Resolution No. 5—Customs and Excise—Mineral Hydrocarbon Light Oil.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I move:—

That the Dáil agree with the Committee in Resolution No. 5.

I should like to raise again with the Minister the point raised by Deputy O'Higgins when this Resolution was first put before the House, where he drew the attention of the Minister to the fact that during the last war certain classes of people who used petrol in connection with their livelihood were given a rebate. Deputy O'Higgins put the case simply and plainly to the Minister on the last occasion, and the Minister seemed to think there was no case for it, but I should like the Minister again to take the House into his confidence as to why this cannot be done. It seemed to me that the administrative side of the proposal was the one that seemed uppermost in his mind, but if it were possible, in the administration during the last war, to make allowances for this particular class of persons it should be possible to do it now.

There is another type of person in addition to those mentioned by Deputy O'Higgins, who, I think, require to be particularly considered at the present time, and that is the men who ply the taxi car system in the cities, particularly here in Dublin. These men have had a very hard time for many reasons. Now that the supply of petrol is reduced and that, to some extent, if you like, there is a bigger call on them, they have a possible chance of keeping going, but if this additional tax is put on them, then it becomes a burden that I do not think they will be able to bear. If the Minister is aware of the type of people running taxi cabs here in the city he will realise that very many of them have had to borrow money to put their cars on the road. Very many of them have transferred over from the old cab. They made themselves proficient in taxi-cab handling and maintenance, and they had to borrow a very large amount of the money. They have not had much business recently, as the bus services cut in, to some extent, on their occupations, and while at present the position, by which private cars are not on the road so much as formerly, has brought these men back a certain amount of trade, that trade, while it helps them, is not sufficient to keep them going. There is a very large number of families depending on these men, and I think there should be no administrative diffculty, at any rate in regard to a limited class like that, in allowing for some rebate. On that one particular point I should like to get the Minister to reconsider this whole question. There are others who, I think, are better able to speak of the effect of the increased tax as a whole on petrol.

Mr. Hughes

I should like to join with Deputy Mulcahy in appealing to the Minister to reconsider this tax. After all, we can only appreciate the hardship this tax is going to inflict on the community in general, and it is undoubtedly going to increase the cost of living when you take into account the fact that we have already a very serious fuel problem. Even before this tax comes into existence, there is already a very serious transport problem in connection with various commodities. There is the increased production on the farm, in the way of grain and so on, that we are hoping to get this year, and the question of transport comes in very largely there. You have the same problem in connection with turf. This tax is going to intensify that problem because a considerable charge will have to be made, and a considerable increase by the people operating lorries for hire will have to be made also, as a result of this tax. There will be not only the increase of 5d., due to the tax itself, but there is also an increase put on by the petrol companies of, I think, 2d. a gallon, making a net increase of 7d. That 2d. is partly due to the fact that the petrol company have to collect 50 per cent. of the increased duty and the increased amount of money involved in the purchase of the fuel all over the country.

There is definitely an increase on the community of sevenpence per gallon, and Deputy Mulcahy has pointed out that it is particularly severe on taxi men and hackney men throughout the country, because their activities are considerably restricted by the reduced amount of petrol they are getting, and in order to make ends meet, in order to get some sort of weekly income, and to try to make a living, they were forced to push up their charges. Now, on top of that difficulty, these men find that a tax of sevenpence per unit is put on their fuel, which makes it practically impossible for them to run a car at a figure which they can collect from the travelling public to meet this increased charge.

I think this tax is one of the worst features of the Budget, because it hits industry generally and agriculture as well, as I said on the other Resolutions, because in recent years we have adopted a system under which everything is delivered. The raw materials necessary for production on the farm are delivered by motor lorry, and everything produced on the farm is taken out by lorry, so that this tax is definitely a tax on agricultural production as well. I think the Minister will have to agree that it is a most injudicious tax at present in view of the difficulties under which agriculture labours. Deputy O'Sullivan has already pointed out that it is not a luxury tax, because the private car has practically been put off the road. The allowance of four or six gallons for private cars this month is negligible and does not affect the tax to any extent. The tax definitely strikes at industry and agriculture, and a few people who are earning livings as taximen and hackney-men, and I think the Minister should reconsider it because it imposes a very serious charge on the country and is bound to have an effect on agriculture.

Mr. Cogan

I join in the appeals made for the repeal of this tax. As other Deputies have pointed out, it affects very adversely practically the entire community inasmuch as it increases the cost of the necessaries of life, because food supplies are the commodities which will be most severely affected by increased transport charges. I think that one section of petrol users could bear increased taxation. They are the people who use private cars for purposes other than those of earning a livelihood. That section, of course, would be very small, and the amount of petrol used by it very insignificant.

The Minister should withdraw this Resolution, and if he accedes to the appeals made on behalf of lorry owners whose business has been very adversely affected, on behalf of taxi drivers in the city who are finding it very hard to carry on and of hackney owners throughout the country, and on behalf also of the professional classes who use cars for the purpose of their livelihoods, he will have no alternative but to withdraw the tax completely. I suggest that, if he finds that necessary and still thinks it would not be wise to let the remainder of the private car owners escape, he should impose a charge in connection with the issue of licences which would bring in whatever amount he is collecting from this type of user. It is not right that the food of the people should have to bear increased taxation at present and this tax on transport will inevitably raise the cost of our food supplies.

