Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Feb 1965

Vol. 214 No. 1

Private Members' Business. - Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963 (Licensing) Regulations, 1964.

Mr. Jones

I move:

That the Local Government (Planning and Development) Act, 1963 (Licensing) Regulations, 1964 be and are hereby annulled.

I should like to recall the situation in regard to the Planning Act when it was before the House. Everybody agreed it was desirable to have control of planning and development in the future and during the progress of the debate, time and again, by amendment we sought to protect what we regarded as the essential interests of the public in the matter. While moving many of the amendments, I adverted to the fact that we were very concerned about the interference with the rights of the public and argued that they should have recourse in many cases to the protection of the courts. It is also worth mentioning that one of the earliest Ministerial amendments was one seeking permission to bring the Act into operation at different times in different parts of the country. The Minister, I think, felt it would be desirable, or even essential, that there should be available locally planners to ensure that the Act would be capable of implementation when brought into operation.

Deputy Briscoe appealed to the Minister to ensure that if there was to be postponement so far as the country was concerned, the Act should be allowed to operate in Dublin at the earliest possible time. When we came to the section dealing with regulations, we had other amendments down. There were Ministerial and county manager regulations; I think amendment No. 46 dealt with Ministerial regulations. Not everybody could agree with my point of view at the time that the Minister should bring in these regulations in draft form and secure approval from the House. I was concerned to ensure that the rights of individuals would not be capriciously dealt with and at column 398, volume 203, of the Dáil Debates, I said:

So far as amendment No. 46 is concerned, this is simply bringing into line the normal procedure the Minister proposes to adopt in regard to his regulations. I believe this is something which would add to the respect everybody would have for this Bill. If the planners of the future feel the orders they are going to make are reviewable by the Oireachtas, I believe their approach to planning will be sound and not in any way capricious. This will entitle them to the proper respect of everybody. The rights of even one individual may, therefore, be vindicated in this House by bringing the order under review here.

When the Minister dealt with that amendment at column 403 of the same volume, he said:

I submit it is sufficient and probably a much more practical approach, to allow the present subsection to stand so that the matters dealt with in any such regulations will stand as prescribed in such regulations unless they are annulled, rather than to have in the subsection a provision that Ministers should seek the actual approval in each case.

The Minister went on to say:

If such were the position, in a matter of urgency particularly we would find the whole section completely valueless. As I said earlier, the regulations will not change the law or expand it. They will merely exercise a right enshrined in the law. If some Minister should step out of line, then the regulations he would have made would assuredly be annulled by this House and his work and the work of his advisers in that respect would go for nothing. There is that assurance as a protection against the madness of the Minister. If it is wrong, the House will throw it out without doubt.

When the Minister came to make the regulations following the passage of the Act, he brought the Act into operation over the whole country on the same day. It turned out that he did not need the powers he had earlier sought from the House by amendment, in regard to introduction of the Act. He made other regulations under section 10 and section 89 but I am mainly concerned tonight with those made under section 89. Some regulations deal with compensation, some with exemptions and some with the subject-matter of the order I am dealing with. There was an explanatory memorandum issued with the regulations.

One of the first items dealt with in the regulations now made by the Minister was in regard to the 1925 Local Government Act which had remained unamended since the time the first regulations were made. Under the Act they have now been repealed and the new regulations take their place. I want to point out that when the Minister made these regulations in S.I. No. 218, 1964, Local Government (Planning and Development) Act 1963 (Licensing) Regulations, 1964, he certainly availed of the full scope of section 89 and he extended the list to which licences would apply in future and it is now a long list.

During the passage of the Bill, we had said that one thing necessary would be that the public should regard as desirable control of undesirable development in either planning or development. What has happened, I suggest, in these regulations is that the Minister has used them not to control —I should be very glad if he denies what I assert here — undesirable development, but to raise money.

Originally the one thing which seemed to be licensed was a petrol pump. A permit had to be obtained to place a petrol pump and the 1925 Act stipulated what the amount of the licence fee would be. In a rural area it was one guinea; in urban districts of population not in excess of 3,000, it was two guineas; in urban districts with a population exceeding 3,000, it was three guineas; and in a county borough it was five guineas. It would take a good deal of examination to find out what exactly was in the mind of the Minister when he framed these regulations governing the licence fee to be applied to petrol pumps in the future.

Part I of the Schedule deals with petrol pumps and they are described as "Appliances and structures for servicing vehicles". There is (a), (b), (c) and (d): (a) covers a petrol pump oil pump, air pump or other appliance and the licence fee is £8: (b) movable pump or other appliance for dispensing any oil or oil derivative or other mixture thereof; (c) a delivery pipe or hose attached to a petrol pump, oil pump, air pump, water tap or other similar appliance or structure which is erected in any permanent position and which is neither wholly nor partly on, under or over a public road; and (d) a petrol, oil or other storage tank (including any associated manhole, inlet, outlet or pipes for connection with a pump) and the licence fee is £4 for each 5,000 gallons capacity or part thereof.

What exactly is expected of a person who has a petrol pump? How much is he expected to pay? We have parts of a pump. A hose is part of a pump. It is no good having a pump standing on its own without a hose to carry the petrol to the car. Is this doublebarrelled? There is not much good in having a petrol pump if one has not got a tank to supply the petrol to the pump. If a man keeps, as he must keep nowadays, the two grades of petrol—premium and ordinary—what will he have to pay annually by way of licence fees for these pumps? If I am not correct I shall be glad if the Minister will correct me, but if it is £8 for a pump, £8 for a hose and £4 for the tank——

Mr. Blaney

Not for the hose in that case, no.

Mr. Jones

When the Minister comes to reply, he will probably refer to this.

Mr. Blaney

I do not want to interrupt, but the position is not as the Deputy thinks. One does not add the two. If the pump is charged £8, the hose attached to the pump does not carry another £8.

Mr. Barrett

What about the tank?

Mr. Blaney

It depends where it is.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

If it is on the road?

Mr. Blaney

If it is on public property. These relate to things placed on public property.

Mr. Barrett

Or along the side.

Mr. Jones

I wonder why these little words were introduced. In the original you had "in, on, over or under". "Along" has now been added. I should be interested to know what is meant by "along a public road". Why was that phrase put in? I take it these words were put in for a specific reason and I suggest the specific reason was to catch people who had not been caught already and bring them in so that they would have to pay licence fees for things they enjoyed freely up to this.

I shall be interested in hearing from the Minister what meaning is to be attached to the words "or hose attached to a petrol pump". If it means something other than what is commonly meant, I shall be interested to hear the Minister's explanation.

Up to this motorists have enjoyed what has always been called "free air". The Minister now, apparently, intends that there will no longer be free air. Someone will have to pay for it. Has the Minister considered what the effect may be? If a garage proprietor decides he will not pay this £4 licence fee, will the motorist revert to the hand-pump or will he have to leave the road and drive inside the garage premises to have his tyres pumped? Why does a water tap fall to be licensed now? Local authorities charge nobody for a water connection and I take it the garage man is, in the ordinary way, paying the local authority a fee already for the supply of water to his premises. If he decides to supply water to the public to top up radiators, will he have to pay another fee for that?

The only movable pump that I know is the appliance used to top up one's back axle or gear-box and the appliance used to supply a mixture of oil and petrol to motor cyclists and auto cyclists. That is a movable pump. Are these the kind of appliances which will carry a licence fee in the future?

In Part II of the Schedule, the Minister brings in "Other appliances and structures". The first is "a vending machine or other coin operated machine (not being a weighing machine)." I have seen children exerrit cising the right of youngsters to deal in colour at the bubble gum machine on the side of the street, inserting their pennies and getting their bubble gum. It is not a weighing machine; it is a vending machine from which a sale may be made. That is one example.

