Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Jan 1986

Vol. 363 No. 5

Financial Resolution No. 1: Excise— Beer. - Financial Resolution No. 10: Excise Duties on Mechanically Propelled Vehicles.

I move:

That the Finance (Excise Duties) (Vehicles) Act, 1952 (No. 24 of 1952), shall, as respects licences under section 1 of that Act taken out for periods beginning on or after the 1st day of March, 1986, be amended by the substitution of the following subparagraph for subparagraph (d) (inserted by section 33 of the Finance Act, 1985 (No. 10 of 1985)):

"(d) other vehicles to which this paragraph applies—

not exceeding 1000 cubic centimetres

£70

exceeding 1000 cubic centimetres but not exceeding 1500 cubic centimetres

£9.50 per 100 cubic centimetres or part thereof

exceeding 1500 cubic centimetres but not exceeding 1700 cubic centimetres

£11 per 100 cubic centimetres or part thereof

exceeding 1700 cubic centimetres but not exceeding 2000 cubic centimetres

£12 per 100 cubic centimetres or part thereof

exceeding 2000 cubic centimetres but not exceeding 2500 cubic centimetres

£14 per 100 cubic centimetres or part thereof

exceeding 2500 cubic centimetres

£15 per 100 cubic centimetres or part thereof

electrically propelled

£70.”

I move amendment No. 2:

At the end of the Resolution to add the following paragraph:

"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).".

The amendment is a technical one. It is not contentious. It relates to a standard wording that was omitted accidentally from the text and which is required to ensure that the resolution comes into effect on 1 March in advance of the Finance Bill being enacted.

We are opposing both these resolutions which propose additional taxes and an extra burden on the unfortunate motorist. There are many arguments, social and economic, which can be advanced against both the increases proposed. In the time available to us, my colleagues will be advancing these arguments.

In regard to the argument we had previously, we on this side of the House are continuing to maintain in regard to all these resolutions that the Minister for Finance is being obscurantist and obtuse in not accepting the lessons of 1985 and opting for self-financing selective tax cuts because, despite the convoluted circuitousness of the Taoiseach's language — he has some sort of fanciful argument that these cuts could have brought in more than they might have brought in if they had not brought in as much or something of that nature — the lower rate introduced in 1985 in respect of spirits resulted in a greater return to the Exchequer.

And less purchasing power.

No ludicrous buffoonery by the Taoiseach with figures——

The word "buffoonery" is not a parliamentary term.

I am using it.

There are many precedents for ruling that it is not a parliamentary term.

How many precedents went by the board here today?

I am asking the Deputy to withdraw the word "buffoonery".

It is a perfectly legitimate parliamentary term and I am not withdrawing it. I will continue without interruption.

Is the Deputy intending to ignore the Chair, to be disorderly and to make it impossible for us to continue with the business of the House? The Deputy may have used the word in the heat of the moment but it is on the record and should be withdrawn.

I used the term as a parliamentary expression and in the context of the Taoiseach's language. I say that was buffoonery type language and I am not withdrawing that charge. I do not regard the Taoiseach's argument as serious because he sought to deny the very simple fact that the reduction in the rate of duty on spirits resulted in more revenue accruing to the Exchequer.

No doubt Deputy Haughey will be able to find other phraseology so I am asking him to withdraw the word in question.

I am not withdrawing anything. I am becoming tired of the way the Opposition are being treated during this debate. The term is a legitimate parliamentary one.

I shall have to adjourn the House for ten minutes.

This is strange on budget day.

Sitting suspended at 9.35 p.m. and resumed at 9.45 p.m.

Before the adjournment I intervened promptly when I heard Deputy Haughey use the word "buffoon" or "buffoonery". I had very good reason to be conscious of that word because when I was on those benches myself some years ago I accused the then Taoiseach of buffoonery or buffooning his way through a debate. I was very promptly called upon to withdraw the expression and I did so. This sort of language is calculated to generate heat and to encourage similar language and in that way the whole proceedings of the Dáil would be somewhat reduced. However, if Deputy Haughey does not feel like withdrawing it and if after reconsideration he is still of that frame of mind, I do not propose to generate further heat and force an issue at this hour of the night.

