Do I move No. 1 and No. 2 together?
Committee on Finance. - Excise Duties—Motions by Minister for Local Government.
On a point of order, what are we discussing? We have not seen any motions.
We do not know what they are.
It will not be long now.
We should have got these motions yesterday. There is no reason why they should not be on the Order Paper in the ordinary way. Details were published some time ago, unless you are slipping in a quick one.
No. 1 is a quick one. We got no notice whatever until 30 seconds ago that the cost of driving licences was to be increased. We strongly object to discussing any motion of this kind.
The Deputy understands that no notice can be or is given of motions of this kind.
A Deputy
The usual thing is adjournment for a day.
They are in exactly the same position as the Budget motions.
Is it not utter nonsense to say that the increase in the costs of driving licences for motor cars has the same sanctity as increases in taxation?
It has always been the practice that a motion such as this is not published until the day it is introduced into the House. The previous practice was followed as far back as 1926. The only reason why this motion was not mentioned in the White Paper was that there could be certain forestalling. It is because of that that I am obliged to ask the House to give me this motion to-day.
Might I suggest the House adjourns for an hour to consider the matter? Deputies have not had time to read the motions much less to discuss them.
The first motion contains nothing more than a proposal to increase the cost of driving licenses.
Might I submit, Sir, that what has been said as regards these motions being in the same position as Budget motions is not quite right?
They are not motions.
They are Resolutions.
I am given to understand that the Resolution contains no addition to the proposed increase in motor taxation. So far as the proposals to increase motor taxation are concerned, they have been published long before now.
That is so.
I cannot see what is the difference between a Resolution to increase a man's tax on his car by £5, let us say, and to increase his driving licence by 5/-, 10/- or £1.
Is the Minister of the opinion that this is another of the Minister for Finance's ha'porths of tar?
Might I draw attention to the fact that these Resolutions do not take effect until the 23rd October?
Which is to-morrow.
Why should it come into effect to-morrow?
Would you allow me tell you why?
On a point of order. If these Resolutions may now be discussed, presumably a member of the House is within his rights in seeking to move an amendment to the Resolutions. Am I to understand therefore that these Resolutions are now being discussed though nobody has had the chance to frame amendments to them. Surely, we ought to be given a chance of seeing the Resolutions, of reading them and of drafting whatever amendments we desire to make.
The Deputy will understand that we are in Committee and that on the Report Stage amendments can also be moved.
Suppose I desire to move an amendment on the Committee Stage which we have reached now——
If the Deputy wishes to move an amendment on this stage to these Resolutions, he is perfectly entitled to do so.
On a further point of order, that being agreed, surely I ought to have an opportunity of reading these Resolutions before I draft my amendment? How can I do that if I am required to sit in this House and listen to the introductory speech on which the Minister is about to embark.
So far as the Chair is concerned, these Resolutions are perfectly regular. They are introduced in the same manner as Budget Resolutions and are controlled by the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act.
There are two Resolutions, one of which, according to the practice of this House, is always disposed of on the day on which it is introduced. That is the Resolution dealing with the increase in the cost of driving licences. In order to meet the point raised by Deputy Norton, in 1926, when the House was in Committee discussing a similar matter, the proposal was accepted by the House, because the House had to deal with the Resolution on the day that the licence fee was chargeable. In fact, that fee continued to be charged until the Report Stage was taken. An amendment reducing the amount to 10/- was then accepted by the House, resulting in a refund having to be made by the local authorities concerned, of the difference between the £1 as imposed on the Committee Stage and the 10/- finally accepted on the Report Stage.
A very clever procedure.
I am not suggesting that it was clever or otherwise. I am merely stating the facts. I am merely stating the procedure down the years and I am trying to convince the House —I think I should have no difficulty in doing so—that since this has been the procedure all the years since—may I say in addition that it is possible for forestalling to take place in relation to this proposal—it is necessary to ask the Dáil to pass Resolution No. 1 to-night. If the Dáil so decides, it can follow the steps followed in 1926. That does not prevent Deputy Norton or any other Deputy from putting down an amendment on the Report Stage in that regard.
So far as Resolution No. 2 is concerned, the position is entirely different. It does not require that this House should pass Resolution No. 2 to-night. I should like naturally to get it and to carry over the discussion to the Report Stage or to the Bill which will be introduced later which will cover the subjects referred to in Resolution No. 2. While I know it is not vital in the same sense as it is to pass Resolution No. 1 to-night, I still should like to get it.
Why does the Minister go back to 1926?
That was the last time at which there was any revision of this licence.