We have another machine that is coming in in places, a machine from which at night a driver on the road may get coffee by inserting coins. These machines are in evidence at docks and other places where sailors come off boats at night and may require a cup of coffee. I might ask whether CIE will have to obtain licences for the chocolate-vending machines on their stations.

Part II of the regulations deals with an appliance of any type not used for servicing vehicles. One machine carries a licence of £8 and another lot carry a licence of £4 but along with them there are racks or shelves on which oils are displayed for sale. Let me now go back to the garage owner who, having paid the fee for his petrol pump, now finds himself in the position that the case in which he displays oil is now also to be subject to a fee. I want to know from the Minister if that is the case. There are different types of oils on these racks and stands and I want to know if each one will have to be licensed and bear the appropriate fee.

What will be the position in regard to the shop in any town or village, outside of which it is the custom in Ireland as on the continent, to put vegetables to show them off? Will these have to be licensed and will they have to bear the appropriate fee mentioned here of £4? The regulation is not content to stop at the words "advertisement" or "sale". It goes on to deal with any advertisement on the business premises. If any of these can be classed as an advertisement, it is caught.

Paragraph (d) of the Schedule deals with advertisements containing an emblem, a symbol or a device on the public road. What does that wide wording mean in this case? It says "symbol, emblem, model, or device which is on or partly on a public road". If you take the definition of a public road as including the footway, it would seem to bring any type of sign used at the present day, and they are many, particularly in towns, within the scope of the licensing regulations. There is the CIE sign indicating where a bus stops or signs which say that parcels may be sent from a particular place. What about the Dartry Dye Works who have signs indicating receiving depots or the timber stands put on footways outside shops to say that you can get the morning paper of your choice, whether it be Sceala Eireann, Irish Independent or Irish Times at that particular shop? Are these all to be licensed in the future?

We have advertisement signs on our public roads. Generally you find when approaching a garage, a sign which states that petrol of a particular kind is available 100 yards ahead. Do these carry the licence fee of £4? The regulations mention a hoarding, fence or scaffold. Here I am at a loss to know what is meant by this wording. I can understand a hoarding, an advertising hoarding, but sometimes a hoarding is put up and left for some time around a dangerous building. Are these to be subject to a licence fee?

Then we have the question of a town or landscape map. It has always been felt that one of the things which would be of interest to people visiting this country is a town or landscape map which would help them to know where they are. I noticed that in Limerick recently they put up a town map and I have seen quite a few people looking at it. It gives them the lay-out of the city and helps them to find the particular street they are looking for. The Minister will tell me that this will not be subject to the licence fee. I know that. The local authorities may do as they like with regard to these matters. The corporate bodies may do what they like. The Board of Works may do what they like and none of these will have to pay the licence fee but the man in the street will have to pay it. If any private individual puts up a town or landscape map, he has had it.

Then there is the weighing machine. These have become very popular in the country, perhaps because people have become more concerned with the problem of weight. I wonder if everybody wishing to install one of these machines will pause and conut his pennies to see if it is worth his while to pay the fee of £2 for it. To start off, 480 people would have to put in their pennies before the man could hope to get anything from the machine. I wonder if the Minister envisages that the weighing machines put up for public convenience, if not put up by the local authority, for weighing cattle or goods, will have to carry the licence fee while the one put up by the local authority will not have to carry it.

Then we come to cables, pipes or wires. I do not know why they fixed on a distance of half a mile, or any part thereof. Part III of the regulations deals with "other structures". A person putting one up will have to pay £4 for the right to do so. If we are to become nuclear-minded, will our shelters qualify for the £4 also? A lamp post or any such fixed structure will be assessed at £2. The erection of lamp posts to brighten the countryside is something that has been taking place in our rural areas. Not only have they been of use to the people occupying the premises, but they have been of help to the general population of the area as well. This, now, is to carry a fee of £2.

In this very extended list, the Minister has introduced a thorough widening of the scope of the licensing regulations as they existed up to now. Immediately, one is struck by the question of whether the Minister intends this as a control to planning. I suggest that if the Minister were intent on controlling this type of development planning he might as easily have met the case with a 5s. fee as with an £8 fee.

These are not the type of regulations anyone had expected. I should like to hear from the Minister why licensing fees of this range and rate have now been brought into play. Could it be that this is an attempt, even in a very small way, to meet the cost of planning? During the progress of the Planning Act through the Oireachtas, the Minister was asked if he could give an estimate of the cost. He said, and we accepted it, that it would be a considerable task to make an estimate of the cost of planning or of how it would be met. One of the questions I asked was whether he could give any help to the local authorities to implement the Act, or whether he could give them partial financial help.

Is he giving them in this right to raise these sums, part of the cost? I think the Minister having made these regulations, might have given an interpretation of them which would let the public know what they mean. The Minister should at first have acquainted the public of his intent in these regulations. Such regulations should not be imposed without first giving the people of the country a full explanation.

Perhaps all this is a bottle of smoke as far as the Minister is concerned. Perhaps my fears are groundless, but at least the tabling of the motion will get from the Minister an assurance that what I am alleging is not correct — that his intent was not to raise moneys by regulation but only to control undesirable development. In this respect, it is noticeable in the explanatory memorandum issued with the regulations, that the Minister wrote in the phrase:

No distinction is made between the rate of fee for the initial licence to erect (construct, place) and maintain an appliance or structure referred to in Parts I and II and the rate of fee for a licence to maintain an existing appliance or structure.

There were structures that existed before the appointed date, structures that were there over a long number of years, which would seem to have been excluded when this set of regulations was being made — that the rate of licence to maintain them was to be no more or no less than in respect of new structures.

That seems to give purpose to what I have to say — that this set of regulations is carefully framed, deliberately thought up; that there is nothing haphazard about it and that the Minister, when he made the regulations, knew full well what they were intended to do. I suggest that what the Minister has done is to use his power by regulation unduly to encroach on the rights of the people and on the privileges they have had up to this and, under the guise of operating the Town Planning Act, to do something which in the long run will do a lot to minimise the respect people have for the Act.

I hope the Minister will be able to give the lie to what I say. I assure him I shall not take offence if he gets up and tells me that my fears are groundless, that he does not intend to raise these sums of money, that the public can enjoy the same rights and privileges as heretofore. If the Minister tries to justify the imposition of this little budget, to be collected by the local authorities by way of fees, part of which are to be paid into the Road Fund and part into the county fund, then I shall tell him that is not the way to win respect for the Town Planning Act. I shall suggest to the Minister that he has gone really mad and that it is time the House had an opportunity of passing judgment on his madness.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

I second the motion. I do not wish to go over any of the arguments or points so ably and capably made by Deputy Jones but I should like to bring to the notice of the House the manner in which we are tying up progress in red tape. I readily concede that planning is essential these days, that it is more than essential, but what I object to is the regulations being made under our Town Planning Acts. If one wishes to erect a petrol pump and a petrol pump is essential to the public generally, one must first of all provide a site plan, a location plan and public notice must be inserted in the newspapers of intent so to erect a petrol pump. The person concerned must forward that notice, together with two copies of the plan, to the local authority.

The local authority will, in due course, inspect the site and may or may not grant permission to build. If they refuse, then the right of appeal to the Minister will lie against such refusal. That takes a considerable amount of time. Supposing one should get the ear of the Minister or his advisers and permission is given to erect such a pump, then the regulations set out by the Minister apply. First, if the containing tank is along a roadway, a fee is payable. This word "along" worries me a lot. I particularly remember the Fisheries Act, where the legislators wrote in "in or on the banks of a river". Courts have construed that in many cases as being within half a mile of a bank of a river. Now we have these words "along the public road". I wonder how will they be construed? I do not know what it means or what interpretation will be given to it. The Minister should clarify the position at this stage.

Having got permission, if one sinks his tank along the public road a licence fee must be paid of £8, not an initial fee but an annual fee of £8. The pump is then erected some distance away from the tank and a further fee must be paid for the pump. But if one tried to dodge the issue and sank the tank in a place which could not be described as along the road, the Minister catches you again by imposing a licence duty on the hose pipe from the pump to the vehicle which is being loaded up. That is my interpretation of it anyway.

