Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Nov 1941

Vol. 85 No. 5

Private Deputies' Business. - Petrol Supply—Motion for Select Committee—(Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—
That a Select Committee consisting of seven Deputies, to be nominated by the Committee of Selection and with power to send for persons, papers and documents, be appointed to investigate and report to the Dáil on (1) the position of the petrol supply, and (2) the basis of the present distribution of petrol; and to make recommendations:
That the quorum of the Committee be four.—(Deputy O'Higgins.)

When the House adjourned some time ago the discussion upon the motion in the name of Deputy O'Higgins, relating to the petrol supply, I was in possession. The motion asked the Dáil to approve of the establishment of a Select Committee to investigate and report on the position of the petrol supply, the basis of the present distribution of petrol, and to make recommendations. I told the House on the last occasion the motion was before it that I was not prepared to agree to it. I did not think it was at all necessary to set up a special committee to report on the position of the petrol supply, because I am prepared to give the House all the information that could be had on that subject now. As regards the basis of the present distribution of petrol, I am prepared to explain and to justify that basis, and I maintain that any proposal that we should depart from it should be discussed in public. So far as the position of the petrol supply is concerned it is as follows: The total quantity of petrol which we were given to understand would be available for this country during the course of the present year was 20,000,000 gallons. Deputies will remember that at the beginning of the year a very difficult situation arose in relation to petrol. During the course of last year we were receiving, roughly, two-thirds of our normal supply, and licences were being issued to consumers of petrol on that basis. That situation continued to operate since the beginning of the war, and there was reason to believe that it would continue so long as the supply position in the United Kingdom did not deteriorate. Arrangements made with the authorities in the United Kingdom appeared to ensure that we would continue to receive petrol supplies calculated generally on the basis of two-thirds of our annual consumption.

On Christmas Eve of last year I received notification that a consignment of petrol which had been expected would not arrive; intimation, in fact, that no more petrol would arrive. I found it hard to credit that intimation and let it stand over Christmas until St. Stephen's Day, when contact was again established with the petrol control in the United Kingdom, and the petrol importing companies, and the information that resulted from that contact appeared to support the information which we had already received that no more petrol would come to this country. In consequence of that information I arranged to stop deliveries of petrol by the petrol companies. I felt it was essential that the limited supplies in the country should be conserved for absolutely essential purposes, and that further deliveries to garages and ordinary petrol consumers should be stopped in view of the intimation that we were getting no more.

That action of mine has been frequently misrepresented in the Press as being the result either of panic or mismanagement, but I feel certain that any other person in my position in the same circumstances would have done precisely the same thing. It was some days before we were able, through the various contacts we established, to get any other information bearing on the position. As a result of the representations which we made and of the action which was taken, an additional quantity of petrol, amounting approximately to 1,000,000 gallons, was promised us during the month of January. On receipt of that promise I authorised the resumption of deliveries by the petrol companies on a restricted basis. The 1,000,000 gallons did in fact arrive during January.

It was at that stage we received more definite intimation of the deliveries of petrol we were likely to expect during the present year. The previous intimation, that we were to get no more petrol was withdrawn, and the next intimation was that we could expect to receive during this year 20,000,000 gallons. The distribution of the 20,000,000 gallons of petrol will, I think, give Deputies all the information they require as to the present position.

Were the 20,000,000 gallons secured by the Minister's Department?

The 20,000,000 gallons were to be delivered to us by the petrol companies.

Was that petrol secured on the representation of the Minister's Department?

I do not know what point the Deputy is getting at.

I am asking a question.

It was. Following the discussions we had with the oil and petrol authorities in the United Kingdom, and the action taken by us to try to safeguard our position, we received intimation that we would obtain 20,000,000 gallons of petrol this year.

The Minister says "we".

I mean this country.

Whom had the discussions?

Who does the Deputy think?

I do not know. I am looking for information.

If the Deputy is sincerely looking for information I will try to give it. The Deputy knows quite well that the discussions were conducted by officers of my Department, the diplomatic representatives of this country, and through other proper and recognised channels. The allocation, therefore, for this year is 20,000,000 gallons, from which must be taken 1,640,000 gallons used during the month of January. Our use of petrol during January was in excess of deliveries in that month, and consequently there was available for 11 months from the end of January 18,350,000 gallons. Of that 1,000,000 gallons were set aside for the use of the Army; 500,000 gallons were required for the operations of the petrol companies in their own deliveries, and 500,000 gallons as an allowance in respect of waste. Apparently, it is necessary to make a fairly substantial allowance for wastage and evaporation. That left what we call the sales quota.

What was the 1,000,000 gallons for?

