The amendments submitted, with one exception, are not in order.
Adoption Bill, 1952—From Seanad. - Finance (Excise Duties) (Vehicles) Bill, 1952—Final Stages.
With respect to amendment No. 5 I wanted to make a submission.
I will hear the Deputy's submission now.
On the Committee Stage of the Bill we got for the first time from the Minister an explanation which we asked for originally on the Committee Stage of the Financial Resolutions. It was asked for by Deputy Costello immediately the Minister had sat down. It was requested by others on this side of the House on the Committee Stage and it was requested again on the Report Stage of the Resolutions. It was requested again on the Second Reading of the Bill. We only ultimately got the explanation from the Minister on the Committee Stage of the Bill.
The explanation requested was as to how the new method of horse-power was being computed. It was made clear in the early stages of the Resolutions and the Bill that one of the things which Deputies on this side felt was that the relinquishment of the existing provision in respect of hackney drivers would mean that hackney cars would tend to be smaller cars. We could not state for certain whether that would be so until we knew what was the horse-power provision. Since we got the horse-power provisions, I made it clear in column 304 of the Dáil Debates of the 27th November last that, now that I got those explanations, I wanted to mention rates. My wording is:—
"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 submit, Sir, that, in view of the specific statement in regard to the last amendment—No. 5, I think—this should be permitted.
I am ruling according to precedent. Deputies who consider the functions of the various stages of the Bill will realise what the position is in regard to amendments submitted on the Report Stage. The Committee Stage is the stage on which each section of the Bill is before the House for examination in detail and on which amendments of substance and importance may be moved. Unless a matter is raised as an amendment on that stage it cannot be raised subsequently. The Chair has no means of discovering what is intended to be raised on the statement made by Deputy Sweetman. The section, as a section, is put and carried; therefore, there must be some knowledge as to what is the exact, specific and definite point that is to be raised.
I read and re-read Deputy Sweetman's statement, and I cannot find anything which indicates clearly to me what was the definite, specific point which he wished to raise. It is a matter concerned with the reduction of taxation. That is a new matter that was not discussed on the Committee Stage. I must, therefore, rule in accordance with long-established precedent that this matter cannot be introduced at this stage. It is a matter of too great importance to be introduced on the Report Stage.
For the purposes of the record, I wish to point out that I do not at all accept your statement that only a matter which has been raised by amendment on Committee Stage can be raised on Report Stage. I submit, with great respect, Sir, that the tradition of both Houses always has been to the contrary. On the Report Stage matters that are discussed in Committee are proper for the Report Stage, and that has always been the practice. It is not necessary to have a specific amendment on the Committee Stage in order to introduce an amendment on the Report Stage.
I endeavour to convey that the matter could not be raised unless "by amendment or by definite specific reference to." That has not been done in this case.
When the Ceann Comhairle has the opportunity of reading the Official Report he will realise that what he did say was that only after an amendment on the Committee Stage can an amendment be introduced on the Report Stage.
I should have added that there should be a definite and specific reference on the Committee Stage to the matter which a Deputy wishes to raise on the Report Stage.
I submitted an amendment in the names of Deputy Corish and myself, the object of the amendment being to preserve the present reduction of road taxation in respect of those who operate taxi cabs and hackney vehicles. Apparently, Sir, your ruling in respect of my amendment is the same as that in respect of the amendment submitted by Deputy Sweetman. The point I desired to cover was one which was actually discussed on the two Financial Resolutions and also on the Second Stage of the Bill. I thought that as this particular aspect of the legislation had been pinpointed by lengthy references to the inequitable character of the taxation proposed, it would have been in order to submit an amendment on the Report Stage. However, if you rule otherwise, there is nothing further I can do in the matter.
Nevertheless, the Minister might co-operate in this matter, that is he might agree now to recommit the Bill to Committee in which case presumably we could discuss not only the amendment submitted by Deputy Sweetman which has been ruled out of order but also the amendment which I submitted. Perhaps the Minister would do that on an assurance that that fact will not result in any further delay to the Bill if we can get a majority of the House to pass it.
I want to make a submission——
I do not think I should allow anybody to make a statement in respect of amendments.
I wish to make the submission in connection with your ruling.
Only the Deputy submitting the amendment is entitled to make a statement. My ruling is not thrown open to the House to discuss.
Where you have made a ruling affecting amendments on the Report Stage of the Bill, surely it is a right of a member of the House, where he is aware that these amendments are directed to a specific facet of the Bill, to refer the Chair to the fact that in this case the House has been inadvertently put in this position, because information sought was not available to the Minister with reference to certain facets that were inquired into on the Committee Stage.
