Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Dec 1959

Vol. 178 No. 5

Committee on Finance. - Excise Duties—Mechanically Propelled Vehicles.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

I move:—

(1) THAT in this Resolution—

"the Act" means the Finance (Excise Duties) (Vehicles) Act, 1952 (No. 24 of 1952), as amended by section 9 of the Finance Act, 1955 (No. 13 of 1955) and section 20 of the Finance Act, 1958 (No. 25 of 1958); any reference to a vehicle shall be construed as including a reference to a vehicle and another vehicle or an attachment which, in accordance with subparagraph (3) of paragraph 1 of Part II of the Schedule to the Act, are, for the purposes of Part I of that Schedule, to be deemed to form and be a single vehicle.

(2) THAT for the purposes of the Act, the weight unladen of a vehicle shall, on and after the 1st day of January, 1960, and notwithstanding section 18 of the Road Traffic Act, 1933 (No. 11 of 1933), be taken to be the weight of the vehicle inclusive of all additions, but exclusive of the weight of water, fuel or accumulators (other than boilers) used for the purpose of propulsion and of loose tools or loose equipment.

(3) THAT for the purposes of paragraph (2) of this Resolution—

(a) each of the following shall, with respect to a vehicle, be an addition:

(i) a body,

(ii) a part,

(iii) a fitting,

(iv) a receptacle,

(b) in a case in which there is one addition only, the reference to all additions shall be construed as a reference to that addition,

(c) in a case in which, there being two additions (and not more), on no occasion are both of them used, the reference to all additions shall be construed as a reference to the heavier only of the additions or, where they are of equal weight, to one of them only,

(d) in a case in which, there being three or more additions, on no occasion are all of them used, the reference to all additions shall be construed as a reference to the heaviest combination of the additions which is used on any occasion.

(4) THAT in a case coming within subparagraph (d) of paragraph (3) of this Resolution, where one only of the additions is used on a particular occasion, "combination of the additions" in that subparagraph shall, in relation to that occasion, be taken as referring to that addition.

(5) (a) THAT anything placed on a vehicle for the purpose of the conveyance of goods or burden of any other description shall, subject to the next subparagraph, be a receptacle for the purposes of the provisions contained in the foregoing paragraphs of this Resolution.

(b) THAT anything so placed is excepted from the foregoing subparagraph if in relation to no journey are goods or burden of any other description both loaded into and unloaded from it without its being removed from the vehicle.

(6) THAT in proceedings for recovery of a penalty under section 2 of the Act, the onus of proving that anything comes within the exception specified in paragraph (5) of this Resolution shall lie on the defendant.

(7) IT is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).

Before I deal with the substantive part of this motion, I shall first say a few words about the urgency of the matter. Goods vehicles are assessed for motor taxation on the basis of unladen weight. During the last year different decisions were given in District Courts on the import of the statutes on the subject and consequently licensing authorities will find themselves in an impossible position in dealing with applications for licences for goods vehicles for 1960 if the issue is not settled decisively before the first of January. The financial resolution before the House therefore provides a new definition of unladen weight, and is intended to come into force on 1st January, 1960, under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927. Its efficacy will, of course, be subject to the Resolution being agreed to by a Committee of the whole House on Report Stage within 10 sitting days and subject to the necessary Bill getting a Second Reading within 20 sitting days.

I should say that it was hoped to have a case stated for decision by the High Court this year, but certain technical difficulties prevented this being done in the current year, and so legislation is the only way to deal with the problem. The new definition will apply as from 1st January next and will not affect any cases that arose during the current year, which fall to be determined by the Courts in the usual way on the basis of the existing law. It was not until very recently that it became clear that a case could not be brought before the High Court this year, and this explains why it is necessary to introduce the proposal at so late a date in the year.

So much for what I may call the "time" element in the proposal. As to its substance, while the main intention was to secure a suitable definition to give effect to what had been regarded as the correct interpretation of the existing law up to recently, the complexity of the subject necessitated a new approach and the framing of what is undoubtedly a new formula. I shall deal with this point in more detail later. Here I may say that not alone was the opportunity taken to deal with particular points that arose in Court cases, but also with other questions raised in recent years about the present definition.

The existing definition of unladen weight for motor tax purposes is to be found in Section 18 of the Road Traffic Act, 1933. Subsection (2) of that section is now obsolete at least so far as motor taxation is concerned. It relates to a vehicle exceeding 7¼ tons unladen weight and fitted with a superstructure designed and constructed for a special purpose other than the carrying of passengers or goods. Any such vehicles now in use would not be taxed as goods vehicles on the basis of unladen weight. Accordingly that part of the definition is being dropped.

Subsection (1) of the section is the really effective part. It provides that the weight unladen shall be the weight of the vehicle including the body and all parts which are necessary to or ordinarily used with the vehicle when working on a road. Certain small items, such as loose tools and loose equipment, are excluded.

The phrases "body" and "part" are incapable of satisfactory definition because vehicles, of which there are over 278,000 registered in the State, vary so much in design and construction. It could well be argued that what is a body in one case is an integral feature of the vehicle in another case and in still another case is a "part". Again, arguments could be advanced for the proposition that certain items come within the term "body" or the term "part", while contrary arguments could be advanced to the effect that such items do not fall within either of those terms. The new definition proposes that all "additions"—bodies, parts, fittings and receptacles (two new terms designed to cover anything not captured by "body" or "part")—shall prima facie be included in the unladen weight. It does not matter what the item is called in a particular vehicle; the omnibus nature of paragraph (2) of the Resolution should cover them. The items previously specifically excluded, such as loose tools or loose equipment, are still excluded.

A further difficulty arose with the phrase in Section 18 which qualified "all parts", viz., "necessary to or ordinarily used with the vehicle when working on a road". I need hardly say that this could be the subject of much argument in individual cases. It was affected by the provisions of section 2 of the Finance (Excise Duties) (Vehicles) Act, 1952, a later statute which provided that duty becomes payable at a higher rate where a vehicle is used in a condition or manner which would attract the higher rate if the vehicle were used solely in that condition or manner. Thus, if a lorry is taxed on the basis of 5 tons unladen weight and is on any occasion used at 5½ tons, duty becomes payable (for the licensing period) at the 5½ tons rate. This could be regarded as overriding the qualification about ordinary use in Section 18 of the 1933 Act. In the new definition it is proposed to follow the principle set out in the 1952 Act, but to make it certain that it will operate equitably. Accordingly, if a lorry owner has a number of attachments which he may use, not all at one time, for different types of haulage, he will be taxed only on the heaviest item (or combination of items) that he uses at any particular time.

I now come to the question of "receptacles". As in other aspects of this whole problem, there is great variety both as to type and method of attachment of what are commonly called containers. There is the genuine container, which is loaded and placed on the vehicle and later removed in the same condition. These could be claimed to form part of the load rather than of the carrying potential of the vehicle, although indeed they could also be claimed to add considerably to its carrying capacity. Then there are somewhat related contrivances which are attached firmly to the vehicle and always left on it, being virtually part of the "body". In between there is a great variety—containers which are detachable but rarely detached, containers which are used for a particular type of load for considerable periods and then temporarily replaced by others and so on. Again it has been necessary to adopt the rule that all receptacles prima facie rank for taxation purposes. An exception is made, however, in favour of those which could be regarded as more in the nature of a load than in the nature of the conveying capacity of the vehicle.