For the Army. To the end of October the actual imports of petrol from the beginning of February were 13,666,900 gallons. The actual issues of petrol to the end of September amounted to 11,666,000 gallons, and in October to 1,621,000 gallons. Perhaps I have given an incorrect figure there. To the end of September the actual imports were 9,422,000 gallons. The quantity we were led to expect we would receive in that period was 11,666,000 gallons. In other words, imports were less than expected, while issues were 9,574,000 gallons. It will be seen, therefore, that we received in that period slightly more than 2,000,000 gallons less than we were led to expect, and we issued about 150,000 gallons more than we received. That was from the beginning of February to the end of September. The total quantity which we were to receive to the end of the year was 18,350,000 gallons. The actual quantity imported was 13,627,000 gallons, so that there is a balance due to us of 4,723,000 gallons. That is our position. I do not know if the expectations of the oil companies in this matter of deliveries will be realised, or whether we will receive this year the quantity of petrol which at the beginning they told us we would get. There is the figure of 4,723,000 gallons due to us. Although that will be reduced before the end of the year it is, nevertheless, impossible to say whether we will close the year with the account balanced.

It is necessary also that Deputies should remember that there was no storage. In each month we distributed the quantity which we received in that month. In fact, there were months in which we had to gamble on the arrival of supplies early in the month in determining what the ration of petrol would be to the various users. We fixed the ration on the assumption that the petrol would be delivered, knowing that if by any mischance it did not come, there would be another outcry following a series of allegations about incompetence and mismanagement. The alternative was to leave the country without petrol for a week or two in order to protect our own reputations for competence and efficiency. In some of these months the quantity of petrol delivered was, in fact, less than that issued over the period. At no time was it possible to accumulate any reserves or to do otherwise than to administer in the best possible way the quantity of petrol coming to hand. I told the House already the reasons which led us to decide on the basis of distribution of petrol on a flat rate. It is possible to distribute it on another basis. We could attempt to assess individual needs and to allocate petrol to individuals on the basis of their needs. We know that one doctor may require more petrol than another, that one clergyman might require more than another clergyman or that one business man, because of the nature of his business, required more petrol than another business man. As between classes and individuals in each class there are variations in needs.

We could have set up some form of tribunal or some judicial or semi-judicial officer to attempt to assess these needs. We decided against that, because not merely is it impracticable, but nobody would be satisfied as to the fairness of the assessment. If one individual got ten gallons against another individual's eight gallons, assuming that both were engaged in the same business or following the same profession, there would be allegations of partiality, allegations that one individual had a pull with the Minister or with officials, or because he was a political supporter of the Minister he got preference over another who was not a political supporter. I think it is undesirable that these allegations should be possible, however untrue they might be, because here and there are individuals who believe in them and, consequently, there develops a general disrespect for Government administration and Government authority.

I felt that apart, therefore, from the impracticability of attempting that method of allocation, there were good reasons of public policy why we should fix the petrol ration upon a flat rate basis, giving to persons in particular categories the same ration, irrespective of their individual needs, and why we should try only to assess the requirements of classes, giving one class more than another if circumstances appeared to justify it. Consequently, private individuals, business men, persons who use cars for other certain very limited purposes, get their petrol rations upon the basis of the horse-power of their vehicles. Nobody can claim that the horse-power of their vehicles is influenced by personal or political considerations. It is according to the horse power of the vehicles that the quantity of the petrol distributed is determined.

We take out of the class of private car owners certain groups—doctors, veterinary surgeons, clergymen and one or two other minor groups—and give them, as classes, additional rations of petrol, but we do not attempt to distinguish as between the individuals in each class and their relative needs. If a person comes within the class of doctors he gets the doctor's allowance; if a person comes within the class of clergyman he gets a clergyman's allowance, and so forth; although we know, as everybody else knows, that some doctors have a different type of practice from others, and some clergymen have different needs from others. That system of distribution does not fairly assess their needs, nor attempt to do so.

The total quantity of petrol distributed during the month of September was 1,600,000 gallons. It is roughly the same in each month now. There are variations as between month and month in the requirements of petrol for special delivery purposes, but, roughly speaking, as between one month and another, the quantity required to maintain rations to all normal car users and the special services to which I have referred remains much the same. One hears frequently the advice that petrol should not be made available to private car owners at all, unless it is clear that those private cars are to be used for some specific and essential purpose. People object to seeing private cars at sporting events or being used for pleasure purposes or for purposes of personal convenience. There is behind that objection a very false assumption as to the proportion of our petrol supplies which goes to private car owners. It is true that the casual observer in the street sees— or appears to see—a larger number of private cars driven around than of other types of vehicles, and gets the impression that a fairly high proportion of the total supplies of petrol is being used by those private car owners. That is entirely incorrect. The total quantity of petrol used by private car owners is a very small part of the total consumption.

