears need have the slightest fear that the change proposed by Deputy O'Connell would have the slightest influence in deciding whether a person would buy a Ford car or another car, because the amount is much too small. I agree with Deputy O'Connell that the change proposed is rather a hardship on the owners of the cheap, small cars, and throws the incidence of taxation too much on them. If the Minister would examine the 64 per cent. that he told us about on which there would be an increase, due to the change, I am pretty certain he would find that it would go almost entirely on light small cars and the cheap class of car. That means that, by this alteration, you are putting on that kind of car owner the burden of increased taxation that you propose to secure under this resolution. You will find, too, I believe, that the dearer kind of cars are getting off rather lightly. The cheap light car is going to suffer. That is one objection I have to it. There is another, proposing to change from the system to which people are getting more or less accustomed. To make a change for a small advantage is not, I think advisable. Unless there was some important reason for it, I do not think the change proposed is to be commended.

Mr. A. BYRNE

I rise to support the appeal made by Deputy Johnson and not replied to by the Minister when he stood up to speak. I refer to the question of motor body-building in the city of Dublin. I would appeal to the Minister to allow the chassis, for ordinary touring cars, free into the Free State. If the Minister were to do that, it would be a great encouragement to body-builders in the city of Dublin as well as to the purchasers of cars to get Irish bodies built on their favourite chassis. For instance, a man may want to have a Fiat chassis. If that man thought that he could get the chassis in here free of duty he would, I am certain, have no hesitation whatever in getting an Irish body built on it. It would be a great thing for the country if, instead of having English or French bodies on these cars, the work of body-building on them was done in Dublin. What I suggest would be the means of providing work for many men in the city of Dublin who are now idle. The machinery is ready in the Dublin workshops to provide the best type of body in the United Kingdom on any chassis.

The PRESIDENT

Where is the United Kingdom?

Mr. A. BYRNE

I think the President knows more about that than I do. Our United Kingdom cars are coming in here every day of the week. You have cars coming in every day of the week from the British Isles, and you have also French and American cars coming in. If cars ready for the road, that come in here, were made pay a duty of 33 per cent., and if chassis were allowed to come in free of charge, our coach-building shops in Dublin would, I believe, be able to do very well. I am pleased, of course, to see that the Ford car is getting an advantage, but that advantage will not mean anything to any part of Ireland with the exception of Cork. The preference that has been given to the Ford car will be of no advantage to the Dublin coach-builders who are walking around our city streets idle. I raised this point last year and the Minister said that he would look into it, but he never went further than that. The suggestion I make of letting chassis in free would provide much-needed employment for our body-builders in the city of Dublin who are idle at the moment. Motor bodies that I have seen built in Dublin are the best that could be seen in any part of the Kingdom I have been in, the United Kingdom or any part of the British Isles. I notice some Deputies are laughing, but some can laugh because they have got what they want for Cork. The appeal I am making is on behalf of Dublin working men, and I urge on the Minister that he should not overlook the suggestion I have made.

Mr. CORISH

It is certainly a source of satisfaction to Deputies to find that the Minister has been able to do something to afford protection to the motor industry in Cork. We are all Irish, and it really does not matter what part of the country benefits by the Budget. I think we all ought to be deeply grateful for what the Minister has been able to do in that matter. With regard to the question of roads, it was also a source of satisfaction, I am sure, to every Deputy to hear the Minister for Finance admit that we have a road problem. County Councils all over the Saorstát have it brought home to them week after week and month after month that there is a road problem, and a very serious one, too. To my mind, the efforts that the Ministry appear to be making in this Budget in order to deal with the road problem fall very short of the mark. To my mind increasing the taxation on large motor lorries is not at all making adequate provision for dealing with the road problem. We must remember that we have also a very serious railway problem. The railways at present are not paying their way, and eventually something will have to be done by the State to put the railways on a proper footing. I think the greatest contribution the Government could make to the railway problem would be to remove, from the roads, motor lorries of over five tons all in. At present the county councils in the Free State are not able to cope with the road problem, with any small degree of success, because the efforts they are making continually are spoiled by the heavy motor traffic which is ruinous to the roads. It is apparent that the money spent on the roads for the last three or four years is only money thrown away because of this heavy traffic. I think the Minister for Local Government will admit that he has received representations from a great many county councils in the country asking him to prohibit heavy motor traffic on the roads altogether. If the Ministry are not preparel to prohibit heavy motor traffic on the main roads they ought at least to permit of the county councils prohibiting it. The by-roads are a complete charge on the local ratepayer, and the Minister will not give them the authority to prevent heavy traffic on the by-roads. It is a big problem which, I am sorry to say, the Ministry are not dealing with satisfactorily in this Budget. The amount of money to be raised by this extra taxation bears a very inadequate proportion to the amount of damage done to the roads by those lorries. Some people may think it is a retrograde step to suggest that these lorries should be removed from the roads, but the railways are the proper channels for the conveyance of merchandise such as motor lorries are carrying at the moment. I suggest to the Ministry to reconsider the policy of lorry traffic, and it will not alone be a relief to the local ratepayers but also to the taxpayers.