Subparagraph (b) of section 3 says: "a delivery pipe or hose attached to a petrol pump" shall be licensed "which is erected in a permanent position and which is neither wholly nor partly on, under or over a public road." I wonder why the Minister has not written in here "or along a public road"? It might have clarified the position. I think they have deliberately framed it in that manner to catch the person who has a petrol pump not in, on, or along the public road but who may use a hose for the purpose of supplying his customers.

Again, subparagraph (e) refers to a lamp-post or lamp in a fixed position. Does that apply to ESB poles? If it does, it is a very serious matter because the ESB will be only too glad to practise their economy and erect as few as they possibly can. Alternatively, does it apply to the local authority? Will they have to pay a licence fee to the Road Fund?

Mr. A. Barry

No.

Mr. P O'Donnell

I am glad I am corrected on that. Very often a shopkeeper, to facilitate his customers, will erect a lamp outside his premises. To comply with public liability insurance, it is very often essential for him to erect such a lamp; otherwise, he would not get cover. If he erects such a lamp, he must pay a licence fee for it, and not only for one year but as an annual charge. Really, that is a very bad regulation. It cuts across public policy in that we are all anxious to see the public protected by insurance, and insurance companies will possibly refuse to accept a liability such as this unless there is a proper light outside the premises.

Subparagraph (f) refers to:

a bridge, arch, tunnel, passage or other similar structure which is used or intended for use other than by the public, and which is constructed on or after the appointed day.

It is a common thing now to see bus stops with shelters erected over them. I wonder will a licence be necessary in respect of these bus stops?

Mr. Barry

A local body.

Mr. P. O'Donnell

That would scarcely be a local authority but if I am told that is so, I am glad to hear it. It would be ridiculous if a licence were necessary for such shelters. We are told that "a cellar or other underground structure constructed on or after the appointed day" will require a licence fee. It is common for coal chutes to be erected on footpaths outside premises adjoining the public roadway. They are most useful. Coal may be shot from a public vehicle into the cellars of a dwellinghouse or into factories. An annual licence would be payable in respect of such chutes.

Turning to the Schedule, I notice that a licence is payable on a "hoarding, fence or scaffold". In other words, if one wishes to repair one's house along a public road and it is essential that a scaffold be erected for the purpose of repairing the house or doing renovations thereto, a licence duty of £4 is payable. Again, if I am wrong in that, I would be very glad. That is my interpretation of it. Deliberately it sets out "hoarding, fence or scaffold". I wonder what will happen to the farmer who wishes to erect a fence along a public highway in lieu of an existing sod fence. Say he wishes to erect an up-to-date fence, does he have to pay an annual fee of £4? If he does, it is going to hit the rural community very hard indeed. That is my interpretation of the regulations. I sincerely hope I am wrong again. If I am wrong, the Minister should clarify the position now.

I know of many cases where district justices have recommended to farmers that they should erect proper fences. Actually, the Minister himself has in many cases recommended that hedges should be cut down and proper fences erected to enable the public passing along the highway to have a view of scenery. If the recommendations of the Minister and of the district justices are accepted and proper fences erected, an annual licence duty is payable on them. It does not state here the length of fence one may erect or how many fields the licence duty will cover. If there is a gateway or laneway and a fence is erected on the other side, again we will find ourselves in the same position. I am certain the Minister did not mean any such thing in his regulations but he will have to clarify them. Otherwise, the agricultural and rural community will be hit very severely.

Deputy Jones was very mild when he said he thought this was a petty budget. It is not. It is a very serious budget, in my opinion. A half million pounds from petrol pumps alone is a considerable amount and, as the Minister has stated on many occasions, the numbers of vehicles on our roads will increase and, as they increase, facilities for them by way of petrol pumps, garages and other amenities will become necessary and, as they are provided, additional tax is being put on motorists.

I should like the House to realise that the garageman, the shopkeeper or any other person who is giving a public service and who has to pay a licence duty for it will not bear the burden on his own back; he will pass it on to the consuming public and this is another blister on the back of the public.

The local authority will become a tax collector in so far as this is concerned. At the moment their duties are onerous enough. Only the other day we got an estimate in Donegal of the rates for the current year of £3 15s. 1d. in the £. Here we have this additional blister being imposed on the taxpayers.

I did not think for one moment when the Local Government Planning and Development Act, 1963, was going through this House that the regulations which would be made under that Act would be used for the purpose of imposing taxes such as these on the public. I would appeal to the Minister to clarify the regulations before having them enforced. Deputy Jones has brought to his notice sufficient points which need clarification and until that is done I would suggest to the Minister that the regulations should be withdrawn.

Mr. Tully

When the 1963 Bill was being debated in this House, many of us had misgivings about how it would be applied when it became law. Again and again, the Minister for Local Government assured us that it was simply a Bill to tidy up, to prevent certain abuses and to regularise the running of the various local authorities so that objectionable buildings, hoardings and so on, could not be erected. None of us imagined for a moment that it would turn out to be the terrible instrument of torture which, apparently, many local authorities think it is at the present time.

What is contained in the Minister's Order here is, indeed, something which in my opinion should have been fully explained when the Bill was going through. It should have been made quite clear to the House that it was the intention of the Government on the passing of the Bill to impose extra taxation in the guise of licence fees for all these things. The more one looks at the Order the more one realises that there is an awful lot of matter here which by no stretch of the imagination could anybody have thought would be there by Order when the Bill was going through the House.

I know from my own experience of local authority administration that already in the proposed planning which the local authorities are working on the most extraordinary interpretations that could be dreamt of are being put on various sections of the Act. Suggestions are being made that this, that and the other thing must be done. In fact, the liberty of the individual to do even simple acts is being made a subject for licensing. Small wonder that that attitude is being adopted when one looks at the Statutory Instrument bearing the signature of the Minister for Local Government which has been produced and which Deputy Jones now suggests should be annulled.

It is easy enough for the Minister to explain that certain sections of this instrument are being misinterpreted by Deputies but the fact that it is open to such misinterpretation should be a warning to him that he should not allow it to go out in this form.

The most amazing interpretation that I have heard is that which Deputy O'Donnell has just given and which any of us could put on the Act. Deputy O'Donnell asks is it true that a farmer can be asked to pay a licence if he is going to erect a fence. If I had not the Statutory Instrument before me, I would believe that such a suggestion was a figment of the Deputy's imagination. The Schedule to the Statutory Instrument definitely includes a hoarding, fence or scaffold. They will be licensed at a cost of £4 per annum.

The Minister may say that those things will not happen but I want to tell him that already they are happening. I know — and the Minister is probably as well aware of it as I am— that his Department are holding up schemes because of the fact that an interpretation is being given to the Act that this plan which must take place within three years of the passing of the Act must be presented and everything must fit into it. When we find local authority officials interpreting the Act in that way and the Minister's own officials agreeing with them that that is the correct interpretation, is it any wonder that Deputies should be alarmed when they find something like this being published with the object of adding to the confusion and adding to the cost which the ordinary man must bear?

Take the small man who is erecting a petrol pump or who has had a petrol pump over a number of years. He does not own the pump. In many cases he does not own the building outside which the pump is erected. While he has been paying a small licence fee and has not been objecting to it, it is now proposed to charge him in respect of the petrol pump an annual fee of £8. I am sure the Minister, before he became Minister, often ran short of petrol, as many of us do, in a country district, and was very glad to find a little petrol pump in an out of the way place, where they sold perhaps only nine or ten gallons a week but where there was a shop, perhaps, beside the pump. All such small petrol pumps will disappear if the Minister insists on collecting £8 a year from them.

Mr. Barrett

He will collect more if the tank is included.