It is difficult to get a line of division which, while being fair, will not encourage wholesale evasion. The criterion adopted is, I think, a fair one. If for any particular journey during a licensing period goods are both loaded into and unloaded from the receptacle while it is on the vehicle, then the weight of the container must be included. Otherwise it is excluded: that is, if it is used as a genuine container on all journeys. This follows logically the general line adopted, which I mentioned already. As the use of containers is very much a matter within the knowledge of the vehicle owner, a provision regarding burden of proof is necessary and is included in paragraph (6) of the Resolution.

One might well ask why steps have not been taken to deal with this matter before now. Many lorry owners are paying tax on the basis which the Resolution sets out. Others are not and due to difficulties of enforcement it has been difficult to deal with them. I should explain that the problem as it now poses itself did not exist at the time the 1952 Act was passed. Since then there have been two developments. There has been a great increase in the variety of vehicles and the variety of devices used with them. Furthermore, the 1952 Act increased very substantially the rates of duty on the heavy lorries and it is very much in the interests of the heavy lorry operators to reduce the figure of unladen weight for tax purposes. Indeed, it is the heavy lorries which will be chiefly affected by the proposal. The attachments used on the smaller vehicles naturally are light and the extra duty, if any, involved at those rates is also light. In the case of the heavier vehicles, attachments can be heavy and, the rates being high, the extra duty could be substantial. In no case, however, would it be more than a small fraction of the cost of operating a lorry.

I do not think I have to convince the House that the contribution made by these heavy vehicles to the cost of road construction and maintenance must bear some relation to the demands they make on the road system. Every addition to their carrying capacity means greater loads and greater impact on the roads.

On the whole, the new definition merely reflects what has been the interpretation given to the existing law by licensing authorities and generally accepted until recently. If it does involve extra duty in some cases, then it is because some owners have availed of any weakness there is in the definition, and they can scarcely cavil at being brought into line.

The Government have given special consideration to the case of licensed hauliers. They are doubly affected by unladen weight, in that the unladen weight for motor tax purposes is the criterion by which their weights are checked for the purposes of road transport licensing. It is considered that, as the new definition involves the reckoning of certain items which at least some of them felt free to use in addition to the items weighed for tax purposes, some increase should be given in standard lorry weights to ameliorate any hardship in that respect that may be caused by this Resolution. The Minister for Transport and Power is introducing the necessary legislation.

I should add that it is intended that the Bill to implement this Resolution will contain, not merely the new definition of unladen weight, but also some provisions to facilitate the enforcement of the law. I have already mentioned that there are difficulties at present in that respect.

I must apologise to the House for a very long statement on what is a relatively small measure. However, the Resolution is a complex document, introduced at necessarily short notice because of the procedure associated with Financial Resolutions and the urgency of the occasion, and I felt I should explain matters as fully as possible. Here I should say that, while the document appears at first sight to be very involved, it will be realised on consideration that the draftsman had a very difficult job to do and did it well. A financial provision must be carefully drafted because it is strictly construed and because loopholes can be both expensive and inequitable. A Resolution that deals with so many types of vehicle and attachment is doubly difficult.

I recommend the Resolution to the House and trust that if there are any other points on which explanations are required I shall be able to provide the necessary answers.

Mr. Sweetman

Before we discuss this, could the Minister give some indication of the type of fitting involved in the first instance? Secondly, I think it is usual when a Financial Resolution is introduced for the Minister introducing it, to give an estimate of what it will yield.

Mr. Blaney

There could be, naturally, a wide divergence in what could be described as the yield but we reckon it would be in the order of £50,000 and it could possibly go up to £100,000. We are not too clear on that.

Mr. Sweetman

Could the Minister give examples of what fittings are involved?

Mr. Norton

May I put a question to the Minister, if the Deputy will pardon me? The Minister used the word "receptacle" in respect of a large lorry. Is that something connected by wheels to the lorry or hanging on to the lorry, or in the lorry? Could the Minister give us examples of what it is?

Mr. Dillon

Is it a crib?

Mr. Blaney

I shall just give the House the types of addition envisaged. Possibly there are others that may come along and that we have not even mentioned but this is the type of addition that comes under the Resolution—sideboards, tailboards, creels, larger cattle containers, containers for oil and other goods. Those for the moment would be examples of the additions.

Mr. Norton

Is it the two-tier cattle truck the Minister is referring to?

Mr. Blaney

Let me put it this way: any kind of thing normally used on a truck whether it is one-tier, two-tier or three-tier—if there are such things. I have not yet seen three tiers but they may be coming—if it is a kind of thing normally or usually used and heavier than any other creel, receptacle, crib or attachment used, then the heavier ones are the ones that will be weighed for tax purposes.

Mr. Sweetman

With all due respect to the Minister what he has just said in relation to the Resolution before the House is not said in the terms of the Resolution. The Resolution is quite clear and according to subsection (5) it is not a question of anything that is normally used with a lorry. If it is used once and only once then it is caught by this Resolution. The Resolution, according to the Minister's own estimate, will add £50,000 to £100,000 as an additional burden and charge on the transport of the country. That is something we certainly cannot afford in the present circumstances.

I find it impossible to visualise clearly what is intended, and apart from what is intended, what is construed under this Resolution. May I put the more extreme case? This year was a bad year for drought. Many farmers had to draw water. If they put loose barrels on a lorry and took those barrels down to the nearest pump and put a hosepipe from the pump into the lorry and into the barrels and filled the barrels at the pump and then brought the barrels back and emptied them with another pipe, say a gravity pipe, into a tank in the farmyard, under sub-paragraph (5) of this Resolution, those emptied barrels must be added because they have been used once with the vehicle——

Mr. Norton

Would the Minister say if that is so at this stage?

Mr. Sweetman

There is no question about it; it is so in the Resolution.

Mr. Norton

I want to get an answer. Will the Minister tell us now?

Mr. Blaney

I shall leave the Deputy to continue because I do not like this idea of drawing out a point and then making speeches after it.

Mr. Norton

It might save a lot of speeches.

Mr. Blaney

I do not think the questions are intended to do that.

Mr. Sweetman

That is the effect of subsection (5) (b) "...if in relation to no journey are goods or burden of any other description both loaded into and unloaded from it without its being removed from the vehicle." The water is loaded in; that is the goods. The barrels are not taken off the lorry but the barrels are emptied. The water is excluded but the barrels under subsection (5) as drafted here in this Resolution must be added to the weight.

Take another case. A man has a lorry and uses that lorry in the ordinary way, say for 11 months of the year, for ordinary carrying purposes for his own goods. In one month of the year, perhaps on two runs, he goes to the bog to bring home his turf and he puts up at the side of the lorry, not completely fitted creels or "cribs" as I understand they are called in some parts of the country, but puts up loose attachments which one might describe as a few planks on the sides to keep the turf in. The turf is loaded in while those planks are in position. The turf is then unloaded while they are still there and even though the man only uses this contrivance perhaps twice in the year he must have the weight calculated for tax purposes by reference to those attachments that are there.