I appreciate that attitude on your part. I did not wish to generate any unpleasantness or heat but I did think I was perfectly in order in referring to the Taoiseach's reply as linguistic or parliamentary buffoonery, which is what I meant to say. I think the Taoiseach and the Chair know very well that I would not use a personal epithet of an insulting nature towards the Taoiseach or indeed to any other Deputy in this House. I thought the Taoiseach was using a very convoluted argument in regard to this matter of self-financing cuts and I felt I was in order in describing his particular use of language as parliamentary or linguistic buffoonery. There was nothing more involved in it. In view of your attitude I will not use that particular phrase or attribute anything in the nature of buffoonery to the Taoiseach on this occasion. I feel that the Taoiseach is engaging in an artificial type of argument in this regard.

I appreciate Deputy Haughey's attitude and I am glad the matter has ended as it has.

His argument seems to be a totally artificial one. He is suggesting that if the cuts had not been made then a greater amount of revenue might have been earned than was otherwise earned. The simple fact of the matter is that a reduction in rates brought in more revenue, more actual cash into the Revenue. That, as far as I am concerned, is a self-financing tax cut. The Government are wrong during these difficult times in not following that course further and experimenting in that direction, thus saving the people these additional impositions whether on beer, spirits, petrol or motor tax. A different type of approach, carefully judging the exact state of the market and introducing very finely balanced tax cuts, could bring in more revenue than this draconian tax policy.

The Taoiseach with his penchant for going back into the past was a little unfortunate to single out my last budget. If he is an honest man — and I am sure he is; I would not make any other suggestion in this House — he will admit readily, graciously and generously that the last budget I proposed was the last balanced budget put before this House by a Minister for Finance.

That is historically right.

The current expenditure amounts to £8,042 million and the public capital programme comes to £1,681 million but if the supply services receipts are added, the total expenditure is £11,154 million. That is a very substantial amount which must be raised by way of taxation or excise. I would prefer from the point of view of my constituents and from the national point of view to avoid increases of this kind, but we simply have to meet these increases if we are to continue to provide these services. The money must be raised in some way. The Minister pointed out in his speech that there will be cost reductions estimated at £6 million which will neutralise any VAT increases. However, following the reduction from 25 per cent to 10 per cent on the duty on motor vehicles last year, there is a further commitment to phase out that 10 per cent. This will cost £3 million in a full year. It will certainly help the motor industry, particularly in the sale and repair of cars. It will also increase the level of employment in motor repair shops.

With regard to the increases in excise duty on petrol and fuel, the Taoiseach might tell the House what the effect will be of recent movements in international markets; what is the likely long term effect on petrol prices, taking into account the budget excise and the long term market implications?

I will be brief because my constituency colleagues are anxious to put on record their amazement and disappointment at the extra tax on petrol and diesel oil. What Deputy Mitchell has said is highly relevant. We have seen a drop in the spot market price of oil. Light Arabian crude has been hovering in the $20 and upwards bracket during the year but it may now drop to $15 a barrel. This should be welcomed by the Government and passed on to the consumer because of its effect on the economy in general. At a time when Sheikh Yamani is increasing production and causing an impact on the price in the world market, our Minister for Finance is raking it all in. The answer to Deputy Mitchell's question will be very interesting, since the price will be dropping.

It is very important that those of us who come from constituencies near the Border should protest. Many traders have gone out of business because people are going North for petrol and diesel. The Minister for Finance is losing money and the British Government are getting the money. Whatever services are provided for citizens in this State, they are not paid for by funds from the British Exchequer and this is what annoys and worries people in the Border constituencies. In rural areas the only way workers can get to their work in industry is by car, although we are losing jobs heavily. An increase in motoring costs affects their livelihood, standard of living and whole way of life.