Deputy Sweetman made the point very clearly.
For the purpose of the records, I want to make the submission that where a Minister——
Deputy Collins must understand that the ruling of the Chair is not open to be discussed informally in this fashion. I have allowed the two Deputies immediately concerned to make a statement. I cannot allow this matter to be the subject of discussion in the House by every Deputy.
I am not making the matter the subject of discussion.
The Deputy is making the matter a subject of discussion and I cannot allow it in this way; otherwise every ruling of the Chair in respect of amendments and other matters would be the subject of the same procedure. Will Deputy Collins please desist?
I want to press that in this particular case I am not contravening any rules of the House.
I have ruled the Deputy is not entitled to speak and I cannot permit him to speak on this matter.
I take it, Sir, you have had advertence to column 305 of the Official Report which was the specific reason why the Report Stage was not taken yesterday so that we could see the Minister's explanation on this horse-power question.
I have adverted to the report. I have read it several times and I can see nothing in it that would induce me to change my decision.
Might I make a submission to the Minister namely, that he would co-operate in getting over the difficulties by recommitting this Bill for the purpose of these discussions.
I do not want to be unco-operative, if Deputies feel that they want to cover again the ground which has been covered very often before. I have read all the amendments and I see nothing new in them. I see nothing that has not been decided here. At the same time, if it is felt by Deputies that they would like to cover that ground again, I would not like to prevent it.
I promise not to take any more than ten minutes.
Agreed that the Bill be recommitted.
Amendments Nos. 1 and 5 are the same in substance, I take it?
Yes.
Nos. 1 and 5 can be taken together, Deputy Norton moving No. 1.
I move amendment No. 1:—
In page 2, Section 1, line 17, after "Act" to add "except in the case of small public service vehicles used as taxis or hackney-cars when the duties to be charged shall be those specified in the Schedule reduced by 20 per cent."
I do not want to travel over all the ground covered before but I want to make this final appeal to the Minister. Here in this Bill we are proposing to add new burdens to the taxi owners and to the owners of hackney-cars. These are folk who earn a hard livelihood by following their existing occupations. That livelihood is all the harder when, in fact, by the increased cost of living and the recession in employment they find it difficult to earn a living, hard and all though it is. Not only are we imposing on them new burdens—as we are on every other owner of motor vehicles, whether private motor vehicles or lorries—but we are placing a special burden on the hackneymen and taximen to the extent that we are completely wiping out a somewhat preferential rate of taxation which they had enjoyed from, I think, 1947 to 1952.
Whatever case there might be for reviewing that at some future date, I do not think that that review should take place this year or that they should be asked to share these burdens in the same year that they are called on to bear the impact of the toughest Budget that this House has known for 30 years. I think it is unfair to impose those burdens on such persons, knowing the conditions under which they have to earn their livelihood and considering the competition they have to meet from pirate employers in the same industry.
I think, therefore, the Minister could without in any way seriously diminishing the income that he has calculated to come from a Bill of this kind, agree to meet the claims put forward even from his own benches on behalf of the hackney and taxicab owners. I am not asking the Minister to go too far but merely to recognise the special character of their employment and the special difficulties that they experience in their avocation.
The Minister would not in any way seriously diminish the increased income which he plans to obtain from them. I move the amendment accordingly.
It is not often, Sir, that I have an opportunity in getting up in the House, of thanking a Minister for his consideration in handling the business of the House, but I do thank the Minister for the way he has met the points raised. When this matter was discussed previously we had not, as I already said, several times before, in submissions to the Chair, the position in regard to horse power that we have now before us. It appears fairly clear that the provisions the Minister is going to make by dividing the capacity by 125 will hit particularly those types of large car which are suitable for hackney vehicles. The Minister will agree that it will be undesirable if as a result of this legislation hackney vehicles should become smaller than the present large ones, which are more suitable for conveyance of that kind.
Apart from that, the case the Minister made in the earlier stages of this Bill and the resolutions preceding it was that it was impossible to avoid what one might term the hackneyman. The Minister will say that I have introduced in amendment No. 5 a provision which ensures that only a person whose only or chief occupation is operating these vehicles will get the benefits of the remission. The wording is taken from the Minister's own wording on the part dealing with the tractor tax. The wording follows it exactly and when there was no difficulty in regard to the wording of the tractor tax I would suggest there would be no difficulty equally in regard to the hackney tax. If the Bill is passed without amendment there will be a real danger that not merely will there be hardship on these people but in addition there will be a tendency for them to go for the smaller type of car with resultant discomfort to passengers about whom the Minister, I am sure, is just as much concerned as I am.