I have a sort of suspicion that part of the idea of the Resolution is also to provide a hidden drive to induce people to go to C.I.E., to help C.I.E. in an oblique way. I do not know whether that is true or not.

To take another question, I cannot understand for example whether a spare wheel, which at present does not have to be weighed, will be regarded as loose equipment or is it a fitting? It is usually fitted on to the lorry. I am not prepared to put any definition on that. The whole purpose of this Resolution is to ensure that people who, maybe, once or twice or three times in the year use their lorry for a particular purpose will have to pay the higher rate of tax for the entire year. That is the purpose of the Resolution without question.

I cannot accept the Minister's view that the motion is drafted in the way he indicated unless its purpose is the ridiculous one of catching in loose things that are put in it from time to time. Let us take a receptacle. We all know that very often a box of sorts is utilised for carrying tools, for the County Council, for example, out to the bog or to a distant road. The tools are loaded into the box and, if there are many tools, they are taken out before the box is lifted because otherwise the box would be too heavy to lift. Under Section 5 of this Resolution, as drafted, that box also would have to be weighed and the person concerned, if he were hauled up at any time in the year, would be put on his proof that at no time during the course of the year had he carried a fitting, a receptacle or a part that had not been weighed at the time concerned.

May I point out, also, in relation to the definition of "part" in paragraph 3, that as far as I can understand the Road Traffic Act, 1933, Section 18, it was to be a part of the body at that stage, but now, under the new Resolution, it is a body or a part of a vehicle? It is not a part of a body; it is a part of a vehicle. Is not a part of a vehicle one of the spare parts, for example, and is there not, therefore, a contradiction automatically there between that phraseology and the "loose tools and equipment"?

I do not know whether the Bill is intended to follow the exact wording of this Resolution or not; that is a matter for another day; but it does seem to me that, as this Resolution is framed, it will add another £100,000 perhaps to the transport charge which the economy cannot bear at the present time and, in addition to that, this Resolution will mean that all sort of things will be added to the weight which should not under any circumstances be added and that things which might, perhaps, be fairly added if they were used normally will be added even though they are used only once or twice in the twelve months. For that reason I do not think the House should accept the Motion.

Mr. Norton

This looks like emergency legislation. Apparently, the position is that different local authorities and different district justices are taking different views as to the interpretation of Section 18 of the Road Traffic Act, 1933 and we are in the position now in which no one appears to know what the law really is in the light of these decisions by local authorities and district justices. Apparently, it was desired that the High Court be asked to pronounce on the law. I think it would have been better if we could have managed to get the High Court to pronounce upon the law. I cannot understand why it could not have been possible to get some High Court Judge to devote one weekend out of the many that have passed in order to decide what is the law in respect to this matter and thus have it clarified because even when this Bill is passed there will probably be conflicting definitions by district justices as to its meaning and it may be necessary to get a High Court decision to clarify what is now intended to bring about clarification in the existing muddled condition of the law.

Frankly, I do not like the State stepping in to determine what is the law when cases are at present pending hearing by the High Court. It would have been better if we could have utilised the High Court procedure, which would have settled existing difficulties in a way which, perhaps, could be more permanent than what we are doing now in an effort to secure clarification.

I do not doubt that there is a good deal of wangling in connection with the registration of lorries. It is well known to anyone who keeps his eyes and ears open that a fair amount of manipulation goes on. I have been told of cases where a person gets a vehicle registered with one type of body and, as soon as the fee is paid and he gets back to his place of business, the light weight vehicle is removed and a heavy weight vehicle is put on. Everything goes well for twelve months and the light weight vehicle is put on again for the purpose of registration, after which the heavy weight vehicle is put on again. It is right to stop abuses of that kind.

In respect of the very heavy lorry, I am strongly in favour of it but I am just wondering how long we can afford to keep these eight wheel trucks on the road having regard to the cost of road maintenance today. The Kildare Urban Council made an excellent job of repairing and widening the road from Blackchurch to Naas. As a result of their efforts, the road is a first-class road comparable with any road in the world, including the famous Continental autobahns, but one day a heavy lorry travelled along the road from Blackchurch to Naas and made a depression with two wheels on the road for the entire distance. That happened months ago and the two wheel marks are still to be seen in varying degrees of depth between Blackchurch and Naas. No doubt, Deputy Sweetman has observed them from time to time. They are clearly visible in the day time.

Lorries of that kind on the road can be very expensive to the local ratepayers who have to provide to some extent for the maintenance of the roads and they are quite a burden on the motorcar taxpaying community, who use much lighter vehicles.

If we can be satisfied that there have been abuses and manipulation of the road transport legislation, the House is justified in taking steps to correct the abuses and to seal off any financial haemorrhages which are causing loss of revenue to the State but I do think that the Minister ought not to tidy up this legislation in such a way as to make it utterly inflexible and incapable of meeting an emergency which everybody would desire to meet and which would be met in any case but only by somebody recognising that he was breaking the law.

This is a very technical Resolution. I should like the Minister to tell us what is the meaning of paragraph 5 (b) in relation to paragraph 5 (a). Paragraph 5 (a) would appear to bear out what Deputy Sweetman has said. It reads: "That anything placed on a vehicle for the purpose of the conveyance of goods or burden of any other description shall, subject to the next sub-paragraph, be a receptacle for the purposes of the provisions contained in the foregoing paragraph of this Resolution." If you put a barrel in your lorry, that is, a receptacle, the next sub-paragraph reads: "That anything so placed is excepted from the foregoing subparagraph if in relation to no journey are goods or burden of any other description both loaded into and unloaded from it without its being removed from the vehicle."

Does that mean that you can take that barrel off, empty the water and put the barrel back again, or does it mean that you can siphon the water out of the barrel and that the barrel in such circumstances will not be a container for the purpose of this amendment? It is absurd that because mankind is visited with an unwelcome drought that you would break the law by taking out a lorry to get the water elsewhere that will not come where the water is needed. I should like the Minister to tell us that cases of that kind are not covered by this measure, that the accidental use of receptacles once or twice a year for a purpose of that kind would not mean that the owner of the lorry would be burdened with the additional cost as if these containers had been used permanently for the transport of goods or other burden on his vehicle. The Minister ought to clarify that in the Resolution or in the Bill, whichever way it is necessary to do so.

Mr. Dillon

I should like to be clear in my own mind that I am right in believing that the case referred to by Deputy Norton of the eightwheeled lorry which sank in the ground on the road in County Kildare is not affected by this Resolution at all, that that is simply a question of loads on lorries of excessive weight.

Mr. Sweetman

But it was not the load that was weight in that case.

Mr. Dillon

It is not affected by this at all. So far as I know the fraudulent practice referred to by Deputy Norton is not affected by this Resolution. It is under the existing law fraud to move a lorry to the place of weighing with one body on it, and, having got it weighed and taxed, to take the lorry home, take that body off and put a different body on it. That is fraud and if it is detected you are liable to prosecution.