Mr. Tully

He will collect more in respect of a tank. He will collect £8 in respect of the pump and if the unfortunate man is foolish enough to have the tank far enough away that it has to be connected by hose to the petrol pump, he will pay £4 in respect of the hose and £4 in respect of the storage tank. Perhaps I am blaming the Minister in the wrong but I am assuming that he read the Statutory Instrument before he signed it and knew everything that was in it. It is quite clear that this particular document was intended to squeeze the last ounce that possibly can be got out of the small people in the country.

I want to make quite clear that if I thought the big petrol companies or people who were well-to-do and able to afford it would be taxed and made pay extra for facilities I would not be objecting to it, but the unfortunate thing is that, again and again, we find the Government introducing legislation which hits the small man. This is another example of that type of legislation.

It was not hurried legislation. The Bill was long enough before the House. I thought every possible angle had been brought out when the Bill was going through the House. Despite that, we find that this whole new idea has been cooked up as soon as the Bill was law and we are now asked to let it go through without offering any resistance to it.

Again, the idea seems to be that, not alone should the local authority be able to collect from the person who has any type of structure on the public road or street, but they are empowered to collect, as Deputy P. O'Donnell so rightly said, their licence for the "erection, construction, placing and maintaining of, under, over, or along the public road". If that is not out to catch every possible angle, I do not know what is intended. In this city alone, there are a number of old Georgian houses about which we heard so much and in practically every one of them are cellars, coal cellars, to which there is an entrance for coal from the street.

Mr. Barrett

They do not come into it. It is only those constructed after a certain date.

Mr. Tully

It says here "maintained". I was under the impression that anything that was already there was exempt but this Statutory Instrument states that it applies to the erection or maintenance of those things and if it does, then it applies to cellars, etc., already in existence.

There was very little reason for the action which has been taken by the Minister in this case. I honestly believe he could have introduced the Act as it was intended to be introduced when it came to this House, so that the operation of it could be made clear to everybody. Already there has been a considerable amount of confusion over the operation of the Act. Plans for housing schemes which were submitted to the Minister's Department were referred back to the local authority to find out how they fitted into the new plan, which is not in existence and which the Minister's officials and he himself must know is not in existence. If they are prepared to do that, there can be an interpretation of everything, including the sections of this Statutory Instrument, which will turn out to be an additional impost on the ordinary people.

It is a mistake to tie up the ordinary person as attempts are being made to tie him up under this Act. The Act as passed was rigid enough and it should be left at that. To try to introduce refinements which mean that, as one of my colleagues recently said, very soon the ordinary man cannot turn in his bed without asking permission from the local authority, is going too far. That seems to be the situation and the Minister should have another look at this before he tries to enforce it.

Mr. Barrett

The necessity and indeed the urgent necessity for the discussion in which we are engaged here tonight underlines something to which I have frequently adverted in this House, that is, the danger in Acts of this sort of giving the Minister power to make regulations.

There is no reason why, when this Act was passing through the House, everything that is in these regulations could not have been discussed and incorporated by way of section or subsection, possibly as a result of a media between the Minister and those members who opposed the provisions. That would have obviated our taking a second bite of the cherry as we have to take tonight.

The difficulty is that this cannot be amended. If these regulations go through the House without being annulled, they are law and there is no use in any of us asking the Minister to clarify this or that and there is no good in any of us asking the Minister to give an assurance on this or on that. Irrespective of what the Minister says here to-night, this will be the law, if it is not annulled, and any planning authority can impose its own interpretation of these regulations on any person within its jurisdiction.

We have heard various interpretations of these regulations here tonight and I am quite certain various interpretations of these regulations will be attached to them by various planning authorities throughout the country. Indeed, if they have to go to court various district justices and judges will probably put various interpretations on them, too. If the Minister finds it necessary to clarify one iota of what is contained in these regulations, he will find it necessary to agree to Deputy Jones's proposal, that these regulations be annulled, because if the Minister is in doubt about the meaning of the regulations, then, obviously, these are not regulations which should pass the House and be given the force of law. This sort of thing has happened, despite the most intelligent and painstaking approach to this matter by Deputy Jones and other members of the Fine Gael Party, and this House now finds itself in the position that several interpretations of this document are being put before it and one interpretation involves more expense than another. It means no doubt that if this document gets the force of law, concealed taxation, but nevertheless taxation, will be imposed on every garage owner and probably every farmer. I agree with the interpretation which Deputy P. O'Donnell put on this in regard to fencing, wires and such other things.

In regard to the cellars or underground structures refered to by Deputy Tully, I do not agree with his interpretation. However, surely the Minister is aware that if anybody constructs a cellar or underground structure, the Commissioner of Valuation will be after him and will put extra rates on it. Not content with that, the Minister for Local Government comes along and says to the local authority in relation to the levying of a rate for this underground structure or cellar: "You will get more because this citizen will have to pay an extra £2." Then there will be no doubt about the interpretation of that section and no doubt about its inequity.

I would appeal to the Minister to agree to the proposal by Deputy Jones. The Minister must see the dangers inherent in allowing this document to be interpreted by each solicitor or legal adviser to different councils. There is bound to be immense confusion and a great deal of litigation, causing much expense. The Minister will realise that it was never intended to give him the powers which he got by sections 10 and 89. He must realise that it was never intended to give him the weapon by which he could make another cruel assault upon the pockets of an already overtaxed section of the community.

There is no doubt in the mind of anybody sitting on this side of the House in regard to the effect of this provision, and the Deputies sitting behind the Minister will have to explain to their constituents the situation which will arise. If this document is given the force of law, then not £500,000 but something closer to £1 million will be extracted from the pockets of the population by means of what can almost be described as a subterfuge. There is no doubt that the House, even Deputies on the opposite side, never intended to give the Minister the power which he has taken— quite legally—to extract these huge amounts from the pockets of the community.

Mr. Rooney

Apart from petrol pumps, which are specifically mentioned in these regulations, it appears other items not related to petrol stations will also be subject to tax. Part I relates to appliances and structures for the servicing of vehicles. It seems that as a garage proprietor, a man will be liable to pay £8 for each petrol pump, also £8 for each oil pump, also £8 for an air pump, and also £8 each for every other appliance. Further, in regard to a movable pump, he will be liable for £4 and also for £4 each in respect of other appliances for dispensing services to vehicles.

He will similarly be liable for £4 in respect of a pipe or hose connected with a petrol pump, a hose or pipe connected with an oil pump, a hose or pipe connected with an air pump, a hose or pipe connected with a water tap and to £4 each for other permanent appliances or structures. He will also apparently be liable to £4 in respect of a petrol tank, £4 in respect of a storage tank, £4 in respect of an oil tank and £4 for each 5,000 gallon capacity. If I am correct in that interpretation, it means that a garage proprietor who has one of each of the items specified in Part I for the service of vehicles and if the amount specified is payable in respect of each item, will be required to pay £72. If he has two pumps and two hoses, etc., apparently he will pay double that amount.

Apparently, a great part of these regulations relates to items involved in servicing vehicles; it does not actually say motor vehicles. It refers to other appliances and structures in Part II, other than those used for the servicing of vehicles. In respect of a vending machine, the proprietor will be liable for £8; for a coin operated machine other than a weighing machine, he will also be liable for £8. Under (b) in respect of appliances not used for the servicing of vehicles, he will be liable for £4 each. He will further be liable under section (c) of Part II for £4 each if he has a case, a rack, a shelf or other appliance or structure for the purpose of displaying articles for the purpose of advertising goods in or in connection with any adjacent business premises. In addition, he will be liable for £4 each for symbols, with which we have become so familiar in relation to various brands of oil and petrol, emblems and models.

The Minister should clarify whether in fact the swinging sign permanently attached to a private dwelling house, apart from business premises, will be liable for this licensing fee.