In the month of September, the number of gallons authorised to be issued to private cars was 143,000, against a total distribution of 1,600,000 gallons. Even if we were to stop that issue to private cars and conserve that petrol, the actual difference it would make in the size of the allocation to other users of petrol would be very slight indeed. It is necessary to remember that a very large number of these private cars used by business men are used for necessary and essential purposes, and that a great deal of employment depends upon the availability of transport—even if the transport be in the form of a private car—to the traveller or manager of a particular concern.

The big consumption of petrol is, of course, in goods vehicles. The commercial goods vehicles receive a basic allowance of roughly 400,000 gallons per month. That is the total quantity of petrol required to give the basic allowance to commercial goods vehicles. Hackney owners and certain other restricted classes of users receive 139,000 gallons; Government Departments of one kind or another receive 41,000 gallons; the rail and bus companies receive 184,000 gallons; industrial users, both agricultural and nonagricultural, receive roughly 70,000 gallons; and then there are large numbers of other classes receiving very much smaller basic allowances. The total quantity given out on these basic allowances was 1,086,000 gallons in the month of September.

The supplementary allowances, which are given to doctors, clergymen and veterinary surgeons, amount to roughly 50,000 gallons. Supplementary allowances to hackney owners, ambulances and other vehicles of a similar character, amount to 13,000 gallons.

For information purposes, I would like to know, when the Minister talks of supplementary allowances to doctors, if that is an allowance in addition to the basic allowance.

I would like to know what class of doctors gets it.

All doctors get it.

I think we are speaking at cross purposes. By basic allowance, does the Minister mean the private car allowance?

And the normal allowance for a doctor is three times that?

Yes. It is that basic allowance plus double that. A doctor with a car not exceeding 10 h.p. gets four gallons as a basic allowance and eight gallons supplementary, making 12 gallons altogether.

I merely wished to be quite clear.

The various types of goods vehicles receive between them supplementary allowances of 406,000 gallons. The non-licensed carriers—a type of goods vehicles not licensed for public hire—receive almost 400,000 gallons. Creameries, building contractors and licensed and unlicensed hauliers' supplementary allowances amount to about 450,000 gallons. The total of the supplementary allowances issued in the month of September was 514,000 gallons.

I think that is all the information that can be given to the House. It is true that the form of the supplementary allowances—at least the allocation of the petrol available for supplementary allowances between one class of user and another—varies from month to month. I think we can con gratulate ourselves that, despite the apprehensions of some people at the beginning of the year, it can be said that no ton of turf, grain or any other essential product has failed to be moved because of inability to obtain petrol. Individuals may have claimed petrol for that purpose and failed to get a licence, but in every case where we were satisfied that there was a genuine requirement of petrol for the transport of turf, grain or other essential commodity, that petrol was available for the purpose. Those who had the direct personal responsibility of husbanding and managing petrol supplies are to be congratulated on having maintained that position throughout the whole year, even though it was a very close shave at some periods during the year. I do not know that it is necessary to repeat here the actual allowances which were given to various types of vehicle owners. That information has been published in the Press, and is, of course, available to anybody at any time they inquire for it.

Before I conclude, I would repeat my objection to the motion before the House. Whatever circumstances existed when the motion was tabled first—and, as Deputy O'Higgins has pointed out, that was a considerable time ago, when there were circumstances somewhat different from those existing to-day— I do not think we should adopt that motion now. I do not believe it is necessary to have a formal committee of inquiry in regard to the petrol supply, as that committee could get no more information than I have given to the House. I have no more information to give, nor is it possible to get any. As to what the supply position is to be next year, I do not know. At the moment we are endeavouring to get somewhat more specific knowledge as to what will happen next year, and if that knowledge becomes available I will take the opportunity to communicate it to the House; but at the moment it is not available. I can give the House no information whatever as to what the supply position next year is likely to be. As for the basis of distribution, as I have described, that is a flat rate basis as between individuals and classes, and I do not think we should depart from it.

I have told the House that I am prepared, if the House desires, to consult with a committee representative of Parties in determining what the ration should be, having regard to the supplies available in any month, to consult them at the beginning of that month or towards the end of the preceding month when it is possible to state precisely the quantity of petrol available, and to allow them to express their views as to its allocation between the various classes of users. I confess that that situation would shift from my shoulders some of the responsibility and give me an extra bulwark when individuals throughout the country abuse me because of the smallness of their allowances. It would afford that protection to me, but I am not pressing for it as, after a few years in the Department of Supplies, one gets used to saying "No", and in the matter of petrol I have said "No" so consistently that no one expects me to say anything else, when one communicates the special circumstances on which a special allowance is claimed.

If there is any desire by major Parties in the Dáil to be associated with the determination of the petrol rations, I am prepared to facilitate them, as I have said, but I think that is as far as it is necessary to go at the present time, having regard to the tremendous elements of uncertainty in the whole situation. Any report that might be submitted by a committee as to the present supply position or future prospects might be completely invalidated in a week's time and all the labour would be for nothing. The circumstances could change so rapidly as to completely invalidate any conclusions arrived at on the basis of the information at present available.