So far as I know, the only area in which ambiguity exists is where you have a lorry which you ordinarily operate with sideboards but on occasion your load is of a character that requires cribs and you put on cribs to contain the load. Are those cribs to be weighed with the lorry or are the sideboards normally used the appropriate fitting for the lorry when it is brought to the point of weighing under the jurisdiction of the local authority? So far as I know—and Deputy Booth ought to intervene in this debate, because he is familiar with this business, and tell us what his impression of this Resolution is— most of the lorry assemblers in this country try to assemble their lorries as near as is practicable to the maximum weight permitted within a certain tax schedule. Those lorries are all on the road and there are hundreds of them. What we do by this Resolution is to levy on the owners of these lorries anything from £50,000 to £100,000 per annum. I want to know does this House think that is a desirable thing to do?

I agree with Deputy Norton that these lorries of immense capacity which are too heavy for any normal road, however excellently constructed, ought to be virtually taxed out of existence. If we were to establish a system of autobahns capable of carrying these gargantuan lorries heavily laden, the cost would be appalling and the occurrence of these immensely heavily laden lorries is of so rare a character that we would not be justified in constructing our roads to cater for them. However, that is an entirely different problem from the one envisaged here. We are employing a ten-ton hammer to crush a thrush's egg. This Resolution reeks of the excessive zeal of those who are trying to do by Resolution of this House what would much more appropriately be done by the ordinary procedure of the courts of law which are there for the purpose of interpreting our legislation rationally. As I understand, the function of the courts it is to ask not what Dáil Éireann intended to do but what is a rational interpretation of what Dáil Éireann has actually done.

I think you will get, on the foot of this so-called clarifying Resolution, a new crop of anomalies such as Deputy Sweetman has referred to. I do not believe anybody in Dáil Éireann to-day intends that if in a year or two you put six barrels on a lorry, fill them with water, bring them to the field, siphon the water out of the barrels because the barrels containing the water are too heavy to lift down, if those six barrels lift your lorry two or three stone above the maximum weight appropriate to your tax disc, you are to be fined and required to pay increased tax on that lorry because once you drew six barrels of water out to your cattle in the field. I do not believe anybody means that but I believe that, on the strict interpretation of this Resolution by the courts, that meaning must be attached to it.

The Minister seems to have a sense of grievance because we ask him questions to try to clarify certain matters, and he feels we are trying to hang speeches on that. The Minister should have no sense of grievance if we ask him what is the approximate yield of this Resolution. It is a perfectly normal thing to do and on the occasion of a Financial Resolution it is the ordinary procedure to have that estimate. The Minister is not the Minister for Finance and it is not customary for him to introduce a Resolution of this kind but he is not being trapped or unfairly treated in being asked what this is likely to produce and if we dwell on the fact that it is certain that this will represent an additional charge of £50,000 to £100,000 he is not being trapped into an indiscreet revelation; that is an integral part of what the original statement ought to contain.

You cannot escape from the fact that existing lorry owners will have to pay £50,000 to £100,000 more than they have paid heretofore and that the bulk of these lorries—I do not say all of them—are being operated by relatively small enterprises up and down the country. I think of all the wholesale grocers, all the mineral water distributors, all the bottlers and all the other categories of people who give employment in every town in Ireland. When you get up to what we call the 5 to 7-ton lorry, if the addition of cribs raises that lorry into a higher category of tax rate, the additional burden on small business in rural Ireland is very formidable.

Everybody seems to forget that when you put on an additional charge, somebody has to pay for it. All I am asking the people here to do is to stop and ask themselves what the consequences of this is going to be. I have seen too many small businesses in rural Ireland pushed over the edge because this little extra charge and that little extra charge have been added on and the owner wakes up, perhaps two or three years too late, to find that he is insolvent.

I know of instances where a small business man acquired one or two lorries and struggled along with them, only to find at the end of four or five years that the lorries were worn out and he had no funds to replace them. He had been living on the proceeds of the capital sale of the lorries. That arises from the accumulation of small charges which are turning his business into an uneconomic proposition. I want to associate myself with the suggestion of Deputy Norton and I say that the proper way to deal with the situation is to ask the Chief Justice to make a Judge available to deal with the cases stated that await determination and, in the light of that judgment, the Minister can come in here and say that he wants to put on an additional tax on certain categories of lorries and we can then examine that proposal in our minds.

I put it to Deputy Booth, whom I know to be intimately versed in this matter of the assembly and erection of lorries: does he understand the full implications of this Order and what the results are going to be? I certainly do not but I am prepared to prophesy two things—firstly, that out of this Order there is going to be as luxuriant a crop of anomalies as the Minister believes himself to be afflicted with at present and, secondly, that there are dozens, if not hundreds, of small businesses giving employment in rural Ireland, and who are operating one, two or three lorries and who honestly believe that the addition of cribs, or creels as Deputy Sweetman calls them, do not constitute an increase in weight on which additional tax could be charged. The proposed charge will constitute a substantial sum to be borne by the man who has three lorries. It will amount to £50 a year. I warn Deputies that there are many businesses in rural Ireland which have not a margin sufficient to enable them to bear such an additional charge.

We are at present in the process of introducing the system of P.A.Y.E. That will put a fairly substantial charge on the kind of business I am thinking of which provides employment for from 5 to 50 people. This proposal will put another little burden on them and you can keep at this kind of thing until you reach the point of putting such businesses out of existence. What appals me is to see the number of these businesses that are going out of existence with a consequent loss of employment. I have seen in the town in which I live, in the last 20 years, three businesses closed up, putting out of employment about 70 people. In each case it was a result of the imposition of small charges which they were not in a position to bear.

I admit that if these businesses had been in the position of being able to call in the services of efficiency experts they might have been able to scrape together enough to pay the additional charges but they were not so circumstanced. They would not be where they were, in the middle of rural Ireland, if they were engaged in that kind of enterprise. It was much more important to me that they were able to provide a decent livelihood for some of my neighbours and that now that livelihood is no longer available to them. I do not say that the whole responsibility rests on this House but the imposition of charges of this kind helps them on the way out. Let the High Court deal with the cases stated and in the light of that decision let us then consider what action is appropriate but let us walk warily before we impose on a small business in rural Ireland substantial additional charges in respect of equipment they already have which they cannot afford to replace, charges which they are not in a position to pay without serious consequences to themselves ultimately.

Mr. Booth

I am afraid Deputy Dillon flatters me when he takes me to be an expert in weighing and taxation matters but I think that this Resolution is being made to appear more difficult than it really is. I think you can always try to loosen out little phrases here and there in a matter of this kind. It appears to me that this is purely an effort to deal with the situation where a man taxes a vehicle with a certain type of body and subsequently replaces that body with another or modifies it so as to change the weight substantially.

With the ordinary commercial vehicle the basic thing is a flat platform body behind the cab. In most cases there are spaces left in that framework in which it is possible to put pillars; sideboards can then be added to build up a body. A reasonably handy man can devise creels or cribs which can be put on to the framework of the lorry and it appears to me that very few people would have a crib or a creel on a lorry unless they propose to use that lorry fairly substantially. You could always say that if a man uses a creel or a crib once or twice a year, it is unjust to tax him on that. However, anyone who provides himself with a creel or a crib will use it much more frequently than once or twice a year. He will use it each year throughout the turf production season or the beet campaign, when shifting either turf or beet. If he is using it substantially during those periods it is not unreasonable to say his lorry should be taxed on this basis.