We also have a suggestion here that £4 each should be paid for each hoarding, fence or scaffold, £2 each for a town or landscape map and £2 for a weighing machine and finally £2 per half-mile length, or part thereof, of a cable, wire or pipeline. Obviously this is a very comprehensive arrangement to include every possible device used in connection with the provision of a service or the running of a business.

As has been stated, it is a very serious matter that these liabilities should be imposed by a Minister's Order instead of by legislation. It would have been fairer if these matters had been discussed and amendments made before the 1963 Planning Act went through the House. It was never contemplated, although it was minutely studied at the time, that a Statutory Instrument in the form of a Ministerial Order would be brought in to make liable in a very comprehensive way the business people who in the normal way put up various signs and use various devices to provide a proper service. The Minister should withdraw these regulations now that their implications have been made clear to him.

Under Part III, those who erect other structures will be liable for £4 in each case if they erect what is described as a bridge, arch, tunnel, passage or other similar structure for use other than by the public. Those who construct a cellar or underground structure will be liable for a fee of £4 and finally those who provide a lamp post or lamp in a fixed position will be subject to £2 each. Such lamps are often used by business people to assist in advertising their commodities and to give a measure of safety to members of the public who avail of their services.

The Minister should withdraw these regulations. Even if he brought in amending legislation, there would be an opportunity of discussing suitable amendments. Apart from those engaged in providing services for vehicles, it seems many other traders will be involved. A very rough estimate seems to indicate that £2 million or £3 million could easily be collected if they were strictly applied. No doubt if the power is there, it will be availed of by various local authorities. They will be obliged to implement them. Those who are liable to pay these licence fees will find they are involved to the tune of a couple of millions. That will prove a heavy imposition on the public who will be obliged to pay in the long run in the price structure for the cost of these licences.

Mr. T. Lynch

I support my colleagues in this matter, mainly on principle, the principle that this is taxation by regulation. If members of Dáil Éireann were fully alive to their parliamentary duties, we should have a full attendance to-night on a matter of such important principle. The Minister is taking unto himself power to sign a document which will have the effect of raising a very substantial amount of money in taxation. I am indebted to my colleague, Deputy Jones, for his untiring research and for his great memory. I sat here during the discussion on the Planning Bill and I certainly do not remember the detail as Deputy Jones does. I compliment both the Minister and Deputy Jones on the enormous amount of work and the great patience they exercised in regard to that Bill. I draw the Minister's attention to the very good spirit that prevailed between him and Deputy Jones. At that time the Minister said that "if some Minister should step out of line, then the regulations he would have made would assuredly be annulled by this House." I refer to column 403 of the Official Report of 29 May, 1963. He added that that was a protection against the madness of a Minister: "If it is wrong, the House will throw it out without a doubt".

With respect, the House is not judging whether it is wrong or right. This will be an imposition on the proprietors of service stations. Surely they deserve more from the Parliament of the country than to have this imposition laid on them? Recently they were made the scapegoats by the Minister for Industry and Commerce; he prevented them from raising the price of petrol. Now they are to have this extra tax put on their petrol pumps and signs. These men give 90 and 100 hours service in the week as against the 40-hour week elsewhere. They are at our beck and call the whole year round. One can go into an isolated country district and if short of petrol, through one's own carelessness, one can knock up the unfortunate man in the petrol station at any hour of the night and he will oblige. As often as not, he makes one feel slightly ashamed. The Minister should remember the service these people give and he should withdraw this proposal. The majority of these stations have been put up by private individuals. some with the help of loans from the oil companies. This tax will fall on them now. They have enough to do to pay back the large loans. They have to work very hard and it is most unfair that this tax should be imposed on them.

There is then the matter of inn signs. These are historical. One can read in Sean O'Casey about the "Cat and Cage". I suppose that man will be stuck now because he has the "Cat and Cage". The "Red Cow" in Clondalkin will have to pay tax. Many inns will be affected.

Maps are not put up in areas only by local authorities. Private individuals and societies put up maps in historical places. I have in mind the map in New Ross which was put up by such a society, and which gives an excellent idea of that whole battle. It is extraordinary that a Minister in an Irish Parliament should make a regulation taxing a map that commemorates a great historical event. I believe that, now that these things have been brought to the Minister's attention, he will not go on with this proposal.

Many farmers and farm labourers have houses adjacent to the public road, with an ordinary stone-faced fence, or a sod fence, which may not be very beautiful. A great many people are improving their cottages and houses, taking down these fences and putting up railings, or stone or brick fences. I am amazed to discover that a man who does that will have to pay a tax of £4 a year. A case, or a rack, or a shelf, or an appliance, or a structure for displaying articles for the purpose of advertisement or sale in or in connection with an adjacent business premises will carry a tax of £4 per year. The Minister should really take that out. The greengrocers all over the country were ahead of the supermarkets in displaying vegetables in baskets. They will now have to pay £4 a year tax.

This is bureaucracy gone mad. This did not emanate from this House and that makes it infinitely more dangerous. It is bad enough for the Minister for Finance to bring in new taxation in his Budget, but that is right and proper according to the Constitution. He is entitled to introduce taxation. This is a matter of a Minister raising taxation by regulations. I do not know what the figure will be. It could be £1½ millions between all the signs, and posters, and fences, and petrol pumps, and advertisements, and weighing machines and vending machines. God knows where it will end.

I note that where a man has a bridge, arch, tunnel, passage or other similar structure for use other than by the public, he will pay a tax of £4 per year. That is ridiculous. If a person buys an adjoining premises across a narrow lane, especially in the milling industry, he will build a passageway for goods which will not interfere with anybody else. Now we find that such a person has to pay a tax for that. We also have "a lamp post or a lamp in a fixed position". We should encourage people to put lamps on our public streets. There are a number of villages in Ireland that would not be well lighted except for the people who own service stations. Now that we are to put a tax on these lights, many of them will cut down to one light.

Deputy P. O'Donnell, who is a lawyer, and, I believe, a good one, was not able to understand this matter of "along a road". If these regulations go out as law from this House, people like Deputy P. O'Donnell are going to make a lot of money out of them because every garage man in the country will be running into court to find out if he is along the road or on the road. The regulations say "in, on, over, under or along." The "along" was only put in this particular one so there must be an extra special trap in it. I hope the Minister will take these regulations back to his office and reconsider them. I am sure many people in his own Party will agree with me in this.

Part II refers to "Other appliances and structures," and relates to "vending machine or other coin operated machine (not being a weighing machine)," and the tax is £8. There will be no more bubble gum in the service stations when the man there has to pay £8 licence fee for the machine. The simple people down the country like to try the bubble gum machine and there are quite a number of them about the country. These people are now stuck for £8. I thought the weighing machine was exempt but I find that the tax on these is £2 a year. As Deputy Jones said, 480 people will have to weigh in before the man gets a penny from the machine. I know that as we are all over 21 here, we should be weighing in fairly often but the Minister is making sure that we will not do so because all these machines will be taken away and hidden.

The Minister said it would be Ministerial madness to bring in regulations like these. He said that in 1962 and in doing so he anticipated his officials. This action by the Minister is taxation by regulation.

Mr. Coogan

I can only describe this as a disgraceful form of taxation which is being inflicted on the people. It is a retrograde form of taxation. It has been disgraceful to see the benches behind the Minister occupied by only four members of the Fianna Fáil Party, two of whom have been asleep almost all the time. That shows the interest they have in the people of this country. They are sent here to represent the people, but, from what the people are saying, they know they are being poorly represented. It shows their callous indifference to this imposition on people already burdened by rates.

It is a retrograde step that our streets, which have been brightened up by lights over shops and business premises, will have to go back to the wartime blackouts. The Minister is imposing either a payout or a blackout on the people. At that rate all we will be able to do is to dream of a white Christmas. Under the regulations, water taps erected for the convenience of people are mixed up with petrol pumps and there is to be a tax on them. People are already overburdened by rates because of increased valuations and this is an additional disgraceful form of new taxation.

