When this Resolution was before the House I endeavoured to extract from the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Local Government certain information relative to the Road Fund and road expenditure, in order to enable us to make up our minds whether or not this Resolution should receive our support. We did not succeed in getting that information. I have read very carefully the speeches which were made by the Minister for Finance in proposing the Resolution, and by the Minister for Local Government in replying to it, and I have been unable to discover any case whatever advanced by either of them for this additional tax. It is possible, in fact it is probable, that there is a good case for the tax, but if there is we have not heard it. I do not know if other Deputies are interested, in the matter and have taken the trouble of reading the Ministers' speeches; but, if they have, I am sure they are in the same position as I am. We have received no indication whatever as to the arguments which induced the Government to propose this additional impost on omnibuses. The Minister for Finance stated that up to the present buses have paid something like 4.6 per cent. of the revenue of the Road Fund. It is very difficult to form a conclusion as to what should be a fair contribution. "But," he added, "I feel certain that 4.6 or 5 per cent. is far too little." He did not, however, give us the data which made him feel so certain that 4.6 per cent. or 5 per cent. was far too little. Later on, he stated that having regard to the fact that the road has to be made and maintained at a particular standard largely for the buses, and that a bus containing twenty seats or thereabouts is not paying too much when it pays £100 per year for the use of the roads, for making a profit, as its contribution towards the maintenance of the roads. Again, Deputies will notice that the Minister for Finance was merely stating his own impression, without producing any facts or any information to substantiate it. The Minister for Local Government, in his speech, was no more informative. The kernel of it is contained in the one sentence, that it is quite clear that the buses ought to pay more than they are paying at present. If it is quite clear, I suggest that neither the Minister for Finance nor the Minister for Local Government has done anything to make it clear. We will, no doubt, be discussing this question in relation to the whole question of financial policy on the Finance Bill; but, before it falls to us to do that, we would like very much to hear from some responsible Minister the reasons which induced the Executive Council to propose this Resolution to the House.
They must have had some reason. It is to be presumed that no responsible Government would come to the Dáil with the proposal to increase a particular tax by 150 per cent. without having some reason for doing it. But if they have a reason, they are keeping it very secret. They have done nothing to pass on information concerning that reason to the House. The Minister for Finance dealt briefly with the position of the Road Fund. He said: "We"—presumably referring to the Government—"are satisfied that the roads cannot be maintained at the standard at which they should be maintained, especially having regard to the increased number of vehicles and the present revenue of the Road Fund." We would judge from these remarks that it is the view of the Minister that the present revenue of the Road Fund is inadequate to provide the annual cost of road maintenance and construction. Is it the view of the Government that this additional tax on omnibuses will increase the revenue of the Road Fund sufficiently to make it adequate for that purpose? If the additional £45,000 which it is hoped to secure from omnibuses will not make the Road Fund revenue adequate for that purpose, then the Minister for Finance is open to censure in so far as he brought only the one proposal before the House. If, to his knowledge, that Fund is inadequate to maintain the roads in a proper state, and if it is his opinion that the additional revenue which this tax will produce will not be sufficient to make it adequate, then I think he is open to the charge of neglecting his duty in not making better provision to increase the Road Fund revenue. If it is a fact that the money at the disposal of the road-making authorities is not such as to maintain the roads which have been constructed at great cost, then the money expended on the roads will very largely be wasted.
We are keenly concerned that whatever benefit has been derived from the expenditure of large sums on road construction should not now be lost by reason of the fact that the sum sufficient to maintain them is inadequate. The Minister for Finance gave the House the impression that the tax upon vehicles utilising the roads should be so graded as to provide that each class of vehicle would pay its share of the cost of road maintenance and road construction in proportion to the damage that it did to the roads. The Minister for Local Government appears to take an entirely different view. He said: "I do not agree with the argument that the contribution which the bus traffic should make to the Road Fund should be based entirely on the extent of the damage, or even in great part upon the consideration of the extent of the damage." I would like the Minister for Local Government to amplify that remark. Is it intended that road vehicles should be taxed so as to produce a larger revenue than the Road Fund actually requires? Is it intended that there should be every year in the Road Fund a surplus not required for road maintenance and construction which would be used for some other purpose, possibly for the relief of general taxation? Is it intended that taxation upon the pleasure car should be relieved at the expense of the public service vehicle? When the Minister for Local Government tells us that the taxation upon the omnibus should bear no relation, or very little relation, to the damage the vehicle does to the roads, we want to be quite clear as to what he means. If it is to bear no relation to the damage it does to the roads, what is it to bear relation to? It would be a most undesirable precedent to tax a public service vehicle for the benefit of the pleasure car. It would also, I think, be a most undesirable precedent to tax road transport for the purpose of relieving taxation. If it is not the intention of the Government to take either of these courses, we would like to know what the Minister meant when he made that remark.
The whole question of road maintenance and construction, and the cost of it, appears to be very largely one of speculation. The Minister for Local Government told us that neither he nor his financial advisers found themselves in a position to state explicitly the amount of damage buses do to the roads. Apparently, however, they have sufficient information to make a guess, even if it is a wild guess, to the effect that they have been doing 150 per cent. more than they have been paying for. Is that a wild guess or merely a shot in the dark? Is it based on any information available for the technical advisers of the Minister? If so, what is that information? So far it has not been placed before us.