I do not regard this at all as additional taxation in the normal sense of those words. I regard this as an attempt to deal with two points—first of all, the manifest confusion between local authorities as to how the law should be interpreted and, secondly, the unfortunate fact that some people are playing ducks and drakes with the regulations. This is an effort to try to make it at least more difficult, if not impossible, to continue to do that. When reference is made to items such as a receptacle, to my mind that could not be held to include a barrel or two barrels.

Mr. Sweetman

Is a barrel not a receptacle?

Mr. Booth

Yes, but I am trying to be reasonable on this. Possibly my position on one side of the House prejudices me to some extent. At the same time, I am trying to be as dispassionate and reasonable as I can. I cannot imagine anybody would say if a barrel is a receptacle, then a small water can would be a receptacle— almost anything would be a receptacle.

Mr. Dillon

Because you take the water can off to empty it and you would not take the barrel off to empty it.

Mr. Booth

Would you be consistently using a barrel?

Mr. Sweetman

That is the trouble. There is nothing about "consistently using" in the Order. If there was, then the argument would not apply.

Mr. Booth

I can quite see that, but at the same time unless you had the full Bill here before the House on this occasion you could scarcely have done better than the Minister has done. Surely the point at issue now is that the courts are not prepared or are unable to give an interpretation before the 1st January? On the 1st January a large number of vehicles will have to be taxed. This is an effort to make sure they are taxed uniformly and not on a variable scale. I cannot see that it would be possible for the Minister for Local Government to influence the Chief Justice to have a judge detailed to deal with a certain case——

Mr. Dillon

Not "a certain case"; a certain group of cases.

Mr. Booth

I do not think the Chief Justice would take kindly to such a suggestion. Everybody always feels it would be very much to be desired if their case could be decided now or very shortly, so long as they are ready. Obviously the Minister is ready and everybody else is ready but the courts have not got around to doing it. To meet that point something had to be done; otherwise there would have been chaos on the 1st January.

This Financial Resolution is sufficiently clear in itself to deal with the immediate problems arising on the 1st January and I feel that any further elucidation of the matters set out in paragraph 3 could well wait until the Bill is before the House. But I would assume—and I hope the Minister will inform me I am right—that the items that are set out as those to be regarded as an addition would be a body, a part—I would assume an integral part of the vehicle—a fitting. The interpretation of a fitting I would much prefer to leave to the courts——

Mr. Sweetman

This is to save trouble for the courts in the future.

Mr. Booth

But at the same time, if there is further discussion as to the meaning of this, it can be debated more satisfactorily on the Bill rather than on the Financial Resolution. I would say that a receptacle clearly is something which is an integral part of the vehicle such as a large water tank or a large liquid tank like a petrol tank or a milk conveyor.

Mr. Norton

If there are different views, who is to determine which is correct? This means going back to the courts, too.

Mr. Booth

It may, but at least some of the doubt should be removed by this, which ought to make for a more consistent taxation on the 1st January this year than has been the case so far.

Mr. Norton

Would the Deputy give his interpretation of (5) (b)? It says something, but would the Deputy try and make sense out of it?

Mr. Booth

That anything placed on a vehicle for the purpose of conveyance of goods shall be a receptacle.

Mr. Norton

What about a water can?

Mr. Booth

If that is an integral part.

Mr. Sweetman

Where does that come in?

Mr. Norton

That is not there.

Mr. Booth

I think any reasonable taxation authority would take that, and that would be quite sufficient for the moment.

Mr. Norton

We had already four different views by taxation authorities and district justices.

Mr. Booth

It depends on whether you are arguing down to the point of absurdity, which I think Deputy Norton is. You may have a raincoat with a pocket in which you place a parcel to be delivered to somebody. Will Deputy Norton say that this coat must be placed on the lorry before you take it to the taxation authority on the 1st January, Deputy Norton knowing that on the 15th March he is proposing to use that vehicle and the pocket for the conveyance of the parcel to somebody a few miles away? That is reducing the whole thing to absurdity. That is what Deputy Norton is doing and I am not prepared to argue with him on that line.

Mr. Norton

I can assure the Deputy that I am not. There is no clarification at all on (5) (a) or (5) (b). Take the ordinary meaning of a receptacle on a lorry as something into which you put something on a lorry. You cannot carry liquid except in a receptacle. You cannot throw it on the floor. You have to have a receptacle for it.

Mr. Booth

I have tried throwing liquid on the floor.

Mr. Norton

It is very difficult to get it up again.

Mr. Booth

I am trying to be reasonable whereas I think Deputy Norton is trying to be unreasonable and to confuse the issue.

Mr. Norton

Far from that, I was trying to stop the financial leakages under the present system.

Mr. Booth

I am sure the Minister appreciates the assurance but I am afraid I do not to quite the same extent.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy is naturally suspicious.

Mr. Booth

It does admit of a reasonable interpretation. Anything in writing can be wangled around to some extent if you wish to do so; otherwise lawyers would be out of business. But a taxation authority will not be in the same mood as Deputy Norton is at the moment. I believe it is quite sufficiently clear to ensure that so far as possible, human nature being what it is, that there shall be a uniform rate of taxation for people who are prepared to make proper declarations of the form of body which they use.

At this stage, the Courts are not in a position to give an interpretation, and will not be in such a position, before the 1st January. The alternative is to let them go on, let the confusion be continued, which I think is an intolerable situation, to such an extent that people who have taxed their vehicles will have to be subsequently chased for more taxation.

If anyone pays taxation on foot of this Financial Resolution I think they will do it with a clear mind as to what exactly is involved. I do not think anybody will be taxed excessively but I think that people who have taken advantage of previous legislation will find that their game is over. For those people I have no sympathy whatever. I do not think it is hard. Deputy Norton is unduly worried about the danger of anybody being overtaxed. That is a figment of his imagination which I think he should now forget.

Mr. Norton

I hope the Deputy is right.

Mr. Booth

I think I am right.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

With all respect to Deputy Booth, I think his contribution was adequate justification for the remarks of Deputy Dillon. Deputy Booth started by saying he thought he knew what this Resolution meant and as I followed him, in any event, he finished his contribution by agreeing that the Resolution meant something other than appeared in black and white in Section 5 (b). According to Deputy Booth, while Section 5 (b) says something it is simply a figment of Deputy Norton's imagination to think for a moment that Section 5 (b) means what it says, and that such a thing as a barrel for holding water could not be taken as meaning a receptacle. It seems to me that Deputy Dillon is quite right when he points out the fact that under this Resolution, if it is accepted by the House, it is just going to be as difficult wth regard to interpretation as the provisions that exist at the moment.