Mr. CONLAN

I was glad to hear the encomiums which the Minister passed on Kildare roads. They are well deserved, but, at the same time, their perfect state has been brought about at a great cost to the ratepayers. Approximately £100,000 was spent on road maintenance in Kildare during the last financial year.

The PRESIDENT

It was a great thing it was there.

Mr. CONLAN

The President, in his passage through Kildare, confined himself to the main or trunk roads. If he went into the by-ways he would find very little attention is paid to them. Ninety per cent. on an average is spent on the main and trunk roads. Over and over again the view has been expressed from those benches that a tax should be placed upon petrol, and that that would be a fair way of dealing with those very heavy lorries doing such heavy damage to the roads. I should like to ask the Minister for Finance has any estimate been made of the load which a four-ton lorry can carry so that we might estimate what would be the total weight placed upon the roads by a lorry of that capacity. Again, a great many farmers, especially in tillage districts, own lorries of their own which they use fairly often, especially after harvest, in delivering corn and that sort of thing, and I think it would only be fair that those lorries should be taxed on a different scale from the lorries which are constantly on the road.

Captain REDMOND

I think it is a good thing we have had a discussion on this resolution. Although I do not entirely agree with Deputy Good in the grave view he takes of our passing this immediate resolution, at the same time I cannot close my eyes to the fact that the resolution is entwined with the road policy of the Government. The fact that this resolution will go through to-night, as you stated, will in no way prevent the discussion taking place on it and, even if the Dáil thought fit, its rejection, at a future time, when it comes up to be dealt with on the Finance Bill and otherwise. At the same time, we have had the road policy defined more or less by the Minister for Finance in his Budget speech, and, like others, I am somewhat disappointed, not so much with the amount he proposed to get by way of taxation and to apportion towards the development of a transport policy in the Free State as with the whole outline he has given of the road policy. It is proposed, as far as I understand, that certain classes of taxation should be apportioned for the benefit of road transport, but it is also proposed that a sum of two million pounds should be placed at the disposal of the Local Government Department for the up-keep, the maintenance and the improvement of—I think the Minister said— some 1,500 miles of roadway in this country.

I am strongly of opinion that this is a great question of national transport; that, as one speaker has mentioned, railway transport and road transport are interlocked, and that it would be wise if we were to take a more national aspect of it instead of endeavouring by piecemeal taxation, or by small grants by way of borrowing, to obtain a sufficiently large sum whereby we could ensure that, at least, the national arteries of the country could be taken out of the hands and away from the responsibility of the local councils and placed as a national burden upon the State. We are, however, dealing now with the immediate resolution. It proposes various classes of taxes in regard to various classes of motor vehicles. These are different to those taxes which have been in vogue up to the present. I am in complete accord with the suggestion as outlined in these taxes, that heavy motor vehicles, which at the moment do not seem to pay their proper share for the up-keep of the roads, should be taxed sufficiently to do so. I would go so far as to say that they should be taxed completely off the roads. We have the railways and we have the roads. The railways could, I think, be used for the transport of goods.

I think that long distance motor vehicles should be heavily taxed, and I think there should be differentiation made in regard to the taxation of vehicles carrying goods, say, from Dublin to Limerick by road, and between vehicles only distributing articles in the neighbourhood of Dublin. These vehicles which are using the roads contribute very little to their upkeep, and they are competing with the railways and destroying the roads. Our roads are not perfect. They were not built for heavy traffic. We had not money for that purpose in the past, and it is questionable whether it would be wise to expend money to enable them to carry that traffic in the future. The railways are largely idle. I think every encouragement should be given for the utilisation of the railways for the carriage of goods, and that every discouragement should be given for the utilisation of the main roads for the same purpose. In regard to the various classes of taxation and in regard to those in respect of ordinary motor vehicles I welcome the proposal to encourage the factory at Cork. I remember that factory in the early stages of its inception. Perhaps this flat rate of £10 may be of some assistance to it, and perhaps not.