According to the regulations, people who provide an air hose will be taxed. It is a disgrace that they should be taxed and they will disappear because they are no addition to any garage owner as they are. Any appliance or structure "displaying articles for the purpose of advertisement or sale in or connected with any adjoining business premises" comes under the regulations. Salthill in County Galway, which is now fairly well lighted up by these structures and appliances, is to be heavily hit by increased taxation. Salthill would be a dismal place if these lights were put out so that the Minister could not collect his pound of flesh. These people are already paying increased taxation by way of increased valuation.

The regulations speak of "a lamp post or lamp in a fixed position". In what other position could it be? They refer to "a bridge, arch, tunnel, passage or other similar structure for public use and which is constructed on or after the appointed day". They include "a cellar or other underground structure" and say "constructed on". Of course it is constructed on. Any cellar we have is constructed on the premises.

The regulations deal with coin operated machines. Would they include the one-armed bandits in O'Connell Street? Advertisements are dealt with. I submit that a lot of these play their part in lighting up our towns, thus reducing the cost of public lighting. The Minister should have second thoughts and realise that, after Mid-Cork at any rate, he will be up against it when he tries to impose these regulations. Will he tell us what is meant by "hoarding, fence or scaffold"? Will any temporary scaffold erected by a contractor be included? What about CIE who seem to have a monopoly of street advertising through their bus services? Do the taxpayers not have to foot that bill? I suggest there is something wrong in our State when such anomalies are allowed to exist. I hope the Minister will make it clear what these regulations mean and that he will have second thoughts.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

There has been so much misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what is contained in these regulations that it is really impossible, short of devoting a day to it or writing a book, to correct all that has been said here tonight. I shall start off by saying that if anything is repeated often enough, particularly by those who feel they have some reason to believe it, the point can be reached where they will believe anything.

All this began on 21st November last when one of our daily national newspapers published their version of what they believed these regulations contain. I have no record that this national newspaper or anybody associated with it went to any trouble, through my Department at any rate, to make any inquiries. They proceeded, long after the issue of the regulations, to write about them in a manner completely and absolutely unrelated to the realities of what is contained in them. They began by discussing the revenue, the money to be taken from the people in licensing fees.

Here we found people talking in hundreds of thousands of pounds. Although he did not contribute to the debate, Deputy A. Barry corrected that and said it would be half a million pounds, and the speaker then on his feet amended his £100,000 to half a million pounds. Then we had another Opposition Deputy increasing the figure to £1 million.

Mr. Coogan

How much is it?

Mr. Blaney

The last figure we had tonight was that it is likely to be £1½ million.

Mr. Coogan

What does the Minister say it will be?

Mr. Blaney

What I want to say is that the figure is likely to approach a grand total of £20,000 in a period of 12 months. This should surely set the pattern for some correction in the minds of the people who have been somewhat deranged—it is not my mind that is deranged as has been suggested by those who have spoken and who have exaggerated to such a degree that a figure estimated to reach £20,000 has been quoted here tonight as being £1½ million. That is exaggeration beyond the extremes one would expect to hear in this House when people try at all costs to push their view of a case.

Mr. Coogan

Why push the regulations, if the amount is of so little importance?

Mr. Blaney

Perhaps Deputy Coogan would do as I did when he was speaking—keep his mouth shut?

Mr. Coogan

He has not given any of the answers we want.

Mr. Blaney

I do not wish to become personal or to give answers to some of the things the Deputy may think he has put or to comment on the manner in which he purported to read the regulations a few minutes ago. At any rate, we had this picture of £20,000 being written up to £1½ million. Of that £20,000, £18,000 will go to the Road Fund and £2,000 to the various planning authorities which will about meet the administration costs of the licensing procedure.

We come to the various items which tonight became so involved and so multiplied that they produced the exaggerated figures I have mentioned. I find there is, without doubt, a great deal of genuine misunderstanding as well as misleading information in the minds of people who wish to mislead. We have had the plaint that all these things should have been done in the Act so that there would be no need to introduce them later. Quite an eminent member of the legal profession said that, but I shall not comment on the nonsense such an argument makes.

If such had been the case any changes we might have to make now or in the future could be made only by amendment of the Act. The facility to make regulations is well recognised as enabling us to make changes as circumstances demand or as circumstances change. We had here tonight Opposition talk in regard to the use of the word "along". Great play was made by a few quite well-known solicitors on the Opposition benches on this point. They said this had been slipped into the regulations, that it was something that should have been discussed when the Bill was going through the Oireachtas. All I have to say is that the word was already there, that it was part of the document discussed here as a Bill which ultimately became law.

If the word "along" is now taken exception to, it does not prove that if we had discussed everything then, everything would now be all right because the word "along" was discussed in the Dáil. They try to make us believe it has emerged only now and that they do not understand it. If they do not understand it now, they did not understand it then, and if they did not understand it then, I am surprised it was allowed to go through.

What we have to keep in mind is that these regulations and the fees prescribed under them are in respect of the use or obstruction of the public thoroughfare or footpath, which does not in fact belong to the person carrying on a commercial business on these public ways which should be reserved for the ordinary comings and goings of the public. This is what we must bear in mind when this picture is presented of people being charged licence fees for doing something on their own property. That is why we have this realistic estimate of £20,000 of what the fees will be under this Bill.

The figures of £½ million, £1 million and £1½ million are probably conjured up by Deputies who think that every pump and every appliance mentioned in these regulations, regardless of where they are situated, will be charged the full licensing fee. Only a relatively small number will come under the licensing code at all. They will be those appliances which are in fact usurping public space, access for pedestrians or vehicles on the footpath or roadway. In order to control this matter of interference, there is no reason why these people should not pay something.

This is public, not private, property. This is property for which the people in question have paid nothing. It is the same as if I asked Deputy Jones if I could put a petrol pump in a field he has along the public road. He says: "Certainly, but you have to pay me £8, £10 or £20 per year." Would I not look a right ninny if I came in here and complained that Deputy Jones was doing me down because he asked for £20 a year to use his property to make money for me? Yet when we talk about making a charge for the use of the public footpath or roadway, we are accused of driving people out of business. Without these regulations, there would be no legal way for these people to operate on the footpath or roadway, to dig up the road and put down a tank or operate petrol pumps on the roadside.

Not all of them are being charged for the first time. Admittedly, the figures given here are higher than those for comparable facilities in the past. But if we go back to the charges made when the 1925 Act was passed, under which the previous regulations were made, we find that even the smallest charges then imposed, in real values of to-day, based either on the Government's calculation or the Opposition's calculation of the depreciation of money, when compared with the figures now proposed show that the latter are not so far out of line as would seem to appear. We must also consider that the number of cars and the through-put of petrol and so on is increasing enormously. Therefore, the fees are not so unrealistic.

I want to make clear as far as advertisements are concerned that, unless they are supported by some stanchion or other fixture that is itself on the footpath or roadway, even though it overhangs the footpath or roadway, that sign is not subject to the licence fee calculated here by some Deputies. Then there is the question of the hose attached to a pump. Where the pump itself is charged for, the hose normally used for filling a vehicle is not subject to any additional licence of £4 or anything else. The hose mentioned here is anticipated to be the swinging-arm type of hose which comes from a pump situated on the private property of the owner. There is no licence in respect of this pump but there is a charge of £4 in respect of the swinging-arm and hose because, obviously, the servicing takes place on the public thoroughfare.

Then there is the question of the tank. If the tank encroaches on any part of the public footpath or roadway, or both, or if any part of it is underneath that roadway or footpath, the tank is subject to a licence fee. If it is not under that roadway or footpath but wholly within the private property, no licence fee is chargeable. It is only in the case of the tank under the roadway or footpath and the pump on the kerbside or the swinging-arm utilised for servicing vehicles on the roadway that more than one licence fee arises. If the tank is underneath the roadway and the pump on the kerbside, the fee would be £8 for the pump and £4 for the tank. If the tank were under the road and the pump off it, but a swinging-arm was necessary to supply vehicles on the road, the tank would be subject to the fee but the pump would not be subject to the fee. However, the swinging-arm would also be subject to the licence fee.