I quite agree with Deputy Norton and other Deputies who have spoken in adopting the attitude that the Government are entitled and, in fact, have a duty to block gaps that exist, but they are going a bit further in this Resolution which, to take the Minister's figure, is imposing £100,000 on the taxpayers of this country. That taxation, or a great part of it in any event, will be collected from people who have lorries and vehicles of one sort or another on the road, which they purchased in a perfectly bona fide manner, and which they have heretofore taxed in a perfectly bona fide manner. But, by virtue of Section 5 (b) of this Resolution, if it means what it says, contrary to what Deputy Booth believes, the owners of those vehicles are now to have to contribute anything up to another £100,000 a year in taxation. I do not think that is dealing fairly with a person who has bought his lorry, and has it on the road under the Code of Financial Resolutions and Road Traffic Acts as existing at present.

I think this is a most extraordinary measure and a most extraordinary attitude of the Government, where the Minister tells us that certain decisions have been given in the District Court, that it is not possible to get those decided, presumably on case stated, in the High Court before next month and that, on that account, he is bringing in this Resolution to forestall— because that is what it amounts to— the decision that the High Court may give. It is tantamount to telling us in this House that if the High Court is to decide to uphold decisions given by District Justices, the Government in any event would amend the law and that consequently it does not matter a hoot what the High Court decides.

Viewing it in that light, I must say that I disagree with Deputy Norton and Deputy Dillon as to the value of postponing consideration of this matter until there has been a decision by the High Court. I think it would be much better that we should be able to discuss it in the atmosphere of a legal question, having been settled firmly by a decision of the High Court, and that the Minister should then come along and say to us that, because of the fact that the Courts of Justice had interpreted the law in a manner which the Government did not intend, he wanted to alter the law. But, what the Minister is, in fact, doing is telling us that he is going to alter the law and that it does not matter a hoot what the High Court Judges decide about this.

There is another point in connection with this Resolution which I think has not been sufficiently mentioned. I want to protest against Section 6 of the Resolution. I do not know what there is by way of precedent for Section 6 which provides that in the event of proceedings for recovery of a penalty under Section 2 of the Finance Act, the onus will be on the defendant of proving that he comes within the exception specified in Section 5 (b) of this Resolution. In this House and elsewhere I have previously protested about this. I am aware that there is legislation which crops up every now and again which throws the onus on the person charged with an offence to prove he comes within an exception and that, if he comes within the exception, he is entitled to be acquitted or to get a dismiss, as the case may be.

I think legislation of that type, which is now being incorporated in Section 6 of this Resolution, runs entirely counter to the fundamental principles of justice which we have operated for some time past. I am quite well aware, and I do not need to be reminded of the fact, that when one talks about a person being innocent until he is proved guilty one talks normally of questions of criminal charges, but remember, summonses under the various Revenue Acts, or Road Traffic Acts for that matter, are not entirely civil proceedings. They are in the nature of quasi-criminal proceedings and it seems to me that a defendant in those cases should be entitled to be regarded by the Courts as being innocent unless the State can prove he is guilty. Now we have the State coming in under Section 6 for this particular offence and saying: "You are guilty unless you can prove you are innocent. All that is necessary is that a Garda, anywhere in the country, should make an allegation against you and, unless you can disprove that, you are liable to be convicted, with all the heavy revenue penalty that is involved."

I think the penalty referred to in this Resolution is treble the duty on the particular vehicle involved. We have the position that if a Guard alleges against the owner of any vehicle that he has used his lorry, and used a receptacle on his lorry any time in the course of the twelve months in a manner which does not bring him within the exception contained in Section 5 (b), then the unfortunate man who is accused of that is put into the position of going into Court to try to satisfy the Court that he is innocent of the allegation made. All he can do is give his word in court. Will that be enough?

Surely the district justice will be in the position of having to make up his mind on the allegation by the Garda authorities, on the one hand, and the word of the defendant on the other. Possibly no other proof will be before him. Will a district justice be entitled to say that, because the defendant tells the court that he has not contravened this Financial Resolution, that is sufficient evidence for him to dismiss the allegation? Will a district justice be in a position to say that the defendant has, in the circumstances, discharged the onus that rests on him under Section 6 of this Resolution? I do not think he will.

I think the Minister is putting defendants who are brought to court under Section 2 of the Act into an impossible position. I do not think that is right. I think this House should object and protest at every opportunity against this whittling down of the rights of the people as against the State. It is significant that this is definitely in point, as between individuals, on the one hand, and the State on the other, because it is a question of the imposition of a revenue penalty—I am speaking now from recollection—of treble the amount of the duty involved. It would be only ordinary fairplay, and certainly in accordance with our concepts of justice and the principles we have been operating up to this, that in such a case, as in most other cases, if an allegation is made that an offence has been committed, the onus of proving that the allegation is correct and that the offence has been committed rests on the State. We are now reversing the procedure; the onus of proving innocence will, under this, rest on the person accused of the offence.

While Deputy Booth may seek to interpret Section 5 (b) in a reasonable manner, the wording of Section 5 (a) and Section 5 (b) is definite and positive. There does not seem to be any question of being able to modify them by Deputy Booth's sweet reasoning. If the two subsections mean what they say, then Deputy Booth is quite wrong in suggesting to Deputy Norton and Deputy Sweetman that the fears expressed by them are unfounded. I believe they are well founded and they are based on the wording of the Resolution which the Minister himself has introduced.

Mr. Blaney

There are one or two statements which have been repeated by some speakers. Since they are based on an entirely wrong concept of what is involved, and lest they should be repeated again, I think it is better for me to intervene now to prevent such repetition and, through it, a possible growing belief that such interpretations are correct. I explained the position in my speech. I said that the new definition—that is the definition in this Financial Resolution—merely reflects what has been the interpretation given to the existing law by licensing authorities and generally accepted until quite recently. It was not the subject of court proceedings until as recently as 1958. In that particular case the court held with the interpretation which had obtained and been operated until then, the interpretation which we merely reiterate in this Financial Resolution.

That brings me to the other misconception. A number of speakers have stated that in future we will impose an additional £50,000 to £100,000 new taxation on lorry owners. The fact of the matter is that unless we get this Resolution accepted by the House, together with the subsequent Bill embodying similar provisions, the State is in danger of losing £50,000 to £100,000 to which it is lawfully entitled and which it has been getting in the past under the interpretation which was not questioned until 1958. It is not a question of adding new taxation. It is merely a question of safeguarding the taxation that should really be coming to our Road Fund. We are safeguarding what we have. We are adding nothing.

It may be asked: Why not wait for the court's decision? I think every Deputy will agree that if there is delay —at this stage awaiting the decision of a higher court would constitute a delay —the State will lose taxation to which it is entitled. Surely, then, there is nothing whatever wrong in our coming in here in order to prevent that gap occurring and to maintain the status quo in so far as our tax intake in this regard is concerned. That is what I am asking the House to do. There is no question of adding an additional burden of £50,000 or £100,000.

Many Deputies have referred to the question of receptacles. Possibly I am asking for trouble in referring to the matter, but it has been referred to by several speakers on both sides. Deputy Booth struck the right note, a note that was not struck by any of the other speakers. He held that in approaching the clause referring to "receptacle" it is only reasonable and fair that the clause should be read reasonably and not unreasonably.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

Are not the words used "anything placed"?