Nothing has happened since?
These are the only two revisions that have ever taken place in this regard.
It is another emergency Budget in effect.
You can call it what you like.
I am not calling it that. It is the Minister and the Chair.
In view of your ruling that an amendment to these Resolutions may be moved on this Committee Stage, will you take from me now two amendments, delivered to you orally, because I have no opportunity of writing the amendments here? The amendments are:—
Resolution No. 1. That the Resolution be referred back for reconsideration.
Resolution No. 2. That the Resolution be referred back for reconsideration.
The Deputy must move an amendment to the text of the Resolutions. These are not amendments to the text of the Resolutions.
Would the Minister tell me if Section 2 of the first Resolution operates to bring driving licence fees into the general fund of the Exchequer? Does this change the law? They have always been paid to the Exchequer and then into the Road Fund.
So far as I know, it is to the Exchequer they go.
The driving licence fees go to the Road Fund as well as the motor tax?
Yes.
You have ruled, Sir, that I must move an amendment to the text of the Resolutions. Will you then take an amendment to Resolution No. 1 "To delete in line No. 2 the figures 1952 and substitute the figures 1955"? Would that be in order?
If the Deputy will give me that amendment in writing——
I shall confirm it in writing after I hear the Minister's speech. I shall move a similar amendment in respect to Resolution No. 2 "To delete 1953 and to substitute 1955." I expect the Government will be out of office long before that.
The Resolutions must first be moved and Deputy Norton can then move his amendment.
I shall try to write them while listening to the Minister.
On a point of order. Can we be told why this Resolution No. 2, which occupies approximately seven pages, was not circulated to us by the Minister or by the House at the instance of the Minister, when the White Paper has been issued for some period? The Resolution cannot be forestalled because it does not become operative until the 1st January. Why should the House be asked to accept blindfold the Minister's assurance that it is in fact operating the White Paper when ordinary simple courtesy would have enabled us to look through it beforehand?
Again, as far as I am concerned, I have no responsibility for the actual method by which Resolutions of this nature are circulated in this House, except perhaps in regard to Resolution No. 1 concerning which the Ceann Comhairle has given an explanation. I am glad to see Deputy Norton in such a flippant, humorous mood having regard to his recent illness.
Thank you.
Still I do not see why there should be any exception taken to my proceeding with this Resolution in the manner that has been the established practice in this House for 30 years. Is it contended that I should be deprived of the right to ask the House to dispose of the Resolutions in the manner which has been the long established practice of the House?
The Minister wants Resolution No. 2 passed through the House to-day?
I did not ask for that. I made that clear, I thought, but I suggested that you might as well give me the two Resolutions and you can achieve the purpose you have in mind by discussing them, item after item, at a later stage.
May I submit that it would have simplified matters if Resolution No. 1 had been issued on a separate sheet of paper?
I am not responsible for the manner in which the Resolutions are circulated. I want to assure the House that, in regard to the form in which the White Paper was issued or the form in which the two Resolutions have been circulated, I had no intention of doing other than what had been done in relation to similar matters in the past.
Mr. Byrne
May I ask the Minister do these Resolutions apply to taximen, because if they apply to taximen I want to move an amendment?
These queries will arise after the Resolutions have been moved and discussed. I have ruled that, so far as Resolution No. 1 is concerned, the Minister is entitled to move that Resolution. I am calling on the Minister to move it now. Questions such as Deputy Byrne asks may be put in the course of the discussion.
Will the amendments to be moved by Deputy Norton be circulated to the House?
They will.
Can we be told why we were led to believe that Financial Resolutions were going to be brought on by the Minister for Local Government arising out of his White Paper. why he has not carried out that promise, and why he has brought in another Financial Resolution, trying to slither in one behind the other?
I thought I had made that clear. For the convenience of the general public the Government decided to issue a White Paper dealing with the proposed increase in motor taxation. The White Paper was circulated as a result of a desire for information on this matter. A Resolution is now before the House which embodies exactly every single proposal as set out in the White Paper with one exception, the one exception being Resolution No. 1 which deals entirely with the proposal to increase the cost of driving licences. That matter was not referred to in the White Paper for the reason that if one single word escaped that such a provision was contemplated there could be forestalling on the part of those who intended taking out driving licences.
That is all cod.
That is nonsense.
It is not.
Will the Minister move Resolution No. 1?
Will the Minister explain how it could be forestalled?
I will.
They are two different things that could be dealt with in a perfectly straightforward manner separately.
I call upon the Minister to move the Financial Resolution.