Frequently, when appeals are made to the Minister not to enforce increased taxes, he asks: "What alternative have I?", and in this case he will be more inclined to ask that question than ever because the amount involved is very considerable; but whenever a Deputy is foolish enough to make a suggestion as to an alternative, the Minister immediately smiles and says: "That is a good suggestion; I will adopt it later on", so that there is not much use in suggesting alternative means by which the Minister might raise this taxation. There is, as I say, a considerable amount involved, but the Minister must know that most intelligent people anticipated a purchase tax in this Budget. This anticipation was, I suppose, pleasantly disappointed, but I think the people who anticipated it were more intelligent than the Minister and had a more intelligent estimation as to an equitable distribution of the tax burden. The Minister, instead of taxing food as he is doing in this Resolution, should have considered other forms of luxury articles in the nature of clothing, furniture and other commodities, and might have imposed increased taxation under the purchase tax which people anticipated.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Deputy Mulcahy asked about the rebate to which Deputy O'Higgins referred when we were last discussing this matter. I have gone into the question of rebate since the matter was raised, and, while I would not put forward the administrative difficulties as the chief obstacle, there would be considerable administrative difficulties in the working of a rebate. Aside from that, there are objections, which I think are fairly obvious, against treating separate classes differently in the matter of the imposition of taxation. It is not wise to differentiate between classes of the community.

There has, generally speaking, to be some consideration given to the poor, and, in some directions, we have tried to meet the situation with regard to the poorer classes, but I would not find it possible to differentiate, so far as this tax is concerned, with regard to certain classes mentioned by Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Hughes. I am told also that, when the rebate was in operation during the British days, from 1910 to 1920, it was found that there was a good deal of fraud in connection with it. There was a choice between making the administration of the tax very strict, making it difficult for the people entitled to the rebate to prove their claim to it, and having a looser kind of administration which meant that many persons who were not entitled to the rebate succeeded in obtaining it. At any rate, there are grave abuses. I cannot see my way to accept the suggestion that the rebate should be given to any of the classes mentioned.

As I said on the last Resolution, anybody can make a case on a tax of this kind; it does not require one to have the high intelligence of Deputy Cogan; even one with less intelligence might make a case that this tax does increase the cost of living. That applies to practically every item in these Resolutions that imposes a tax. It impinges on the cost of living in some way or another. Transport costs will be affected, and possibly food will be affected. Deputy Allen, who was here a few minutes ago, made a calculation as to what the additional cost would be on a ton of foodstuffs brought from Dublin to Gorey. He said that his calculation of the addition arising out of the tax imposed by Resolution No. 4 would be ¼d. per cwt. That ought not to increase the cost of living very much. That is a distance of 60 miles.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 48; Níl, 26.

Tá

Bartley, Gerald.
Beegan, Patrick.
Bourke, Dan.
Brady, Brian.
Breathnach, Cormac.
Breen, Daniel.
Breslin, Cormac.
Buckley, Seán.
Carty, Frank.
Cooney, Eamonn.
Corry, Martin J.
Crowley, Tadhg.
Derrig, Thomas.
Everett, James.
Flynn, Stephen.
Fogarty, Patrick J.
Gorry, Patrick J.
Harris, Thomas.
Hickey, James.
Hogan, Daniel.
Hurley, Jeremiah.
Keane, John J.
Kelly, James P.
Kelly, Thomas.
Keyes, Michael.
Kissane, Eamon.
Lemass, Seán F.
Little, Patrick J.
Lynch, James B.
McCann, John.
MacEntee, Seán.
Meaney, Cornelius.
Morrissey, Micheal.
Mullen, Thomas.
O Briain, Donnchadh.
O'Grady, Seán.
O'Loghlen, Peter J.
O'Reilly, Matthew.
Pattison, James P.
Rice, Brigid M.
Ruttledge Patrick J.
Ryan, James.
Sheridan, Michael.
Smith, Patrick.
Victory, James.
Walsh, Laurence J.
Walsh, Richard.
Ward, Conn.

Níl

Bennett, George C.
Benson, Ernest E.
Broderick, William J.
Brodrick, Seán.
Byrne, Alfred.
Cogan, Patrick.
Cosgrave, William T.
Dockrell, Henry M.
Doyle, Peadar S.
Esmonde, John L.
Fagan, Charles.
Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
Giles, Patrick.
Hughes, James.
Keating, John.
Lynch, Finian.
MacEoin, Seán.
McFadden, Micheal Og.
McMenamin, Daniel.
Mulcahy, Richard.
Nally, Martin.
O'Sullivan, John M.
Redmond, Bridget M.
Reidy, James.
Rogers, Patrick J.
Ryan, Jeremiah.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and James P. Kelly; Níl: Deputies P. S. Doyle and Bennett.

Question declared carried.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 May 1941