Mr. Blaney

I know Deputies think they have got something here. That is why I refer to it rather than run away from it.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

It is not the Minister's speech which will be interpreted by the courts. It is what is stated in this Financial Resolution.

Mr. Blaney

I am not disputing that with the Deputy, but if the Deputy feels that, by making the type of speech here that he would make to a court, he leaves me in the position that I cannot reply to him because I am not used to being in court, that just will not work.

Mr. Sweetman

The point is that it is not the Minister's speech which will be interpreted by the court. It is the wording of the document.

Mr. Blaney

Who will take the people to court to have it decided by a court?

Mr. Sweetman

Anybody.

Mr. M.J. O'Higgins

If there is a summons brought under this the court must decide under this.

Mr. Blaney

"If there is."

Mr. Sweetman

Even if there is not, a person must apply for motor tax. If he intends to put up the six barrels, and if he conscientiously believes that he is covered by this Resolution, as undoubtedly he is, he has got to disclose that and pay.

Mr. Blaney

One of the things I could suggest in the most unlikely event of such a thing arising is that——

Mr. Sweetman

There are plenty of them every day.

Mr. Blaney

——since he is not necessarily using the sideboards or tailboard when he puts barrels on the truck, that only the heavier of the two items would, in fact, be included for taxation. If the six barrels were lighter than the sideboards and tailboard then, even on Deputy Sweetman's view, he would not be contravening the law, if he were taxed on the weight of the lorry plus the sideboards rather than on the weight of the lorry plus the barrels.

Mr. Sweetman

But that is reducing it to absurdity.

Mr. Blaney

That is exactly what I was coming to. I was about to say that the Deputies had already reduced it to an absurdity and if you wish to make the absurdity more pointed in the manner in which this Resolution is being treated, suppose the lorry was being used for carrying potatoes in sacks. The sacks might not be taken off. If we want to be absurd in our approach to this and if we are so foolish, we can fill the sacks when they are on the lorry and empty the sacks before taking them off. We might then go to the weighbridge and have the sacks weighed with the truck in order to pay our just tax. That is about as sensible as the approach made to this Resolution. If the barrels, whether six, four, two or even one, are to be used— and it is not necessary to use sideboards with one or two barrels—then I think from my knowledge of the weight of sideboards and barrels that the truck would be covered and that even the most prickly conscience would not be disturbed by feeling that the taxed weight had been exceeded.

Mr. Norton

That then is the recommended device—take off something else?

Mr. Blaney

No, it is quite clear that where the two things are not necessary, not normally or usually used or required to be used together——

Mr. Sweetman

There is nothing about "normally" or "usually" in the Resolution.

Mr. Blaney

I am answering Deputy Norton, not about what is in the Resolution but about what he alleges is not in it.

Mr. Norton

I did not allege it was not in the Resolution. I asked the Minister to say what was the position about the man with the barrels of water in his lorry and I understood that, in fact, he would not be contravening the law. Now, I understand that is because he has tailboards or sideboards on the lorry——

Mr. Blaney

No, I did not say that at all. What I said was that if he is as conscientious a person as is described he need not have on his tailboards or sideboards when carrying the barrels and therefore his lorry weight need not exceed that which was stated. The approach to the matter has not been a reasonable one.

Deputy O'Higgins went to town, as it were, on the question of placing the onus of proof in connection with Section 6 on the defendant so to speak, to prove his innocence and he says that this is departing from our natural tradition. He almost makes the House believe that nothing like this ever happened before. I am sure that nobody, least of all myself, would need to be called on to point out to Deputy O'Higgins as a legal man, the various precedents that can be quoted to refute his allegations. One of these, which is rather appropriate in a case such as this, is in Section 13 of the Roads Act, 1920. I am sure all the legal books that Deputy O'Higgins must have read both from choice and necessity have other similar phrases and similar sections in various statutes. The whole case has been built up as if this was something ungodly and unholy that had never been done before. That is entirely without foundation.

We are not seeking extra taxation. We want to maintain the situation in which we shall not lose £50,000 or £100,000 in taxation which I feel the Road Fund is legitimately entitled to and which, I need not add, that Fund really needs.

Mr. Sweetman

The Minister suggested this Resolution was not being approached reasonably. I want to say categorically that it is not a reasonable Resolution. If it were a reasonable and proper Resolution, none of this discussion would be needed to-day. The Minister could have dealt quite simply with the matter in relation to Section 5 by making it clear that the section was to cover any things placed on a vehicle which were normally, or usually or constantly—or some word like that— used with the vehicle. Instead, he deliberately brought in a Resolution to cover the case where this thing was used only once in the whole tax year. That is not a reasonable approach. The Minister has made it clear beyond question now that if something is placed in a vehicle and things are loaded into it and unloaded out of it, whatever it is—water barrels or anything else—that puts the lorry on a higher rate of tax unless you adopt the device of taking off the tailboard or sideboards. That is a most improper method by which to come to the House with a Financial Resolution. What I have said is just what the Minister said a minute ago.

Mr. Blaney

There is nothing wrong with it.

Mr. Sweetman

It is most improper to ask the House to legislate on those lines.

Mr. Norton

I think the Minister will recollect that just when he had finished his speech I asked him to clarify "receptacle" in relation to the water-barrel argument of Deputy Sweetman. That was done for the purpose of avoiding all the subsequent speeches on the receptacle which arose because nobody knew what was in the Minister's mind and in fact most people found it difficult to interpret Section 5 (a) and (b).

Paragraph (a) is clear enough and (b) seems to me to be a rather infirm way, from a drafting point of view, of explaining the manner in which (a) can be construed. In any case the position is now clear. It is clear that water barrels placed on a vehicle, which is loaded up to its full weight for taxation purposes, represent an addition to the weight and unless we take off something else the water barrels can bring you overweight.

I use the water-barrel argument as indicating a case where a man might in very special circumstances desire to use his lorry for a purpose for which no other vehicle could, in fact, be used. I do not mind if you say that the barrel contains water. It takes him over the authorised limit but I think you would be much better if you permitted him to use the lorry frankly for conveying water in exceptional circumstances provided he got permission to do so from the local Garda Sergeant or Superintendent. One does not run out of water suddenly and if an emergency arose I would prefer to say to the man frankly: "If you do that, you are breaking the law."

You could say that, because it is an exceptional circumstance or an emergency, you would provide a remedy and allow him temporarily to break the law or absolve him from breaking the law by getting him permission from a local Garda officer. That would mean that the person could not dodge in any circumstances. If he put on the barrel and pleaded that it was for hauling water, well and good, he was breaking the law unless he could produce evidence from the local Garda to the effect that the barrel was really being used for that purpose.

Now the Minister has clarified the thing in a way which I do not think indicates legislative tidiness. It now means you can put on the barrel and take off the sideboards without breaking the law. If you leave the vehicle as it is and put on the barrel, then you break the law. Nobody wants to make a man break the law merely because he uses a barrel one or two days in a period of twelve months when, in fact, by drafting the Resolution in a different way you could get the desired effect. So far as closing the financial gap is concerned, I am strongly in favour of it. I made that perfectly clear. I am only wondering whether, if the Parliamentary Draftsman has another look at this in the light of the discussion, he could not get something better which would avoid having to tailor the lorry any time the man wants to use it for a special purpose, perhaps once in twelve months. Human ingenuity is at a low ebb if we cannot do that.