Therefore, I recommend the Dáil not to pass this motion; but, in doing so, I assure the House that any time members want information on any of the points mentioned in the motion— either the petrol supply position as a whole or the allocation of petrol as between various classes of users—I will give them that information in as detailed a form as is possible.

Is the Minister aware that in England there will be no private cars in use after the 1st January?

I do not think so.

So the Press has given out. On the question of supplies to private cars, there are a number of them doing a lot of commercial work, and I would not like to take it off them but, in view of the uncertainty and the possibility of the fight coming nearer home, surely they should not be getting any petrol at all. Would it not be better to conserve that supply used for private cars, small as it may be, for future occasions, because of the uncertainty of getting supplies? I read in a paper yesterday that no private cars in England will get any after the 1st January.

They may have a different system in operation in Great Britain. The Deputy's suggestion would involve some attempt to discriminate between one private car owner and another. That is not practicable. If an individual says: "Give me my ration of petrol, because I want it for business purposes," I do not think that it is possible for us to check the accuracy of his statement. It would mean some sort of sworn investigation into every man's claim and, of course, it would not be possible to do that. If people find that, by making an inaccurate statement, they will get the ration, then we will get inaccurate statements.

Therefore, there is no basis of distribution possible other than the flat rate basis, in which the allocation of petrol is calculated according to the horse-power of the vehicle or the general class of the owner. If the position does not improve, it will be necessary to cut out or restrict further the allocation to car owners; but it must be realised that the saving that will be effected will be fairly small in relation to our total requirements.

Is there any check upon the commercial lorry owner as to whether he uses the petrol that he gets, for private cars?

I could not say that there is. There is a basic allowance which goes to the lorry owner. So far as that basic allowance is concerned, it goes to him if his vehicle is taxed and it is calculated in accordance with the unladen weight of the vehicle. In the case of a supplementary allowance, there is a check. If there is a supplementary allowance given to a lorry owner to carry beet or grain or to serve a creamery, there are various checks to ensure that it is a bona fide claim.

Has the Minister got any complaint about lorry owners taxing vehicles and using the petrol, not for the lorry, but for private cars?

No, but I am quite certain that has happened.

Is there any check possible on that sort of thing?

There is no check. Strictly speaking, it is not illegal.

In many parts of the country one can see private cars at dog-racing on a Saturday evening, outside church doors on Sundays and at golf courses and other places. Then there are men who get 60 gallons a month for commercial lorries and there is the possibility that this petrol may be used in private cars by people travelling round to amuse themselves. Is it desirable that the petrol should be distributed in that way when there is a possibility that in six months' time there will be great difficulty in getting any petrol?

Apart from the practical difficulty of determining the use that is going to be made of the petrol, the Deputy will understand that even if we cut out all private cars, having regard to the fact that there are only 140,000 gallons involved as against 1,000,000 gallons to lorry owners, the additional ration that would be possible for lorry owners in consequence of the cutting out of the private cars would not make any real difference to them.

This motion has been on the Order Paper for a long time and the petrol rationing scheme that was in operation at the time the motion was tabled is still in operation, with the exception of a few minor changes. Evidently, from what the Minister has said, he is satisfied that the scheme he has in operation is the best type of scheme under which to distribute petrol to the limit of the quantity available. One could understand, when we suddenly experienced the shortage in petrol, the introduction of a scheme making provision for our requirements on the basis of three or four classes of users, but, with the passage of time, and in the light of experience, one would expect a considerable improvement in the method of allocation either by the elimination of waste, or the restriction of supplies to cars and lorries engaged in work of national importance.

The Minister stated that petrol was available for the supply of any essential commodity and he did not know of any case where that supply was not made available. Last spring I brought to his notice that large quantities of lime were required for agricultural purposes and that there was no petrol available for the distribution of that lime. The Minister then refused to make petrol supplies available for that purpose. I look upon the supply of lime to certain types of land as raw material for the production of food. Lime has a very good effect on the yield. It will release certain plant food in the soil and, in view of the fact that we have a very limited supply of artificial manures, petrol for the conveyance of lime or any commodity of that type ought to be made available immediately. I do not think the Minister is justified in saying that petrol was available for the supply of any essential commodity.

It may be, from an administrative point of view, the simplest way of dealing with this problem—that is, dealing with it on a class basis, taking three or four classes in the community. Where we experienced that sort of rationing scheme, we came up against a problem immediately There is, even in that limited supply, a very considerable amount of waste. There are people who are carrying out what might be looked upon as a national service, people who ought to have an adequate supply of petrol, but who cannot get anything approaching an adequate supply. As Deputy O'Higgins pointed out, you cannot compare men in his profession working in remote districts and finding it difficult to carry on, with men working in Dublin and having public conveyances passing their doors.

