CUSTOMS RESOLUTIONS. - RESOLUTION No. 11—EXCISE. – Dáil Éireann (4th Dáil) – Wednesday, 21 Apr 1926

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

(1) That the fee of five shillings payable under sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Motor Car Act, 1903, on the taking out of a licence to drive a motor car shall not be payable in respect of any such licences taken out on or after the 22nd day of April, 1926, and in lieu of such fee there shall be charged, levied and paid on and by every person who on or after the 22nd day of April, 1926, takes out under the said Section 3 a licence to drive a motor car an excise duty of one pound.

(2) That the said duty shall be charged, levied, and paid on the taking out of the licence and shall be collected by and paid to the council by whom the licence is granted.

(3) That sub-section (7) of Section 7 of the Roads Act, 1920, and all orders relating to that sub-section heretofore made under that Act and for the time being in force shall apply to sums received by a council in respect of the duties mentioned in this Resolution in like manner as they apply to the fees mentioned in the said sub-section.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

Does the Minister want this resolution passed without discussion?

Mr. BLYTHE

I do not suggest that, but, as there are other resolutions, there could not be a great deal of discussion on any one of them. I do not want the resolution passed without discussion.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

We agreed that the resolutions should be taken before 10.30. I do not know if we can have discussion on them before that time.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

There can be discussion, but the resolutions are to be passed before 10.30.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

The discussion, therefore, cannot be very elaborate. I want to ask the Minister for an explanation as to the increase in the licence duty of motor drivers. As was stated by the Minister, the increased motor duties are to compensate for the increased upkeep of the roads. It seems quite reasonable that the owners of motor cars and motor lorries and char-a-bancs which do a considerable amount of injury to the roads should have to pay a portion of the tax, but I do not see any reason why a driver of a motor vehicle should be expected to pay portion of a tax for the upkeep of the roads. He cannot possibly have any ill-effect on the surface of the road. I do not know what the corresponding charges are in England, but I am inclined to think that the charge proposed in the Budget is an excessive charge for drivers' licences. More justification is required for the imposition of this tax than the bald statement that money is required for the maintenance of the roads.

Major COOPER

I want to ask the Minister two questions and I will do it very briefly. I have read rather hurriedly sub-section (2) of Section 3 of the Motor Car Act of 1903. I gather that it applies not only to drivers of motor cars but to drivers of motor bicycles. A charge of £1 in proportion to the running cost of a motor car is very little, but in the case of a motor bicycle, which is lighter and uses less fuel and which is driven sometimes by a young man, a charge of £1 would be a good deal more, in proportion. I suggest to the Minister for Finance that if the drivers of motor bicycles are included in this resolution he might graduate the duty. Ten shillings would be a reasonable duty to impose on the driver of a motor bicycle.

I now come to my second point. There are many cases in which a motor car is used by members of one family. Members of the family take out a licence each in order that they may take out the family car. Would it be beyond possibility to adopt some form of procedure like that in the Firearms Act whereby you took out one licence at the full price and members of the same family could take out additional licences at reduced rates? I would ask the Minister to consider that before Report Stage.

Mr. GOREY

I would ask the Minister to go a bit further, and as we have the doctrine of "one man one vote," to apply the doctrine of one car one driver's licence. Deputy Cooper has stated exactly what was in my mind. Three or four members of a family may have occasion to drive the same car, and it seems a gross injustice to ask for a £1 licence from each person. I do not see why that should be substituted for a 5/- licence. The Minister may think that the more irresponsible people will be driven off the roads by this tax, but he has not said that. If we want to meet the increased cost of road maintenance, let the tax be put on the vehicle, but do not divide it between the driver and the vehicle except you have some other aim.

Mr. ALTON

Does the Deputy intend to make the President pay for three licences? He keeps three cars and I presume he has one driver.

Mr. JOHNSON

Look at the Estimates.

Mr. GOREY

Take the Estimates. I suppose when one of the President's drivers is resting the other fellow is driving. They must do it in relays.

The PRESIDENT

This is a question of getting £45,000.

Mr. GOREY

Then it is a question of picking it out of the people's pockets. If any method is justifiable, why not get a gun and take it out of a bank?