Mr. Blaney

If that is the gauge by which it is to be measured, I agree that it is at a low ebb but I am not prepared to agree that it is a fair way to put the case and to arrive at that conclusion. The Deputy says that he was asking questions before this debate took place in order to find out what was in the Minister's mind. It is very strange that the one thing that could possibly be picked on, that was not in the Minister's mind and had no place in the Minister's mind, is this thing about barrels taking water occasionally.

Mr. Sweetman

With all respect——

Mr. Blaney

I am talking about Deputy Norton.

Mr. Sweetman

It is the thing that is in the Resolution, not the Minister's mind, that I am interested in.

Mr. Blaney

Deputy Norton was seeking what was in the Minister's mind in order that we should not have any more unnecessary discussion. This, certainly, was most removed from my point, and rightly so.

Mr. Sweetman

Why did you put it in the Resolution?

Mr. Blaney

Taking the taxing statutes as a whole, they are, as I think Deputy Sweetman and other legal gentlemen in the House will agree, construed very strictly against the State. Is not that an accepted situation? That being so, does anyone seriously contend that, in the case of a drought or some such emergency, if a person who requires water has to bring it by barrel or any other available container, on an emergency occasion, any Garda will bring that person into court and get a conviction against him?

Mr. Sweetman

It is contrary to the law as set out in your Resolution.

Mr. Blaney

Let us take Deputy Sweetman's suggested alternative in so far as clause 5 would be concerned. He mentioned the phrase, "anything placed on or normally used, constantly, usually, used on a vehicle". Those are exactly the type of words that have given rise to all the trouble we are now trying to remedy and redefine and Deputy Sweetman must know that. It is not a situation that is easily resolved.

If we want to read it reasonably and approach it in that manner and in the light of the manner in which taxing statutes are construed strictly against the State, then the likelihood of any of these cases being brought to court is most distant and that such a case would succeed in court is beyond even Deputy Norton's imagination.

Mr. Norton

The Minister's speech now may provide a useful piece of evidence if anybody is so hauled in.

Mr. Crotty

I should like the Minister to clarify a matter. Suppose a person had a lorry on which a horse box is placed, not a horse box built on a chassis. Once a month, he places his horse box on the lorry. Up to this that was not taken in the weight of the lorry. What is the position now? Will the person have to weigh the horse box with the lorry?

Mr. Sweetman

He will, because he cannot take the box off with the horse in it.

Mr. Blaney

It depends on the man and the horse, I presume. If he was not taxed in the past, he should have been taxed.

Mr. Crotty

He has not been taxed in the past. The horse box has been put on the lorry, with no tax. He has a merchandise licence. If, in future, the unladen weight is increased and if he is applying to the Department, he will not be allowed to get a merchandise licence for the lorry at the new weight. He is only entitled to a merchandise licence at a particular weight. If he now has to weigh the horse box on the lorry, his unladen weight will be increased and he will not be entitled to a merchandise licence even if he uses the horse box only for his own use and not for hire. This man is a licensed haulier earning his livelihood by this lorry.

Mr. Norton

Surely a horse box is not a receptacle; it is a bedroom.

Mr. Blaney

First of all, the owner uses it occasionally, once a month or thereabouts? The next thing is that he is a licensed haulier, holding a licensed plate?

Mr. Crotty

Yes.

Mr. Blaney

Then he is earning his living by this lorry. He cannot have it both ways. If he is using it only once a month or occasionally surely he cannot also be licensed and earn his living from that particular type of operation.

Mr. Crotty

I shall put it this way; he is a licensed haulier and is paid for carting the horse. That may be only once, when there is a race meeting convenient to him. At other times he is drawing pigs, beet or anything else. He removes the horse box completely, and has a normal lorry. If in future, that horse box is to be taken as part of the unladen weight, he will not be able to get a licence for his present lorry.

Mr. Blaney

Assuming that this person was keeping within the law as it has been——

Mr. Crotty

Yes, he was.

Mr. Blaney

The situation now will be that there is no change for him. That is, if he was within the law.

Mr. Crotty

He was.

Mr. Blaney

If he was outside it, we are now, I hope, bringing him within it.

Mr. Crotty

He was regarded as within the law.

Mr. Blaney

If he was regarded as within the law, there is actually no change here. In so far as he is affected as a licensed haulier, I may say that the Minister for Transport and Power will be coming to the House with certain proposals which would go to meet such a case as the Deputy was making on this man's behalf in regard to the increased weight and the wiping out of his licence. That is being dealt with.

Mr. Crotty

If the Minister makes that case, I agree, even if he has to pay extra tax.

Mr. Blaney

The Minister will be coming in on that point definitely.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Cunningham)

Is the Financial Resolution agreed to?

Mr. Sweetman

No, certainly not. It is a ridiculous Resolution.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá: 79; Níl: 37.

Tá

• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breen, Dan.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Donegan, Batt.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Everett, James.
• Fanning, John.
• Faulkner, Padraig.
• Flanagan, Seán.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Galvin, John.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Johnston, Henry M.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Larkin, Denis.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carroll, James.
• Casey, Seán.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Clohessy, Patrick.
• Collins, James J.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cummins, Patrick J.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• Davern, Mick.
• Desmond, Daniel.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maher, Peadar.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moher, John W.
• Moloney, Daniel J.
• Mooney, Patrick.
• Moran, Michael.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Norton, William.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Ceallaigh, Seán.
• O'Malley, Donogh.
• Ormonde, John.
• O'Toole, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Tierney, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.

Níl

• Barrett, Stephen D.
• Barry, Richard.
• Belton, Jack.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Burke, James.
• Byrne, Patrick.
• Byrne, Tom.
• Carew, John.
• Coburn, George.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan D.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Dillon, James M.
• Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Hogan, Bridget.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kenny, Henry.
• Lindsay, Patrick.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Manley, Timothy.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, William.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Denis J.
• Palmer, Patrick W.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Sweetman, Gerard.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman; Níl: Deputies O'Sullivan and Crotty.

Motion declared carried.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When is the Report to be taken?

Mr. Blaney

Could we have it now?

Mr. Sweetman

I intend to put down amendments. Does the Minister propose to get his Bill this session.

Mr. Blaney

Yes.

Mr. Sweetman

The whole Bill?

Mr. Blaney

No. The Bill, as I have already indicated, must be through within 20 sitting days.

Mr. Sweetman

I know, but does the Minister propose to introduce the Bill this session?

Mr. Blaney

I certainly do not expect to get it.

Mr. Sweetman

Then there is no urgency about the Report. You can put it down for next Wednesday and you will get it through. If the Minister intended bringing in the Bill during this session it would be a different matter.

Mr. Blaney

Is there no hope tomorrow?

Mr. Norton

If you get all Stages next week, it will be all right.

Mr. Blaney

All right; put it down for next week then.

Ordered: That the Report be considered on Wednesday, 9th December, 1959.