The same thing applies to the agricultural community. There are old cars that have been converted into lorries and they get a supply of petrol in order to collect rabbits and, on the other hand, you have men engaged in a national service, producing food, unable to get petrol to convey their workers to the land in the harvest time. I know cases where men had grain crops on out-farms and on conacre land and they were anxious to convey workers to those farms, but they were refused a supply of petrol. It is unfair and unwise to refuse those men petrol when they are engaged in work of national importance. Then you have cattle buyers anxious to visit country fairs in remote places and, if those men are unable, through lack of petrol, to visit the fairs, the farmers will suffer very severely because they will not get a decent price for their stock; there will be no competition and the cattle will be bought up cheaply.

Those are considerations that ought to weigh with the Minister. The people who are engaged in the production of essential food are entitled to every consideration. They ought to have first claim on any raw material necessary for the production of food They have just got the same treatment as a man who gets a petrol ration in order to do a little joy-riding through the country, and I consider that is most unjust. I think there ought to be a distinction made definitely. I feel that cars ought to operate on a permit and that private cars that are not an essential service at the present time ought not to be permitted to operate at all. The Minister mentioned the small amount of petrol which is allowed for the starting of tractors at the present time, and you have that on a standard basis again. There is no differentiation between the different types of work that that tractor may be operating. A tractor may be working all day in the field or hauling beet and engaged in different types of work on the one day involving a series of starts, and that is completely ignored. I think that at the present time the ration of petrol for starting tractors is two gallons to every 50 gallons of kerosene. That may be quite all right for a tractor engaged on a farm operation, only doing ploughing or cultivation and that sort of thing, but there are numerous tractors in the beet-growing areas that may be hauling loads of beet in the morning and then have to turn in to plough in the afternoon. Such a tractor may have to be started up six, seven or eight times in the day, whereas the tractor that goes into the field to plough requires to be started only in the morning and in the afternoon. A flat ration there, to my mind, does not meet the case.

But it is not a flat ration. That is, if the tractor owner has paid his road tax, he gets an extra allowance.

He gets two gallons to 50 gallons of kerosene.

He gets more if the road tax is paid.

What is the allowance that he gets?

Twenty gallons.

Is that extra?

No, that is the basic allowance for an agricultural tractor on which the £6 tax is paid.

A basic allowance of 20 gallons?

In addition to 50 gallons of kerosene?

Will the Minister assure me that a tractor-user with a £6 tax is entitled to 20 gallons of petrol?

He was entitled to it in the month of September, at any rate, and he is still entitled to it.

Is a tractor-user, who has his road tax paid, entitled to a ration of 20 gallons for the month of November?

Yes, that is right.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Well, I am glad to know that. These are a few of the points I wish to put to the Minister, and I should be glad if he would give these matters careful attention.

Of course, I should say that that applies to tractors which have always been taxed for road purposes. It is not possible for a man to go out now, pay the £6 tax for the first time, and get the 20 gallons.

But if it has been taxed during the year?

What happens in the case of a tractor that is taxed now only for beet hauling?

If the road tax was paid on the previous occasion he would get the same allowance.

Supposing he owns a tractor and delivers his own beet by road, what happens there?

If the tractor travels on the road, the road tax should have been paid.

In some cases it would have been paid only for the months he was doing the work. I would ask the Minister to consider the other matters carefully, such as the question of cattle dealers going to fairs in remote districts. There are exceptions like that which ought to get some consideration, and I think the Minister ought to give it some attention.

I should like to know from the Minister whether it has been brought to his attention——

Of course, Deputies are aware that the Minister is not entitled to reply.

It is only on a point of information, Sir. Is the Minister aware that many hackney drivers throughout the country are selling petrol coupons: that many of them find that it pays them to take out a licence, insure their cars, leave them idle while they go on some other job, and sell the coupons?

I do not know that. There are no new hackney licences being recognised.

I am not talking about new hackney licences. I am saying that old licences have been taken out, the cars left idle, and the coupons sold. In fact, if I want to buy coupons I can procure any amount of them at 5/- a coupon. That is public property in part of my county. Every Civic Guard and every official in the county knows it, and I expect the Minister has heard about it. Some complaints about it were made to me, and I told the people who came to me to write to the Minister about it, as I was not going to be the intermediary in the matter, but I know that it is so and that any amount of coupons can be procured in that way at 5/- each. That is one thing that the Minister's Department or somebody should inquire into, when there is so much talk about scarcity.

