Am I entitled on the section to deal with the matter which the Minister is likely to put into a regulation?
Finance (Excise Duties) (Vehicles) Bill, 1952—Committee.
SECTION 1.
The section, as amended, will be before the House.
Would I be entitled to discuss it when the section, as amended, is before the House?
I will give the Deputy this much consolation, that the section, as amended, will be before the House and the Minister's amendment will be moved. What does the Deputy intend to do with regard to amendment No. 1? Amendment No. 2 is intended to meet it.
I think I can say everything on amendment No. 2 that I intended to say on amendment No. 1.
We will take it, then, as not being moved.
Amendment No. 1 not moved.
I move amendment No. 2:—
To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
(12) Every regulation made under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the regulation is passed by either such House within the next subsequent 21 days on which that House has sat after the regulation is laid before it, the regulation shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
This amendment is wider in its scope than Deputy Sweetman's amendment. It includes what he proposed and covers a wider range.
So far as the amendment is concerned, I thank the Minister for meeting the point I have made, but I had a twofold purpose in putting down the amendment. I wanted, as I conveyed privately to the Minister yesterday, first of all to deal with the question of tabling and, secondly, I wanted to get at the material that goes into the regulations. The Minister gave us an explanation last Thursday. Let me say at once that I accept his statement, as he is perhaps in the same position as I am. I am not an engineer and neither is he, and this is an entirely technical matter. I have been asked, however, by technical people concerned to get clear what is the technical difference between the basis in cubic capacity on which an engine is now being computed as compared with the basis in 1926? It is quite clear, of course, that the basis is now that the capacity is to be divided by 125. I am told that in the original calculation, in 1926, which carried forward I think a previous calculation, the capacity, on the basis then operating, was divided by 160. That is the information given to me, but, like the Minister, I am not a technician. The Minister, however, has technical advice available to him. May I ask, therefore, is it correct that the 1926 computation was divided by 160 and, if that is correct, why we are changing that 160 to 125?
I will read still further and perhaps what I read will throw light on the point which Deputy Sweetman has just raised:—
"I am asked why we did not revert to the method used in the period 1922-1926, when the volume of a cylinder was also taken as the basis of horse-power. In that period the divisor used was 160, and not 125. Naturally engines had a much lower horse-power rating under it than they would have under the new formula. If we adopted it, the horse-power rating of every engine would be very considerably reduced, and we would lose substantially. Furthermore, the more expensive cars would gain most under it, while the smaller models would gain little, if anything. The formula was adopted at a time when the efficiency of engines was a good deal lower than at present, and was designed in particular to benefit a particular make of engine, which was being manufactured here at the time."
That is 1926?
From 1922 to 1926. I think the Deputy will find that that is a satisfactory explanation.
Does the Minister understand it?
I have a very crude idea of how it works, but I would not like to be cross-examined too closely on it.
As I understand the explanation, it is, first of all, agreed that, in 1926, the divisor was 160. I think the Minister confirmed that. As I understand it, it is because the mechanisation has improved since that, that 160 should now be changed to 125 on account of the improved engine design. Is that the case which was made?
We wanted a figure that would have the least disturbing effect, and I take it that if it has any effect at all, it should tend to remove any injustices against the smaller vehicle rather than confer an advantage on the larger one.
I cannot understand how that could happen.
They say here that if we were to use the figure of 160 now it would have certain effects which would not be justifiable. The figure of 125 gives a result which does not disturb to any great extent the status quo, except that it relieves for the future certain types of smaller cars and gives certain concessions to them.
Could the Minister give us three or four standard makes of cars which would give us a balancing of the two figures? That would be probably easier for a layman than trying to go into mechanics.
I did not believe I would be able to go as far as I have gone.
The Minister came along very nicely.
The increase which will result from this new method will affect the Austin 12 (1947) by 1 h.p.; the Humber Hawk (1948-50) by 2 h.p.; the Standard 12 (1945-48) by 1 h.p.; the Vauxhall 14 (1946-48) by 1 h.p.; the Wolseley 12 and 14 (1946-48) by 1 h.p. The decreases are the Austin 10 (1940-47) by 1 h.p.; the Austin A 40 by 1 h.p.; the Ford Consul by 4 h.p.; the M.G. by 1 h.p.; the Morris Oxford by 2 h.p.; the Renault (9) by 1 h.p.; the Standard Vanguard by 1 h.p.; the Vauxhall Wyvern (1952) by 4 h.p.; the Volkswagen by 5 h.p. It is a fairly level result.
The Volkswagen is the one that comes out best. Did I hear the Minister mention the Hillman?
The Hillman is not here. The Consul is four.
Is it because the Minister has seen me in a Consul that he mentioned it? What about the Hillman?
The Hillman is not mentioned. There is no change.
These are the only ones of the ordinary cars that are changed?
Is the amendment agreed to?
When I have had an opportunity of studying the Minister's list I may have something else.
Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 1, as amended, stand part of the Bill"
This is the main operative section in the whole Bill, and in these circumstances we could not allow it to go through the House without just mentioning at any rate that it is the epitome of the objections which were put by us on the Committee Stage of the Resolution, on the Report Stage of the Resolution and on the Second Stage of the Bill. It might be of interest to know that since we had this discussion the other day one of the largest firms in Dublin was able to give me the increases between January, 1950, and October, 1952. I asked them to get me certain figures about which Deputy Allen and I had a discussion the other day. They promised to get them, but they have not yet come.
They will not either.
I do not know about that. They gave me figures for 1914 but that was of no use in the argument I had with the Deputy. Between January, 1950, and October, 1952, the increase in respect of servicing, repair charges and labour was 25 per cent.