The PRESIDENT

The Minister had to find the money from motors and it was made up, as you have seen, in connection with the heavy cars. That is a pretty steep curve for heavy cars, goods vehicles and charabanes. The next question was the ordinary car and, in addition, this particular £45,000 is discovered here. It is a question of finding the money. If it is not found here, it must be found somewhere else.

Mr. GOREY

Then find it somewhere else.

Mr. BLYTHE

What Deputy Cooper said with regard to family licences would be possible, but whether we should do it or not is another thing. I do not think there would be any difficulty. It is suggested that if we reduced the number of members of a family holding licences it would be good for the cars apart from the mileage run. It would be to the advantage of the owners that there should be an increase in the cost of licences and that fewer licences should be taken out by the members of a family.

Mr. GOREY

Provided that the children holding them live for ever!

Mr. BLYTHE

Motor bicycles; at present, get off fairly lightly. There has been no increase suggested in their case. It is felt that they are, perhaps, to some extent a danger on the road. If we could prevent that, and the irresponsible use of them, by increasing the licence duty, in their case, at any rate, it would be to the good, but the real question is, as the President stated, that the sum of £45,000 is to be derived from this increase. If you have regard to the value of money, this increase, as compared with the ten shillings that had to be paid as licence duty in 1903, when the charge was first imposed, only brings the licence duty up, for all practical purposes, to the level that it was then.

Mr. A. BYRNE

Does the Minister refuse to give way to Deputy Gorey on the point he raised of one driver's licence for one car?

The PRESIDENT

Would Deputy Byrne tell us how to find the money that would cost. The Deputy is great in asking for reductions in taxation and reductions in expenditure, but we want the money. Will the Deputy tell us where we shall get it?

Mr. BYRNE

I think the point raised by Deputy Gorey is a good one. That is, that if a man has a car and if he wants to send his son into town with it on a message, the one licence should be sufficient.

The PRESIDENT

But we want this £13,000 duty, and that settles it.

Mr. BYRNE

Is that to apply to taxi drivers?

Mr. BLYTHE

Yes.

Mr. BYRNE

Quite recently, in Dublin, one hundred men, mostly ex-Army men, purchased their own taxis, and you propose now to increase the licence?

Mr. BLYTHE

Yes.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I suggest if the Minister is looking for this £13,000 additional, he should put it on motor lorries. The taxes on motor lorries are not sufficient. We also think that something might be added to the tax on charabancs.

Mr. BLYTHE

That is a matter that we can discuss. The question of one licence to one car is complicated by the question of endorsement. In some cases I do not know what use is made of the process of endorsement, but I think there ought to be a good deal of use made of it. People fined for driving at an excessive rate should have their licences endorsed for reckless driving. If they are brought up again they should be dealt with accordingly, and the endorsement ought to be there against them.

Mr. HEWAT

I would like to make my position clear. I rise in a very unsympathetic House from my point of view. Let me disabuse the minds of Deputies on one point. The Government in this instance are making the real industry—the one that I think is of more importance to the country to-day than practically any other industry so far as the development of the country is concerned—a stalking horse for excessive taxation, and I say to the House, "You may take it as you like, but the public will have to have a good say in this matter, and they will let you know about it when they find the inconvenience that you are putting them to." I will elaborate that at a later stage. I only say now that I disagree with the Minister's proposition and the criticism of the House upon it.

Mr. GOREY

The owner of a car has sometimes to take out a licence in the name of one of his employees. Supposing that man leaves, he takes the licence with him; it cannot be transferred to his successor. The employer does not mind when the amount of the licence is only five shillings, but it is another thing when it is a pound. It is an injustice.

Mr. MORRISSEY

I would ask the Minister to deal with the point raised by Deputy Baxter with regard to the question of paying the tax on vehicles quarterly as against paying it yearly. I think there is a difference of £2 12s. That hits the poor people very badly. Take a man who owns and drives his own Ford hackney car. He cannot afford to pay a year's tax at once, or even a half-year's tax, and because he is forced to take out his licence quarterly it will cost him £2 12s., or £3 more than if he took it out yearly.

Dáil Éireann debate - Wednesday, 21 Apr 1926