I find it difficult to reconcile the Minister of to-day with the Minister of this day fortnight, and I find it still more difficult to reconcile different portions of the Minister's speech here to-day. He opened his reply to this motion by being most vehement and emphatic that no useful purpose whatsoever could be fulfilled by the appointment of a committee from this House to make recommendations with regard to the distribution of petrol within this State. He ended his statement by welcoming, or rather throwing out the suggestion that representatives of the different Parties in this House should do that exact work from month to month, either at the beginning of each month or towards the end of the previous month. He scoffed at the idea of a committee making recommendations, on the ground that nobody could ensure the petrol supply from week to week. If there is any honesty of purpose in that statement he should sack the whole petrol sub-section of his Department, because that huge, unwiedly, expensive Government Department is engaged solely on allocating petrol from month to month, and I believe it is a necessary service. But if it is sensible and reasonable for that Department to allocate or make suggestions with regard to the allocation from month to month, it is equally reasonable for a committee of this House.

Now, earlier in the debate the Minister said that he would not have this matter referred to a committee, that he would do it in the open, that he would have the views of the Deputies, and that it was a matter on which Parliament should speak. The debate has gone on for two Parliamentary days, and there was only one voice raised against the motion, and that was the Minister's. Five Deputies have spoken, and they have all spoken for investigation, examination, and some different form of allocation. Was he honest, was he sincere, when he said: "Leave it to Parliament?" There are times when even Ministerial bluff can be called. Does he mean by leaving it to Parliament that he would give Deputies an opportunity to speak and express their point of view? The bell rings and a political Whip operates. Men are brought up against their election pledges, and made to vote against their own opinion and against their consciences. Is that the Minister's idea of leaving it to Parliament?

That must be a peculiarity of the Deputy's Party.

We never machined a Party like the Minister's——

Perhaps they have no consciences.

——which has neither soul nor mind, and well the Minister knows it. When we were discussing this subject on the last occasion, the Minister, referring to the supply of petrol given to the doctors, while admitting that the amount allocated to them was inadequate, went out of his way to add insult to injury by dragging in, in an entirely uncalled-for manner, a statement to the effect that he had a census taken of the cars seen in O'Connell Street one evening, and that 40 out of 60 of those cars belonged to doctors. I took a note of his remarks. All the papers next day, including his own tied organ, came out with that quotation, that 40 out of 60 of the cars belonged to doctors. I knew that that statement was definitely inaccurate and untrue. I was prepared to challenge it. I was prepared to ask for that census. I waited for the official debate, and I found it was very carefully manipulated; that the figure was deleted, and the phrase was rounded off nicely to read that a number of those cars belonged to doctors. It would be beyond reason that both myself and the reporters for all the daily papers would make the same mistake in taking notes of the remark. The wound was inflicted; the harm was done; the injured people were not only injured but insulted, and then, like a person who has inflicted a wound, he runs to hide the weapon and to amend the phrase so that it could not be challenged. The Minister may use arguments, and he is very glib in the use of arguments, but, in the Minister's own interests, I would warn him to give up using figures, because he uses figures as recklessly as confetti at a wedding.

The Minister does not consider that any useful purpose would be served by listening to recommendations merely of Deputies with regard to the distribution of petrol. No useful purpose would be served? He must stand up there as the champion of rigid bureaucracy, while the taxpayers, the workers, the industrialists, the professional men and the business men of the State are just to grin and bear it. Whether the rule of thumb provided either by himself or a cloistered civil servant is reasonable or unreasonable, whether it jeopardises either the interests of a household or the interests of a business, the rule of thumb must stand; no useful purpose is to be served by making suggestions or recommendations. We know there is not. For ten years back we know there is no use in making suggestions no matter how sensible or constructive. The rigid brass barrier of officialdom is there. Nobody can teach them anything. Nobody can make any sensible suggestions. The only wise man in Parliament is the Minister for Supplies. We have got enough of that kind of nonsense. The Minister himself admits, taking the doctors as a whole, that there is a vast difference between the doctor with a busy practice in a large rural area and the doctor who in fact has retired from practice and has no professional business. While admitting that, he says that it would be unreasonable to make any distinction between them. Such tosh. Such utter nonsense, bearing the stamp of official laziness. The Minister, earlier in the debate, said he adopted a rule of thumb. Why? Because it was the simplest; because it was the easiest method. It was not because it was the most equitable; it was not because it was just, but because it was the simplest, the easiest. That was the Minister's own admission. Of course it is the simplest. Of course it is the easiest. You do not want either a Minister or an expensive Department merely to draft a rule like that, apply it to everybody, and then close your ears to every representation made by anybody.

That is not correct as far as the doctors are concerned.

The Minister, of course, says it is impossible, fantastically impossible, to endeavour to deal with individuals; that you cannot deal with individuals with regard to the allocation of petrol or the use they have for their cars; that it cannot be done. Only a very small percentage of the people of this country possess motor cars. I wonder what the Revenue Commissioners would think about that statement from the Government front bench. If there is any sense to that argument, we should all be on a flat rate of income-tax. But, when it comes to getting in the "shekels," there is no trouble in going into the professional work, the clients, the business, and the income of every single individual in the State.