Labour or labour charges?
The labour content in a bill for servicing or repairs.
Are they charges?
Yes, what it would cost to get a job done. The increase in the cost of spare parts was 25 per cent. and of tyres 40 per cent. and, of course, in addition petrol went up by 27½ per cent. and oil by 28½ per cent. On top of that the Minister now proposes the increases included in Section 1.
Things must have been very cheap at one time.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 69; Níl. 57.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Duignan, Peadar.
- Fanning, John.
- ffrench-O'Carroll, Michael.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gallagher, Colm.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lynch, Jack (Cork Borough)
- McCann, John.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Maguire, Patrick J.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Moran, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Níl
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Thomas N.J.
- Cafferky, Dominick.
- Carew, John.
- Davin, William.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Anthony C.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finan, John.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hession, James.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Lynch, John (North Kerry).
- Cawley, Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Collins, Seán.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Costello, Declan.
- Costello, John A.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Crowe, Patrick.
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- Madden, David J.
- Mannion, John.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Denis.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Reidy, James.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
- Rooney, Eamon.
- Spring, Dan.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tully, John.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Killilea; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Mac Fheórais.
Motion declared carried.
SECTION 2
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."
Could the Minister give us some indication of the type of case that Section 2 is meant to cover.
This section replaces Section 8 of the Finance (Customs and Excise Duties) Act, 1933 and Section 25 of the Finance Act, 1934, copies of which are attached. The idea is to make a vehicle chargeable at the higher rate of duty where a vehicle is used during the year in a number of ways each of which attracts a different rate of duty or where because of a change in structure of the vehicle during the year it comes within a class liable to a higher rate of duty. Similar provisions appear in Section 8 (3) of the Roads Act, 1920 and Section 14 (2) of the Finance Act, 1922. Because of legal doubts these sections were replaced by the existing provisions but not specifically repealed.
The Minister in explanation mentioned "copies of which are attached." I cannot find them in my Bill. I have a letter here from a constituent of mine, a farmer, who writes that the present road tax on his vehicle is £25 and under the proposed scale it will go to £142, even though it is a vehicle that is only used about once or thereabouts per week on an average over the year. Does this section apply to a case like that?
No.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 3
Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."
I think this is the section on which I should make the inquiry. It is under the Roads Act that the tax as such is collected by the different local authorities. Will the Minister help me in this? There used at one time to be a provision that local authorities gained something by having a large number of vehicles registered on their books. I would like the Minister to confirm what I understand is the position or to give us the existing position. The local authorities concerned staff the office and collect the tax. In the first place, is the entire cost of that staff met out of the Road Fund tax so collected, or does the local authority concerned have to meet, directly or indirectly, any portion of the cost of staffing the motor taxation section of such local authority? I think the Road Fund bears the whole cost, but I am not quite clear. In the second place, does the amount of the grant that the local authority gets vary in any way according to the number of vehicles registered in the area of such local authority? I believe at one time it did. I think that stipulation has gone, but I would like confirmation from the Minister.
The reply to the first question is that the Road Fund bears the cost. The reply to the second question is that it was the practice to have regard to the number of vehicles when distributing the amount in the Road Fund but that is no longer the practice.
Does the Road Fund bear the superannuation cost of the employees of that section when they go out on pension?
I do not think so.
Do not you think it might?
That is a new one on me.
Would the Minister consider it?
Yes, it would be interesting to look into it.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.
SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In paragraph 4 of Part II, page 9, to delete sub-paragraph (a).
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are really drafting amendments. They ensure that electrically-propelled vehicles exceeding one and a quarter tons but not exceeding one and one-half tons in weight, unladen, will be entitled to the preference for Irish assembly allowed to other goods vehicles.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In paragraph 4 of Part II, page 9, to delete sub-paragraph (b) and substitute the following sub-paragraph:—
(b) which, in the case of an electrically-propelled vehicle, exceeds one and one-quarter tons, but does not exceed one and one-half tons in weight, unladen, and in any other case exceeds one ton but does not exceed one and one-half tons in weight, unladen, and
Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Schedule, as amended, be the Schedule to the Bill."
The Schedule deals with all the different rates. I want to mention the rates that are mentioned in paragraph 6 so as to keep the field open for myself on Report Stage. We may consider putting in an amendment to that paragraph on Report when we have had an opportunity of considering the explanation which the Minister gave earlier to-day about horse-power. I would like an opportunity further to consider that. We wanted to get that explanation about horse-power before we considered amending the Schedule in other respects. It is necessary to mention it now. We may require also to put in an amendment now that we know the horse-power provisions for hackney vehicles.
The position, as I see it, is that, under this Schedule, the rates will be operative at the figures which we have already discussed on the Financial Resolutions. It would be impossible for anybody who was not aware of all the technicalities involved to follow the intricacies of this section, but, as I understood the Minister's speech on Second Reading, he assured the House that this Schedule merely put into legislative form the exact proportionate figures which were in the original White Paper which was circulated. The Schedule must put into legislative form the material that was included in the Financial Resolutions, but, on the assumption that it does put into legislative form the increases visualised in the White Paper, we know where we stand and, with the new explanation we have now got from the Minister in regard to horse-power, we can see where we stand with regard to Report Stage amendments.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?
We will give the Minister the two remaining stages this day week.
Would you not give it to me Wednesday next?
We will have to see the Minister's explanation in connection with horse-power in the Official Report. I do not think the report will be available in print until Tuesday. We will give both stages this day week, provided, of course— I am sure there will be no difficulty whatever — that the Parliamentary Secretary has not ordered the business for 10.25.
Report Stage ordered for Thursday, 4th December.