In the discussion on the general Resolutions, I asked the Minister for Finance if the proposed increased tax on buses was intended in any way to be a solution of what is called the transport problem, and he said "No." The Minister for Local Government appeared to imply that this tax upon buses has a very definite relation to the railway position. He referred to the fact that the railway company have to maintain a permanent way and pay rates in respect of their undertakings. He said: "We cannot leave out the analogy completely that we have a very important transport system all over the country between the bus traffic and the railways and tramways in respect of the roads over which they run." If this tax is imposed on buses, not because their present payments to the Road Fund bear no relation to the damage they do, but in order to increase the difficulties of the buses in competing with the railways, then we must take it that it is, in part at any rate, some attempt to solve the transport problem. If the Minister for Local Government intended us to understand, as I think he did, that this additional impost is made in order to force the buses to increase fares and then reduce their effectiveness in competition with the railways, we are opposed to it. If it is the Government solution of the transport problem as such, it is totally inadequate.
We have undoubtedly a very serious position. We have the two forms of transport in competition, damaging each other and doing very little which could not be otherwise attained. We recognise the buses offer a very useful public service—a service which we do not wish to see the country deprived of. If the effect of this tax is intended to bring about a lessening of the bus facilities for the benefit of the railway shareholders, then we are against it. But if it is merely intended, as the Minister for Finance implied, to increase the bus contribution to the Road Fund in order to bring it more into line with the damage buses do to the roads, then we are for it. The Minister for Local Government said that was not the purpose of the tax. There appears to be a direct contradiction between the two Ministers in this matter. We want to get the whole position clarified. It has not been clarified as yet for us, although both Ministers spoke for some time when this Resolution was before us. It does seem that the additional tax to be imposed is merely a shot in the dark. The Government find themselves faced with an intricate transport problem, and, unable to solve it, they put this impost on in the hope that in some mysterious manner it will simplify the problem so as to enable them to get through with it. We think if that is so that it is a most undesirable way of doing business. I must say that it is my opinion, although I have no information with which to back it up, that the buses have not in the past contributed to the Road Fund the amount that they should contribute. I want to make it clear that that is merely a guess on my part. If I have that information that the buses are not contributing their fair proportion to the Road Fund, then I intend to support this Resolution. That is to say, if I have the information that this tax is primarily for the purpose of increasing the revenue of the Road Fund, I will support the Resolution.
If we receive from either of the Ministers an indication that the Resolution is not primarily intended for that, but that there is some other intention, then we must have that information if for no other reason than to force the Government to face up to their responsibilities in this matter of transport. I would like to suggest to the Minister for Finance some modification of the tax which would ease the burdens upon omnibus proprietors without decreasing the revenue of the Road Fund. I suggest that the tax could be paid monthly instead of quarterly, as at present, and modified in such a way as to prevent any diminution in the Road Fund revenue. That can easily be done. The Minister said that the additional rates of duty increased the tax by 150 per cent. In fact it increased it much more, because the omnibus companies register their vehicles for only three months, and when they do that they have to pay an additional 20 per cent. duty. These companies receive their revenue from day to day in the amounts received for fares. The fact that they receive their revenue in that form makes it difficult for them to pay large sums at extended periods. It would be much easier for them to pay a small sum monthly. If that sum was so fixed as to prevent any loss to the Road Fund it would be a great benefit to them without conferring any hardship upon the road-making authorities.
These buses frequently break down and it takes practically a month to get them into running order again. If this tax were payable monthly instead of quarterly it would enable the proprietor of a broken-down bus to exempt himself from paying the duty for a month, while the bus would be lying in his garage and doing no damage to the roads. When the bus is lying in the proprietor's garage it does not do any damage to the roads, and the fact, therefore, that no duty was being paid upon it for that period would make no difference to the road authorities. Other companies running buses generally keep one or two spare buses for maintenance of their service when one of the buses on the road breaks down. If the duty were payable monthly it would enable them to license one of these buses for a period during which the broken-down bus was being repaired, and cease paying the duty when it was possible for them to take that bus off the road again.
I do not think that the imposition of a monthly instead of a quarterly tax would involve very much increased cost in administration. It would involve the printing of different coloured discs in order to enable the Gárda Síochána to know whether the licence was paid or not. Notice would have to be sent to the Gárda Síochána. It would involve but very little extra clerical work, and the increased cost in administration service would be so small as to be practically negligible. I do not know if any representation has been made to the Minister for Finance by the Bus Owners' Association in this matter. If so the Minister has had an opportunity of considering it, and an opportunity of making up his mind on the matter. If the Bus Owners have not already made representations in the matter, I would like if the Minister would consider it between now and the introduction of the Finance Bill. I think that certainly by doing this you would be conferring some benefit upon bus owners and at the same time do no damage to the Road Fund. I would not put forward the suggestion if it would result in any diminution to the revenue of the Road Fund. We are anxious to see that enough money will be made available to maintain the roads that have been constructed. Otherwise, if enough money were not available, it would be a waste. If the amount paid monthly were graded so as to ensure that it would be equal to the quarterly payment plus whatever interest would accrue to the Road Fund from these quarterly payments, then there would be no loss to the Road Fund. I would like the Minister to consider that. I would like him also to say why this Resolution was introduced and the information upon which the Government introduced it.