We also have the spin-off effect of higher prices on everything in my area. The co-operative societies are really the bulwark of the economy there. They are heavily involved in the purchase of hydrocarbons and this will affect these largescale industries which need all the support they can get. They operate trucks, vans and so on. The sand and gravel industry is important in Border areas. Companies involved in giving employment along the Border from Louth to Inishowen are under sufficient pressure because of competition from the Six Counties. This increase in hydrocarbon duty will impose an extra severe burden on them.

There is also the increase in road tax, which is also quite substantial. When speaking today Deputy O'Kennedy pointed out the colossal drop in employment in the motor industry. There are skilled mechanics from Border areas operating illegally in side streets in New York because they were made redundant in garages in those areas and, for that matter, all over the country. If there is to be another reduction in international oil prices I would make a special plea that the Minister would look at it in a positive way so that these factors will not militate against the economy generally and in particular in my area.

I mentioned co-operatives. They have suffered a severe jolt from the imposition of the super-levy. This latest imposition with regard to motor tax, diesel and petrol will not help them. The price of diesel at some of the Dublin pumps today is 59.2p per litre. Deputy Haughey spoke about self-financing. I am convinced that in the limited area of the economy about which I am talking a reasonable price for petrol and diesel would be self-financing and that the Minister would gain therefrom whereas at present it is the British Exchequer that gains. It is important that that be put on the record.

I had not proposed to intervene. However, I want to put the record straight. What Deputy Wilson has said is quite true, that there is now a tendency, an economic attraction, for people to cross the Border and buy petrol, oil and so on and that there is a depression in that trade at present. But it would be quite wrong to say that this was brought about by the economic policies pursued by this Government. If Deputy Wilson wants to be honest about this and looks at the record of his party he will see that this was brought about by the blindness of economic policies pursued by Fianna Fáil in office.

I did not make it a party issue at all.

I think the Deputy was making it a party issue. He was accusing this Government of creating a situation in which it is advantageous for motorists in Border areas — and I represent a Border area just as does Deputy Wilson — to go to Northern Ireland to buy their fuel supplies. That is happening and it is with no great sense of satisfaction that I say that. There are people in filling stations along the Border areas in the Republic who have almost been put out of business. But that was not as a result of policies pursued by this Government. It was as a result of policies pursued by Fianna Fáil in office. They were never sensitive to the need to harmonise economies both sides of the Border.

I would refer very pointedly to the break with sterling. It was the party opposite who broke with sterling and who devalued everything in the Republic by 20 per cent.

Every manufacturing industry in the country would be closed but for that and the Deputy knows it.

Every gallon imported into the Republic is now 20 per cent dearer as a result of their deliberate economic policies.

The Deputy should address that remark to the Taoiseach.

I am addressing the Chair. I am telling the facts as I see them and as people in my constituency see them. Deputy Wilson should ask the people, his own supporters, in Counties Cavan and Monaghan what they think about the decision to break with sterling, which sent us in a totally different economic direction from that of the North of Ireland——

Every factory in the country would be closed but for it.

——rendering Irish money foreign currency in the Six Counties. Our púnt is now foreign currency up there as a direct result of their economic policies.

The best thing that ever happened.

I had not intended to intervene in this debate. I merely wanted to put the record straight. If Deputy Wilson wishes to debate the merits of this budget he is entitled to do so, but I would appeal to him to be fair about it. It was not as a result of the policies pursued by this Government that this is the position. Rather it is the result of the blind, in many cases bigoted, policies of the Fianna Fáil Party when in Government.

Limited vision.

If Deputy Wilson did not clearly blame this Government for the state of the economy in the Border counties certainly I would blame them. The turning point was January 1983, one month after this Government came into office——

——when business that was coming south from the Six Counties was turned around as a result of three increases in the price of petrol in their first month in office.

It was the 1977 election manifesto and the break with sterling in 1979.