If I had an organisation like the Revenue Commissioners I could do it.

But when it comes to getting work done, in order to provide the coffers for the Revenue Commissioners to loot, then the simplest line is adopted; the unjust line is the right one. We heard the Minister's rule of thumb method—143,000 gallons a month for all the private cars in the country, one third of that being for Government Departments. If there is dissatisfaction amounting to the point of anger amongst either private car owners, professional people using cars, farmers requiring to use cars or business people requiring to use cars, it is because of the evidence all round of the free use, the wastage, of petrol in Government Departments. The Minister will not hear of one extra gallon of petrol for a business man to get from one business house to another ten miles away. Oh, the State would rock if he got it. The Minister will not hear of one extra gallon of petrol for a farmer to get to a distant fair. The Minister will not hear of an extra gallon of petrol for a doctor to get to an urgent case. Yet there are a dozen of the biggest cars in Ireland trapesing around this city carrying single Ministers from their domiciles to their offices, and when they are not on duty carrying Ministers from their homes to their offices and back they are busy carrying Ministers' families around the City of Dublin. I do not believe in the kind of clap-trap that was preached by the Minister 12 years ago—that a Government Minister should not have a car. His predecessors had to do their 12 years without any car or petrol supplied by the taxpayers. They benefit by a more sensible Opposition. They get the same salaries and allowances, and cars purchased and fed with petrol by the taxpayer. All I suggest is this, that if every motor owner in the country is to be inconvenienced to such an extent, and if that kind of drastic petrol economy is necessary in the public interets, then the Ministerial seats would be as comfortably ensconced in 8 horse power cars as in 30 horse power cars. It is merely rubbing salt into the wounds of the people whose cars are taxed and idle in the garages, to be passed and met round the streets of Dublin by huge, high-powered Chrysler cars carrying Government Ministers, cars designed to devour petrol. A more modest car, a car consuming not the fabulous amount of petrol that Ministers use, would certainly be some outward evidence, some visible sign, that Ministers meant what they said when they say it is necessary to conserve petrol.

I shall go a bit further. The Minister says that the farmer or the business man, no matter how important his business, no matter how wide his field of activity, the commercial traveller who was rearing a family in a certain kind of modest comfort through the medium of a car, because it is necessary to conserve petrol, can only get enough petrol to cover 120 miles a month at most. And all the time that that bent and crippled man is trying to do his business on foot, or by pushing a motor bike or a pedal bicycle on the road, any five miles of an Irish road that he goes any day in any hour's journey he will be passed and almost run down by fleets of Army vehicles of one kind or another. Would the whole life of this country come to a standstill if the Army in this country behaved like every efficient army in every other country, who utilise the rails and the public conveyances of the country to the maximum? We saw the other day a list of priorities probably issued by the Minister on the rails of this country. In a time of national emergency with war all round us, with the Taoiseach telling us that we may have war here at any hour, we do not have mention of the Army in the order of priorities on the public conveyances system.

Would the Deputy read the order.

I am not surprised——

The Deputy is wrong.

I do not remember the day, and I doubt if the Minister does, when he ever saw military goods loading or unloading at any station in this country. I wonder did he ever see since 1923—I never did—a train stopping at the Curragh Halt. Every army in the world no sooner takes up semipermanent quarters in a particular place than the first thing that is done is to push the railway lines to feed supplies and to transport goods backwards and forwards. Here you would imagine that the waters round this little island and the rivers in the country were running with petrol. Whatever has to go from Dublin to Cork or Dublin to the Curragh, or from Dublin to another military post, big or small, the Army lorry must come or the Army lorry must go. We have them going to and fro eating and consuming petrol day after day Is that a reasonable picture to present to the people at a time when you say that people's business must go burst, that old men must take to bicycles, that the cry of suffering must wait, that there is not an extra gallon to be spared in this country?

The Minister knows as well as I do that I am not exaggerating. The Minister can throw his figures recklessly and foolishly around. The Minister can point to doctors' cars being on the streets of Dublin at a time when no petrol was allowed to anybody but doctors. He jeers at the doctors. What did he ever do to investigate where the other 20 cars got their petrol? What did he ever do to stop the huge black market which is there in every county in this State? Does the Minister not know very well what is happening? There are some getting a lot too much; there are many getting a lot too little. A committee of Deputies of this House would at least, in the interests of the State and the Government, put their finger on some of the appalling leakages that are there. They would point out to the Minister what is happening in their counties and in the neighbouring counties. They would give the Minister the tip. They would help his Department to check the hæmorrhage, but no, it must be refused. It must be refused because it is an application that came in the name of an Opposition Deputy. It must be refused because if a committee of that kind were established one thing is certain—the rule of thumb system would have to be defended. The rule of thumb system would be investigated and inquiries would be made as to why some were treated in one way and some in another, and an answer would have to be given. The simplest thing in the world is to shout out through a peephole: "That is the way I am doing it," and then duck as in a Punch and Judy show, so that no questions can be asked or answered.