I cannot at all concede the point made here again to-day by Deputy Norton in moving his amendment. He talked about the additional imposition on taximen and hackneymen. These proposals merely aim at restoring a position that existed prior to 1947 and if the other side of the case were to be made it is that the private owners in 1947 obtained an assurance that immediately on conditions becoming normal the 50 per cent. increase in their tax would be removed. Instead of that, these private owners, who have paid that additional tax for the last five years, are now having their tax increased while taximen and hackneymen have enjoyed preferential rates from 1947 to the present time.
I look at this thing entirely the other way. My contention has been that the taxi and hackneymen have had an advantage for the last five or six years in that special rates applied to them for the first time and in view of the need there is to replenish and increase the amount in the Road Fund there was no alternative left to me but to bring about uniformity again at this particular stage.
If I showed any resistance to the suggestion made by Deputy Norton in asking me to recommit these amendments to Committee, the only reason operating at the back of my mind was that I could not concede any of the points urged on me, not only, as he said rightly, by members of the Opposition but by members of my own Party, who, hearing the particular story advanced by organised sections of the community, would naturally come to me and make that case, both privately and in this House.
I have already explained that I must resist these while I am prepared to concede that when you restore the position as it existed prior to 1947, it may come as a bit of a slap to the hackney and taxi-men. At the same time it is not unjust. These conditions existed prior to 1947. The money is required and I must repeat that I have no alternative but to take the course I have taken so far.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá: 61; Níl: 66.
Tá
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, Thomas N.J.
- Cafferky, Dominick.
- Carew, John.
- Cawley, Patrick.
- Collins, Seán.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Costello, John A.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Crowe, Patrick.
- 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.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hession, James M.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keane, Seán.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- Lehane, Patrick D.
- Lynch, John (North Kerry).
- McAuliffe, Patrick.
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Madden, David J.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
- O'Leary, Johnny.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Denis.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Reidy, James.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rooney, Eamon.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tully, John.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- 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.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, Noel C.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Colley, Harry.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lynch, Jack (Cork Borough).
- McCann, John.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Maguire, Patrick J.
- Maher, Peadar.
- 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.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Breanndán Mac Fheórais and Kyne; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Hilliard.
Amendment declared negatived.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 2, Section 1 (2) (ii), line 32, to delete "thirty" and substitute "twenty-seven and a half".
The purpose of this amendment is quite obvious. As things stand, a person who cannot afford to pay the full rate of annual duty at once has to pay what is equivalent to an extra 5 per cent. We suggested on earlier stages that that was unfair and I suggest that, as the basis now stands, we should reduce it to half so that the difference will be only 2½ per cent. instead of 5 per cent.—that is to say, 6d. in the £.
The section itself gives me freedom as between 25 and 30. I can by regulation fix any percentage I so desire as between these two. In the past the figure has been 30. There is no use in my trying to mislead the Deputy or the House as to what I might do. I think I should say that I have no present intention of changing from 30. Certainly I must resist lowering the ceiling from 30 to 27½ which would mean that I would have discretion only as between 25 and 27½.
Amendment put and declared lost.
I move amendment No. 3:—
In page 3, Section 1 (4) (d), line 6, to delete "public".
This is a small net point. As I understand the position on this Bill as it is drafted, if a vehicle for carrying machinery is used by a local authority for carrying machinery, which machinery works on the public roads of the local authority and also does other work on non-public roads, say, for the Special Employment Schemes Office, then the exemption included in the paragraph falls to the ground.
I am not trying in the amendment to cover any case except the local authority case. It is purely a small technical matter. I take it that the Minister would not wish that local authority machinery which was utilised other than on the public roads of that authority should thereby become disqualified. I am satisfied to withdraw the amendment and to give the Minister an opportunity of looking into the matter. If the interpretation of the section is what I take it to be I think the Minister will agree with me and will be able to deal with the matter in the Seanad.
I was not clear what the Deputy was aiming at. If I felt that this amendment would result in giving the general freedom not only to local bodies in the circumstances outlined by the Deputy but also to private contractors, then I should be obliged to resist it. I take it that the type of case the Deputy wants to make is that where a local body is the owner of machinery of this nature it is not subject to any tax for using our roads system while it is being used on its own work, and where in certain circumstances that machinery might be made available for work other than work undertaken strictly for the county council, that situation would have to be covered by law if we are to be entitled to so use that machinery. I would be sympathetic in the matter of meeting the Deputy to that extent.
That is the only extent I am anxious for.