I would like, before this debate concludes, if the Minister for Finance would answer the very ingenious question put by Deputy Leonard. Subsequent to the Deputy's remarks, Deputy Myles said that he could not understand how a Ford car coming from Belfast could be bought as cheap in the Free State as a similar car produced within the Free State. I think that that bears on Deputy Leonard's previous question. He said that according to the proposal contained in paragraph 3 (a) it is suggested that, if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister for Local Government that 75 per cent. of the cost of producing the vehicle is attributable to the manufacturing operations performed in the Saorstát the rate is to be £10. He went on to say, and I think his statement is correct, that what happens mostly in Cork is that the parts are manufactured there, then transferred to Manchester or elsewhere, and put together, and then they are sent back, perhaps, to Dublin, and when the finished article arrives in Dublin it is taxed as if the parts had never been made in Cork. That is to say, it is taxed as if it came in whole and entire from outside the country. I want to know if that is so. I am not sure that it is, but if it is so, I say that, if it will continue, it will defeat the object outlined by the Minister in paragraph 3 (a), namely, to encourage the production of motor cars at Cork. If that is so it is also a reason why you could get a motor car in Belfast as cheap as in Dublin, because if the cars are to be manufactured in Cork, put together in Manchester and charged the full duty in Dublin, you will pay the same price in Dublin as in Manchester. I think that that is a point which the Minister for Finance might clear up.

We have had many interesting accounts of the condition of the roads in the country. Those of us who have occasion to go about the country—and the President is not the only one— know what they are like. We know that money has been spent on the roads —unfortunately, in my opinion, fruitlessly, and lavishly spent, though I do not say intentionally. The material put on the roads was never meant, nor could it be expected, to maintain the heavy motor and steam lorry traffic placed on them. I think it has, unfortunately, been an extravagant economy upon our part—probably an unforeseen one but one which we could remedy now. It might be possible for the Minister to consider, instead of driving the heavy motor traffic off the roads by heavy taxation, the advisability of further and increased borrowing in order to take over large portions of the main roads. I suggest that that is the only satisfactory solution of the problem. With the general tenor of the whole resolution I am in complete agreement. Regarding the statements that have been made about paragraph 3 (b) being a hardship on owners of light motor cars, I am in total disagreement with Deputy Thrift, because, after all, a Chevrolet car is not a light car or a car of small horse-power. The light car is one which I understand to be in the nature of a Morris-Cowley, a Standard, or a Morris-Oxford. These are much lighter than the Chevrolet car and they have much less horse-power. They will consume much less petrol and can be driven at much less cost. These are cars which are made in England and which the McKenna duties were brought in to protect. They are the cars which the McKenna duties made possible to produce in England for the benefit of people with small purses. I do not think the Chevrolet car, being strong and having large horse-power, will cost more owing to taxation under this paragraph, or that that is going to inflict a hardship on the owner of light cars.

Professor THRIFT

The term I used was, I think, "cheaper cars."

Captain REDMOND

I do not think that a Chevrolet car is cheaper than a Morris-Cowley car.

Mr. T. O'CONNELL

It is a lot cheaper.

Captain REDMOND

It may be cheaper in initial cost, but I doubt very much if it is cheaper to run. I doubt if it would not cost much more per mile to run than it will cost to run a Morris-Cowley car. What I do say is that for the person who has to get about his business, for the local doctor, for the peregrinating parish priest and for the hungry lawyer who has to hunt the various districts in the wilds of the country for his existence, the light car is the type selected, and this will not particularly hit the owner of that vehicle. I certainly think that in regard to taxation and in regard to helping the upkeep of the roads, this resolution is a step in the right direction. It is a step in the direction of taxing properly, but not too heavily, vehicles which have been largely the cause of the destruction of our roads.

Mr. BLYTHE

There is a resolution following this one which ought to be passed to-night. This discussion can be continued on the general resolution to-morrow and it can be resumed on Report. I would like if the Committee would agree either to take this resolution now or postpone the discussion of this resolution until to-morrow and take the following resolutions to-night.

Captain REDMOND

We can take both.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Is it agreed to take the other resolutions to-night?

Agreed.

Resolution 10 put and agreed to.