Those are a few of the variations that seem to have caused some confusion. It is not right to lump them together and say that in every case, irrespective of where the appliance is situated, a fee will be charged. The case was mentioned of the tank in private property and the pump on public property. In case anybody adds this up as well, the feeder pipe from the tank on the private property to the pump on the public property is not chargeable. In fact, it is excluded by certain words in these regulations. Likewise, there is the question of the cable brought underground from the adjoining premises to supply power to the pump at the edge of the footpath. Again, that cable to bring the power to the pump from the private establishment would not be subject to a licence fee, as is anticipated by some Deputies. These are a couple of matters which could be construed, readily and genuinely, as possibly coming within the terms of the Statutory Instrument.

There is also certain confusion in regard to a cellar or other underground structure constructed on or after the appointed day. This is on the very same principle as I have already indicated. If the cellar is constructed after the appointed day under a public roadway or footpath, this roadway is property that does not belong to the developer and I do not see why, not only should there be a charge for it but, to have it there to facilitate a business or otherwise, there should not be some licence in order that this type of structure can be controlled. In the case of structures constructed on or after the appointed day, I do not think anybody can have or will have any particular gripe because a person who undertakes that type of structure will have some particularly good reason for it and the question of a fee or otherwise will not deter him.

The question of vending machines has been raised and of weighing machines being left out of their particular place and being brought in at another point. It is true that there is a continuous growth of these machines, not only in number but in variety of service to the public, and the matter could come to a point where people in small businesses of various kinds could have their business usurped as a result of the indiscriminate use of these machines adjacent to their premises and out of which they were getting nothing. The person with facilities for the sale of various things in a small shop or little business has these facilities within his own property. It would be unfair that, without let or hindrance, all types of vending machines, big or small, might be installed on a public footpath or roadway towards the cost of which the owner of the vending machine had contributed no more than any of his neighbours. There is that aspect of it. At the same time, it is possible that small vending machines which have been instanced here—especially the bubble gum machine and that type of small fixture which is usually not taking up any ground space at all but is very often a fixture on the wall of a building and does not protrude more than five or six inches, probably could be exempted.

Mr. Jones

Many of these stand outside shops on an iron stand.

Mr. Blaney

In so far as those which stand out are concerned, that is a matter that I am still rather perturbed about because, taking the weighing machines and the type of stand that is on the footpath, if the footpath is public property which was constructed and is maintained for the convenience of pedestrians, there is very great reason why the placing of such machines should not be encouraged and that they should be very much controlled. That is a different matter from the display of vegetables or oils in racks and display cases and so on. These things, provided they are not taking up public space on public footpaths or roadways, are not subject to any of the fees that it is alleged attach to them in this document here tonight. It is all related to that which is using public space, whether a footpath or roadway. We have to keep this in mind all the time when talking. We have to remember that these are public places, that they cost money to put there and to preserve and in so far as access on roads and footways is concerned, with the growing traffic and the anticipated growth in traffic, we want every inch of every roadway and footway if we are to make them passable.

In all of these matters, particularly as we get into towns and on to footpaths, these machines are quite a substantial imposition on the public generally who pay for the maintenance of the footways. While certain people may pay for a licence and, by permission of the local authority, may be given a facility to use them for their individual purposes, if a licence fee is charged, as is proposed in some of these cases here, I do not think it is unjust or unfair.

In so far as petrol pumps are concerned, there is one thing I should like to say. In so far as the sale of petrol or any commodity is concerned, I am not in sympathy with the idea that a licence fee is beyond the capacity of the persons concerned but I am sympathetic in the case where a service such as water and air is provided, and which is not charged for but merely provided as a facility for the customer who buys petrol.

In view of the fact that there were differential fees in the past ranging from one guinea to five guineas, despite the good case there is to be made on the numbers of vehicles now licensed, and despite the change in the value of money, in this regard there may be something in the argument that the increased charge from five guineas to £8 is far less than the person should be charged, but, side by side with that, the increase from £1 to £8 seems to be somewhat out of balance.

I am meeting the Irish Motor Traders Association on Monday in regard to this and, probably, several other matters: petrol sales, the regulations relating to petrol stations and all these other things that we have been talking about. I will be discussing with them in greater detail what evidence is there from their members throughout the country in regard to this matter. I am taking that into account, plus my own sympathy—although I could make a very good argument against the last thing I said—together with the fact that Deputy Jones has made his case in his usual reasonable way and that this is a follow-on to the Planning Act which we got through here on a fairly amicable basis. I am inclined to add that to the other two reasons I have given and I am inclined to say that in these discussions with the Motor Traders Association on the basis of what relates to petrol sales and all that goes with it, in respect of some of these things, I feel that we may bring things back a bit but I do want to reiterate that the total amount estimated for these fees is £20,000 and not £500,000, £1 million or £1,500,000, as was suggested here tonight. Rather than adopt the suggestion of annulling the whole regulation, I would think it could be amended in particular respects. The provisions are very carefully worded as some Deputies remarked. They ensure that some people will not get away with something they are not entitled to get away with while others have to pay. They are drafted in that meticulous way that I would be inclined to have sympathy for making changes where necessary, instead of annulling the whole regulation. I think we can proceed on the basis that general agreement can be achieved in a matter of a very short time.

Mr. Coogan

Are milk stands exempted?

Mr. Blaney

For the 999th time, I should say they are. I issued a special statement through the Government Information Bureau in the matter. They are completely exempt not alone in respect of the licence but they do not even require planning permission.

Mr. Jones

The Minister started his reply by speaking of misunderstanding and misrepresentation and for that he took one of our members to task. The Minister will find if he consults the records of this House that I put this motion down away back when I became aware that such regulations had been made to the Minister. I want to take the early opportunity of saying that whatever the newspapers had to say, they did not influence our thinking on this matter. However, the newspapers were right in drawing the attention of the public to this matter as they did. It has taken this motion and this debate here tonight to get from the Minister clarification of what was intended in these regulations.

The motion was fully justified and the Minister's reply here indicates that there were grounds for the fear we had. It amazes me that the Minister is able now to give us a firm estimate of charges and what they will bring in, a sum of £20,000. I do not know how the Minister arrived at that figure. I am sure that later on if we ask the various local authorities the number of pumps and so on that are located by the footpaths or roadways we shall know whether the sum of £18,000 which would go to the Road Fund under one part of the regulation, that is, the proceeds of petrol pumps, and the sum of £2,000 which he mentioned would come under another part of the regulation is as firm an estimate as the Minister would lead us to believe.

There is no doubt that our fears in this respect were justified. This is not the type of regulation which we thought of. We took the provision in good faith when it was brought before the House, that "along a public road" did not have a special significance but had the ordinary connotation which it had under the 1925 Act. It seems that if fees are now chargeable for the use of the public pathway or roadway the experts from the local authorities will have to descend on the roadways and byways to determine whether the tanks are under or over the footpaths, under or over the roadway, whether they are on private property, and so on.

It is the small people who have been giving this service in the past by means of the kerbside pump who will be affected by this provision. The Minister in his reply showed concern for the public. He used the word "public" as against "private". We are inclined in this House to speak of public property as if somebody outside the country owned it. We are inclined to think of the people of this country as having no rights whatsoever. Is it not they who own the public property, the people in the villages and the townlands? Are they not paying for it through their taxes and rates? The small shopkeepers and small traders are the public and down through the years they have been making facilities available to the public. We must rid ourselves of this idea of the public being some kind of body which is remote from the plain people, as if there was a distinction between them. The people of this country own the country.

