When we came to the end of the discussion on this Bill last evening, I was endeavouring to show Deputies that it was impossible to divorce these proposals from what was aimed at in the matter of the reconditioning and the repair and maintenance of our road system. I was explaining to the House that the roads of the country are maintained from two sources, the rates that are struck by the different local authorities and the contributions made to local bodies from the Road Fund.
The members of the Opposition were critical of these proposals and invited us to examine what they called the cruel impositions and burdens which this measure imposes upon the classes affected by them. We ought, I think, to look at the other side of the picture. I would, therefore, invite the members of the House, especially those members who are members of county councils, who every year are called upon to face the objectionable and difficult task of striking a county rate, to examine the problem. That is one of the difficult tasks of county councils. As Deputies in this House are aware, rates have been soaring everywhere.
I would like to hear those Deputies who have been pleading with me to face up to a problem on which they have as much information as I have, and possibly more experience. These two sources I have mentioned are the only ones from which our roads can be improved and maintained. Indeed, it is most unlikely, no matter what happens, that matters will ever change in that regard. I believe it will be generally accepted that in the future it is to those two sources we must look in that regard.
Is it fair or reasonable that while the rates which have been struck for road improvement and maintenance have increased by over 100 per cent. in recent years motor taxation should remain as it was in 1926 except for the additional taxation that was imposed on owners of private cars from 1947 on? I have already admitted, and I admit now, that any new tax or duty imposed upon any section is naturally resisted and resented. Is it reasonable to contend, as Deputies appear to have been able to contend, that while the rates that have been struck for the maintenance of our roads continue to increase, the contributions of those who use the roads to make a living— the lorry owner, the motor owner, the hackneymen and the taximen—should be left as they were in 1926? As I said before, that is not a reasonable contention. It is a contention which, I am satisfied, Deputies, when they go before their local bodies to strike a rate, whether city, urban or county, will not put forward.
Some Deputies have gone part of the way with me in this regard. Others have suggested that these proposals of mine were ill-considered and the argument they advanced in proof of the claim was that our method of road-making, maintenance and so on was inadequate. Some Deputies suggested that the road problems of the country should be tackled on a regional basis, contending that such a departure would give us a great deal more efficiency and better value for the money. Other Deputies went further and claimed that different councils and many county engineers were just clinging on to the old method of roadmaking, but none of them seemed to make any allowance for the wonderful improvement that has taken place everywhere in road-making methods or for the progressive outlook of councils and county engineers in recent years.
None of the Deputies who made these contentions that further improvements could be effected gave any consideration at all to the problems of employment with which local bodies have to contend. It is all very well to make speeches along certain lines here, to give the impression that you want things approached in a business-like fashion, to display your knowledge of business and suggest how these public works should be supervised and organised, but those who take advantage of occasions such as this to give these displays do not apparently have regard to the issues which arise in a local council—issues of employment the attitude of the workers, whether councillors will approve of the establishment of a central quarry in which most of the quarry work and employment in the county will be given, and all the agitation that goes on to have old quaries used here, there and everywhere in order to spread out employment over the area. Are we then to say that these considerations should not weigh with the local bodies and county engineers? Are we to say that county engineers and local bodies should ride roughshod over these views, if and when they are expressed.
We are encouraging local bodies and assisting them in every way we can to adopt the most modern methods practicable in the making and maintenance of our roads, but I would certainly hesitate to attempt to influence a local body in its judgment as to what should be done in this regard. You cannot disregard the employment factor that arises in all these questions. I claim then, that so far as it is practicable, county engineers and councils are fully aware of the importance, in these days of rising costs and other difficulties, of the need to improve their methods so as to bring these costs down. But they must always have regard to that other problem that has to be dealt with.
It was suggested here, too, that the fact that the Road Fund has been growing, on account of the additional number of vehicles coming on to our roads, every week, every month and every year, in itself should be adequate to meet the requirements of the roads, but a moment's examination will at once show the fallacy of that line of thought. The more vehicles, the more damage, and if the vehicles as a whole are not contributing to the same extent, or to the extent to which they are doing damage, the problem becomes greater. I do not think there is a member of this House who would not admit wholeheartedly that our roads everywhere, in every part of the country—some places are worse than others —are in a very bad and backward state.
I remember a time, and it is not so many years ago, when expenditure of public money on roads was regarded as a sort of luxury, a sort of unnecessary work, but all that has now changed. Even the farmers, who at one time were the most outspoken in regard to extravagance so far as road construction was concerned, are now fully conscious of the need, even from the point of view of their own business, for tackling this problem. Deputies will remember how farmers used to protest at county council meetings because of the danger to the live stock which resulted from the modern type of tar-sealed road, and, indeed, only some months ago, the report of a commission set up some years ago to examine that question reached me. The problem is no longer there now, and one never hears that problem spoken of at a county council meeting, although 15 or 17 years ago deputation after deputation waited on county councils to urge them to provide sidetracks along main roads for the safety of animals and so on. There is, therefore, a complete change of outlook so far as the condition of our roads is concerned.
Quite frankly I see no hope of our being able to tackle that problem as it should be tackled unless we make up our minds to approach it in the manner proposed here. I am not suggesting that the sum of money likely to be secured as a result of these proposals will be adequate, or nearly adequate, for the task that lies before us; but, assuming that conditions remain in or about the same for the next ten years or so, I think everybody will admit that the expenditure of £1,000,000 per annum on our roads will play a considerable part in bringing to an end the state of affairs about which everybody is continually complaining at the present time.