I will do whatever I can to have this matter re-examined as between this and the Seanad stages and if I can meet that point and make that matter secure I will promise to do so.
I accept what the Minister says and I withdraw the amendment accordingly.
I should mention that I am now advised that I may not be able to do so as this is a Money Bill.
That is a matter on which the ingenuity of the Minister's advisers will be tested. I can see one way in which it can be done.
I think the amendment can be accepted in its present form, perhaps.
I am quite happy. I think it covers what I want.
I would rather take the risk of leaving it fairly open than prevent local bodies and county councils from using their machinery in the way that both of us seem to regard as desirable.
The Minister can accept the amendment and make a recommendation in the Seanad.
Yes, I will take a risk— not for the first time in my life.
The Minister is a good sportsman.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment No. 4:—
In page 6, Schedule, before paragraph 5 (b) (iv), to insert the following:—
(iv) exceeding one ton and used for haulage in connection with agriculture and for no other purpose—£25.
On the earlier stages of this Bill I mentioned on more than one occasion the case of a farmer who has a lorry and who uses that lorry for the purposes of agriculture. As the Bill is phrased by the Minister, that lorry will be taxed at exactly the same rate as a lorry that is plying every day. The Minister will know, understand and agree that a lorry that is held by a farmer and that is used for the purposes of agriculture and for no other purposes will not be on the road anything like as often as what one might term an industrial lorry.
It will be brought out perhaps during the beet season or during the harvest season alone, to bring artificial manure back to the farm. It will only operate for a very limited number of days in the year. I suggest that when it operates only for a limited period it should not be taxed to the same degree as a lorry which travels very many more miles. The basis of the Minister's case in respect to lorries is, of course, the damage that is done to the roads. I was endeavouring to provide in this amendment that the tax that would have to be paid would bear some relation to the user of the roads.
My objection to all these exceptions and exemptions is that they are abused, that they have been abused and that they will be abused. I have satisfied myself completely that many of the vehicles that took advantage of this concession over a long number of years could not be described as agricultural lorries in the strict sense and that they were not used by people who were deriving their livelihood from agriculture in the accepted sense. I can see that any attempt to find a new definition or to make the regulations tighter than they were in the past will fail. There may be some farmers who use any lorry they have for strictly agricultural purposes but I am satisfied that in these cases also, and in many of the cases that were cited here in our previous discussions such as those of farmers from County Dublin who were supplying the markets here, the lorries were used as well for purposes other than ordinary agricultural purposes. They would have to be so used or it would not pay the farmer to keep such a vehicle. It is only people who make fairly constant use of vehicles of that kind who can afford to buy them. According to my information, the people who were availing of these exemptions and of this exceptionally low rate of tax, were people who were technically entitled to describe themselves as following agriculture but who, in the main, were living by other pursuits. I can find no soft spot in my heart for any amendment which would continue the previous practice, in view of the need there is for more money for the roads.
The Minister has not adverted to the fact that the amendment says—
"in connection with agriculture and for no other purpose."
I have. I know the difficulty of just defining what that means.
I thought it was fairly clear.
You could stand in a man's yard and be unable to draw a clear line.
I do not agree with the Minister. The definition I have there is also in the Bill in paragraph 4, sub-paragraph (c) of the Schedule. It is exactly the same wording and if the wording is good in one place it is good in the other. I am sorry the Minister cannot show his reasonableness further. He has shown reasonableness in regard to the last amendment and it is a pity he could not meet us on this one because the amendment is really required.
Amendment put.
The Committee divided: Tá: 59; Níl: 66.
Tá
- Beirne John.
- Belton John.
- Blowick Joseph.
- Byrne Alfred.
- Byrne, Thomas N.J.
- Cafferky, Dominick.
- Carew, John.
- Cawley, Patrick.
- Collins, Seán.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Costello, John A.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Crowe, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, Jame M.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Anthony C.
- Everett, James.
- O'Leary, Johnny.
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Denis.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Reidy, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finan, John.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hession, James M.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keane, Seán.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- Lynch, John (North Kerry).
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Madden, David J.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rooney, Eamon.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tully, John.
Níl
- 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.
- Flanagán, Seán.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gallagher, Colm.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lynch, Jack (Cork Borough).
- McCann, John.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Maguire, Patrick J.
- Maher, Peadar.
- 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.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Palmer. Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Hilliard.
Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 5 not moved.
Bill reported with amendment.
Bill, as amended, received for final consideration and passed.
This Bill is certified as a Money Bill in accordance with the terms of Article 22 of the Constitution.
Ordered that the Seanad be informed accordingly.