The Minister speaks of the higher charges. I suppose it is one way of dealing with the depreciation of money but the Minister is justifying the imposition of taxation not to control planning or undesirable developments but merely to raise money. That is the important thing to remember.

The question of advertisements, unless they are on a footpath or roadway on a staunch fixture, will be a matter requiring inspection. One can imagine the county engineer, assistant county engineer or county surveyor cycling around to inspect these things to see if they are on staunch supports or not and whether they should be subject to this type of regulation. In regard to advertisements, people will have to decide themselves whether to apply for licences to the local authority or later they may be subject to the punitive portions of the regulations and may be fined for each day or portion of a day for which these unlicensed structures remain.

The Minister went back to the swinging arm type of petrol delivery hose. The discussion tonight showed how many different types of appliance connections it was necessary to mention. The Minister is very concerned about vending and weighing machines, of which there has been a growth, lest they might impinge on the small people. Who are the small people but those who put up the original pumps? The big combines are well able to get off the roads, and have got off the roads, but those with kerbside pumps must either pay or get out. They have no alternative. Yet, by this regulation the impost on them is to be increased. I hope the Minister, if he continues these regulations, will decide on a figure more in accordance with the type of trade these people do.

I am sorry the Minister could not say tonight to the House what he is going to say to the motor traders on Monday.

Mr. Blaney

Because I want to hear what they have to say first.

Mr. Jones

We have said certain things and the Minister is inclined to admit that we have a case. Why not say to the House what he intends to say on Monday?

Mr. Coogan

He might get a big cheque from the motor trade for Party funds.

Mr. Blaney

No, and I shall give this assurance to the House, that any announcement I have to make will be made to the House. I am much more prone to do that than most people are.

Mr. Jones

I am very glad to have that assurance. The Minister spoke of vending machines and weighing machines encroaching on the small trader but I am sure it is the small traders who have quite a number of these machines at present. It is the small trader who cannot afford the supermarket type of construction or that of the big combine who wants to display his wares and try to attract some of the available custom to his shop. A number of shopkeepers throughout the country are doing that as anybody living in a market town knows. The supermarkets can display their wares under neon lights and glass covers but the ordinary people must display vegetables and other wares on a stack of calf baskets or buckets or other hardware outside their doors. It is they who will have to pay and those who can afford the greater amenities and enjoy a bigger inflow of capital will not be paying.

The philosophy behind the Minister's reply seems to be looking both ways. He has sympathy at one stage for certain people and at the other stage he believes they should pay. Then there is the "public". I do not like that word any more than I like "revenue" or "Exchequer". I should like these high-sounding words brought down to the level of ordinary people. The Minister says tonight that those who use the pathways and the roads and have used them for years must pay because they are using public property but if one takes any village with petrol pumps, is it not the ordinary people of the area for whom the amenity was created who are taxed and who through their use of cars provide the money for these roads and footpaths? We speak loosely of the Road Fund, which is simply the contribution of the motorists. The other portion of it is the rates which people ordinarily pay their local authorities.

I do not think the Minister has justified these regulations. In fact he has given point to the argument made tonight that these regulations are the kind which we felt he should not make and I am sorry he has made them. He is not doing justice even to himself, I believe, when he allows his name to go on these regulations. He has replied mainly in regard to petrol pumps and has referred to vending machines, cellars and weighing machines but he has made no specific reply on quite a number of matters. When these regulations go through the House, they have the force of law and every local authority will face the business of collecting these fees not from the public, that fanciful term, but from owners of kerbside pumps in every village in the country, from the owners of racks or vending machines—I prefer the word "rack" or "display case" such as is used in the country.

We are completely justified in having put down this motion and if the Minister now decides to, or is inclined to, give way slightly, that would be the greatest justification for the statement that I am sure he did not adequately consider these regulations before putting his name to them.

This document goes down to the local authorities and some unfortunate individual there will have the duty of deciding on which of his neighbours throughout the county he will have to place this burden of taxation. The Town Planning Act will be brought to the pass where regulations made under it will not inspire confidence in the Act itself.

The Minister says we have talked at cross-purposes but I think it is apparent that the Minister has been going around in circles in trying to cover the truth in regard to these regulations, the truth being that he is on the defensive regarding the attitude he has adopted in respect of these regulations. It is clearly established that it is money which is being sought in this and that the Minister thinks it right to take this money from people who are providing this type of service to the public.

We have been fully justified in putting down this motion because in these regulations there are many things in respect of which we do not know what the position will be. The Minister did not mention the question of a fence which I posed to him and there is also the type of thing that is growing up in some of our cities, the stands from which the barrow-boys sell their goods. We do not know whether these people will have to pay a tax on the carts and racks from which they try to make a living.

The Minister speaks of only slight amendments to these regulations and I must say that is something which does not satisfy either this Party or myself. The position is that all we have had are vague generalities, Ministerial assurances that such and such is not meant and a vague estimate of what fees will be brought in. The Minister has spoken of £18,000. I wonder how he arrived at that figure and I would like a breakdown of it. If he goes on the assumption that it will be made up of the £8 licence and the £4 licence, does it mean that for these 26 counties we will divide £18,000 by 12 and get 1,500 petrol pumps scattered throughout the country? I am not going to accept these assurances. I believe these regulations should be annulled and I invite the House to join with me in taking a stand against this type of imposition on the people who have been providing these amenities for the public in general.

If the Minister wanted to control planning, he had his answer in a simple type of regulation which could be got in the ordinary way from any post office. Instead of doing that, he decided to make these regulations which are capable of many interpretations and on which even the Custom House itself will have many queries from local authorities. It will be interesting to see how they will work out.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 55; Níl, 67.

Tá

• Barrett, Stephen D.
• Barry, Anthony.
• Barry, Richard.
• Browne, Michael.
• Burke, Joan T.
• Burton, Philip.
• Byrne, Patrick.
• Casey, Seán.
• Clinton, Mark A.
• Collins, Seán.
• Dockrell, Maurice E.
• Donegan, Patrick S.
• Donnellan, John.
• Dunne, Thomas.
• Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
• Farrelly, Denis.
• Flanagan, Oliver J.
• Gilhawley, Eugene.
• Governey, Desmond.
• Harte, Patrick D.
• Hogan, Patrick (South Tipperary).
• Hogan O'Higgins, Brigid.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Kenny, Henry.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• McAuliffe, Patrick.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• Connor, Patrick.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan D.
• Costello, John A.
• Coughlan, Stephen.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry P.
• McLaughlin, Joseph.
• Murphy, William.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Donnell, Thomas G.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F. K.
• O'Keeffe, James.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Sullivan, Denis J.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Reynolds, Patrick J.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Spring, Dan.
• Sweetman, Gerard.
• Tierney, Patrick.
• Tully, James.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Lorcan.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Boylan, Terence.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Burke, Patrick J.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carter, Frank.
• Carty, Michael.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Clohessy, Patrick.
• Colley, George.
• Collins, James J.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Cotter, Edward.
• Crinion, Brendan.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cummins, Patrick J.
• Cunningham, Liam.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Dolan, Séamus.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Fanning, John.
• Faulkner, Padraig.
• Flanagan, Seán.
• Gallagher, James.
• Galvin, Sheila.
• Geoghegan, John.
• Gibbons, James M.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Hillery, Patrick.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Lalor, Patrick J.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Lemass, Seán.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Lynch, Celia.
• Lynch, Jack.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Meaney, Con.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Millar, Anthony G.
• Moher, John W.
• Mooney, Patrick.
• Moran, Michael.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• ÓCeallaigh, Seán.
• O'Connor, Timothy.
• O'Malley, Donogh.
• Ormonde, John.
• Ryan, James.
• Sherwin, Frank.
• Timmons, Eugene.

Tellers:— Tá, Deputies O'Sullivan and Tully; Níl, Deputies J. Brennan and Geoghegan.

Question declared lost.