The people of this country have made concessions and sacrifices in many directions. It is popular for Government Ministers periodically to take to public platforms. What is their tune from every public platform? "In the national interest we call on you to make this sacrifice, that sacrifice and the other sacrifice." The people have responded splendidly, the people have responded gallantly but the people are beginning to say: "Well, what about the boy who is asking this; what sacrifice are the Government going to make, what way are they going to economise in the use of petrol and otherwise?" The people have done much for the Army. The people have made many sacrifices for the Army. Many people have left their homes and gone in to lend a whole-time hand in helping the Army. What consideration are the people getting in return? The people are knocked off wheels and put on their feet because they are asked to make sacrifices for the State, for the Government and for the Army, to be in danger, at every twist in the road, of being driven over by a Government car or an Army car.

The misuse and the waste of petrol in Government Departments, including the Army, is simply appalling. If the thing is only faced up to sensibly, from a military or defensive point of view, they will realise that, if any of the dark prognostications that we have listened to from week to week ever come true, one of the vital sinews of our defensive war will be petrol, and that if it is only to make provision for that day, surely there should be a less reckless use of petrol by Government servants. Now, the Minister, perhaps genuinely, misunderstood a point I put in opening this debate. He suggested to the House that my idea in having a committee of this kind was that every single individual motorist would have to be considered as an individual. I did not go so far as to make a suggestion of that kind, though, if I did, I would not see anything unreasonable in it. If it were only just to keep the Minister's thousands of officials warm in winter, it would be reasonable to give them something to do. I do not see anything stupendous in examining into the common uses of all the private cars in this country. There are not so many; there is an average of a few thousand to a county. We have police, we have hundreds and thousands of inspectors, we have parish committees, we have L.D.F.s, we have L.S.F.s we have more machinery in the hands of this State than Adolf Hitler has in Germany. There is nothing enormous in that task. But, what I did suggest was that, in addition to the few rough categories which he has at the moment of private persons—doctors, clergymen, veterinary surgeons—there should be about ten classes instead of three or four.

There is unquestionably a vast difference between the private car used purely for pleasure and the private car used partly for pleasure and partly for business. These two classes would separate themselves in each county as quickly as could be. There is a difference between the doctor who has retired from practice and the doctor with a busy practice. There is a difference between the doctor in rural Ireland and the doctor in a municipal area. There is no great problem in differentiating between one and the other.

Why will not the Medical Union do it?

The Minister would like anybody without responsibility to do his work. I am suggesting a committee here that would do it for him.

Why will not the Medical Union do it?

The Minister says: "Why will not the Medical Union do it?"

Why will they not?

They will do it under the Medical Union's conditions. The Minister says: "Do it, but there cannot be a drop more for the lot of you." The Medical Union or the doctors gain nothing whatever by that. But make the Medical Union even the authority to point out clearly where economies can be made and say that if economies are effected there would be more for every sound case, then the Medical Union would do your work. But the Medical Union is not going to bolster up either laziness, or incompetence, or inequitable distribution. That is the answer of the Medical Union.

They just lack the moral courage.

That is the answer of the Medical Union and the Medical Union has more moral courage than ever characterised the Minister. The Minister's whole defence of his rule of thumb, if you convert it into plain language, is lack of moral courage. He says: "If I attempted to do the right thing, everybody would criticise me." Did you ever hear of such a defence coming from a Government Front Bench? Then the individual who puts up that contemptible defence has the effrontery to talk about moral courage. Grow up, have sense, and do not defend your own lack of moral courage by offending others. The Medical Union are prepared to put up a reasonable case if they get any assurance that that reasonable case will be met.

The Minister's case is this: That a busy doctor, in the opinion of the Minister and his Department, is entitled to travel three miles for every one mile covered by a purely private person. Is there any committee of this House, no matter what side of the House they come from, will say that that is reasonable? The Minister knows that he could not get a committee to say it is reasonable, and that is why he will not have a committee; because he knows that a committee of this House, no matter where they are drawn from, will do the right thing and will have the moral courage to do it. It is because of that that the Minister wants to shift the responsibility somewhere outside of this House. The Minister can sit pat over the present position, a position which he agrees himself is unsound, a distribution which he states himself is inequitable; but a distribution and a plan which, according to himself, is only defensible on the ground that it is easy and that if he undertook a little work and carried out a more equitable distribution he would be subjected to criticism. I wish the Minister well in that particular stand. I hope every motor user in this country will respect the Minister and the Government to which he belongs because of his statement, that an unjust plan is adopted because it is easy and that it would be unwise to adopt any fairer plan because he would be subjected to criticism.

Motion put and negatived.

Top
Share