Last night, and I think on some other occasions too, Deputy Corish suggested there should be no Road Fund and that contributions for the construction and maintenance of our roads should be made from time to time from the Exchequer. I would not be prepared to take that risk. Although it must be conceded that the Road Fund was not always regarded as available only for roads, it would be a very dangerous step to merge the Road Exchequer. There is a much better opportunity of taking a stand, a stand that I have stated I took this year, in order to secure that the total revenue from motor taxation will be made available for roads so long as the Road Fund retains its seperate identity. It is always easy to make a fight on that issue because it is always possible to point the finger to the amount that is there and it is always possible to know who tampered with it and for what purpose it was used.
For that reason, I say to Deputy Corish that as long as Governments and Ministers for Finance have their problems in connection with the Budget, it would be a very dangerous course, and one that I personally would resist very strenuously, to take the step he recommends in so far as the Road Fund is concerned. I think there is need for really enlightened public opinion, especially on local bodies, of the need for strengthening this fund and devoting it to the purpose for which it was set up.
It is pleaded on behalf of certain interests affected by these proposals that there should be some mitigation of the burden. It is only natural that Deputies, when approached by organised interests, should stand up here and put their views and the views of those with whom they have discussed the matter publicly before the House. I think Deputies have enough common sense to know that when a Minister comes in here with proposals of this nature he has a wider and a greater responsibility and, if I may say so in all humility, a greater knowledge of the need for what he is seeking to collect by the impositions he proposes before the House.
It is no pleasure to me to resist the urgent pleas that have been advanced. Sometimes I feel that stress is laid upon these pleas, firstly, in order to secure the concession for the people concerned, and, secondly, to get the Minister to break the line. I want to assure the House again that I have considered these proposals even though I have been accused of the contrary. The whole matter was reviewed by an inter-Departmental committee. The report of that committee and its suggestions were examined by me. In turn, my proposals were examined by the Government.
In consultation with the officials of my Department, it is only natural that I should have a fair idea of the amount of money required. It would not be right to say we want so much money and, irrespective of the hardship the collection of that money might impose, insist on getting it. I have not done that. We arrived at a sum of money that we believed was urgently required and we are endeavouring now to present proposals here with a view to finding that money, proposals that will inflict the least possible hurt upon those who have to bear them.
While I understand the reason for these pleas and while I understand that it is only natural that when individuals are organised in the way in which the taximen and hackneymen are organised that they should come to their representatives and make their case and put all the pressure they can upon those representatives in order to secure a certain concession, at the same time my responsibility is bigger and wider than all that. As Minister, I must have regard, however much I would like to have my proposals acceptable to all, to the proper discharge of my responsibilities in conjunction with what I think is necessary in the interests of all. I know it will prove to be a very good day's work on our part when these proposals are given effect to and when we secure the additional sums necessary without imposing any undue hardship upon any particular section of the community.
Deputy Sweetman asked a question, the answer to which I would like to put on the records now. His question dealt with the method to be followed in determining the horse-power of an engine. It is a technical question and as I am not myself mechanically minded, I will read for him now the reply to the question he posed:—
"Regulations made by the Minister for Local Government will prescribe how the horse-power of a vehicle is to be calculated. This has always been the case. In the past there have been no less than four sets of regulations, three of which (including that at present in force) use a formula in which the horse-power is based on the width of the cylinder of the engine. Similar regulations applied in Britain and they encouraged the manufacture in that country of engines with narrow cylinders. American and continental engines were not so restricted and so we find engines from these areas a good deal "wider" than engines of corresponding capacity manufactured in Britain. Many British-manufactured engines are now appearing with wider cylinders.
The new regulations which will come into effect on 1st January next will deal fairly with the wide cylinder as well as the narrow one. The width of the cylinder will no longer be the determining factor, but its whole volume will be taken into account.
The horse-power of an engine will be calculated as follows under the new formula. The total volume of the cylinders will be taken in cubic centimetres and divided by 125. In the result a fraction of less than 0.1 will be ignored. Thus, if the result is 12.06, the engine will be rated at 12 horse-power. (This is the existing practice.) It is inevitable that some engines will lie on one side or other of any line which has to be drawn, but it is submitted that the line decided on is the fairest possible.
It has not been determined in order to benefit or trap any particular model of car. The formula used is based on that used by the British when they for a short time in recent years adopted a similar system of calculating horse-power."
I was asked, too, if I could make some concession in regard to the method of paying a tax—that is, on a quarterly basis. The position is that in the Bill before us the minimum is 25 per cent. of the yearly tax and the maximum —which has been the case for years past—is 30 per cent. per quarter. I do not see how one could justify encouraging the payment of the tax on a monthly or on a quarterly basis. It is of tremendous advantage to have the tax paid yearly, if at all possible. I agree that it is not possible in all cases. It is the same in every other business. You pay a surcharge in the case of insurance, you pay a surcharge in the case of the purchase of goods and, indeed, in any other method of trading there is that surcharge if you do not pay down the full sum. The extra 5 per cent. on a quarterly payment is not, I think, excessive. To make it any less would appear to me to be ridiculous. I do not see why, at the expense of the Road Fund, we should give a concession in this matter which is not given in any other line of commercial life.
I indicated yesterday that local bodies will encounter difficulties in getting the new rates of duty into operation by the first day of the new year. While I do not want to curtail discussion in any way when we come to the remaining stages, I appeal to the Opposition Parties to co-operate with me in getting this Bill through by the time specified.