This decision to increase the price of petrol, diesel and motor tax will have devastating consequences for all people who use cars, and many do because there is no public transport available to them. It will have very serious consequences for all people who purchase goods that must be distributed by way of motor transport. Any benefit that might have accrued from the miniscule adjustments in income tax will be absorbed by the increase in excise duty, in the price of petrol and in road tax.

There is a further problem obtaining throughout the country which has not been addressed by the Government, that is, the condition of our roads. Not alone will motorists have to pay extra for their hydrocarbon products and motor tax but they will have to pay for repairs of damage done to their cars as a result of a serious deterioration in the condition of our roads, particularly over the past two years, because of the Government having given insufficient money to local authorities to maintain even the minimum standard expected on our roads.

As regards the Border economy, the price of petrol across the Border at present £1.87p sterling while it will cost almost IR£3 here now as a result of this latest increase. There are motorists who have not bought a gallon of petrol this side of the Border for the last three years. Seven filling stations have closed in Dundalk, two in my town of Carrickmacross and three in Castleblayney within a short distance of each other.

As a result of Fianna Fáil policies.

I am sure that Deputy Harte is aware that along the Border in Donegal exactly the same thing happened as a direct result of this Government's policies.

I asked a question in the House last week about the quantity of petrol sold nationally and in County Monaghan in 1982 and 1985. I was told that 1,321 million litres were sold nationally in 1982 and in 1985 1,149 million litres, a very serious drop. I was also told that figures were not available for County Monaghan, an indication of a lack of interest on the part of the Government in exactly what is happening in Border constituencies.

A point I have often made before, a Cheann Comhairle, is that if you yourself were sitting at the Cabinet table — because there is now no Minister representing a Border constituency at the Cabinet table — we would not be here discussing an increase of 11p in the price of a gallon of petrol, effective from 1 March next — and that on top of the increases already imposed and the reductions in the price of petrol that have been absorbed. Is the Taoiseach aware that the price of petrol has been reduced by $2 a barrel again today? Additionally, when further reductions in the price of petrol occur this year, would the Taoiseach say if the Government intend to absorb all of those reductions into the Exchequer? Has the Taoiseach no relief to offer the very hard-pressed motorist carrying so much of the burden of taxation in this country, seeing nothing in return, particularly bearing in mind the present very serious condition of our roads network?

Increasing the cost of petrol and auto diesel in this manner is a lazy way of raising revenue on the part of the Government. I would like to ask the Taoiseach, if he can answer it, if the Government have made any analysis of the extra cost that is to be imposed on industry in regard to distribution and transportation by reason of the petrol and auto diesel increase that we have of 10.8p. and 8.5p per gallon. That is on top of two virtual increases vis-à-vis our competitors from abroad where the Government have subsumed or absorbed two reductions over the past six weeks in these areas. As my colleague mentioned, is it proposed to adopt the lazy attitude again during the year and absorb further reductions in this manner? It is a lazy attitude. Can the Taoiseach assure us that his Government have made an analysis of the increase in industrial costs arising out of this obvious increase in distribution and transportation costs vis-à-vis our competitors? It is quite apparent, without having the precise sums made out, that we are putting ourselves at a substantial disadvantage vis-à-vis our competitors by adding substantially to industrial costs, particularly in a country like Ireland that depends so much on transportation and distribution by reason of our location away from export markets. We are in a disadvantaged location, heavily dependent on highly efficient distribution and transportation, and here we are at the same time not alone turning reductions which will reduce costs over to the Exchequer but adding substantially in this budget to those costs.

I would like the Taoiseach to give some indication of whether there is any concern on an economic analysis basis by the Government at the extent of what I call this lazy way of collecting revenue. It is penalising. It is hidden, it is easy and can be done without any great administrative expense; but the indirect effects of this form of tax are quite substantial, enormous, and act as a basic ongoing disincentive to business.

We hear enough talk about business overheads, business costs, and here the Government are making a positive contribution towards putting up the commercial costs of distribution. I am talking strictly of economics now and leaving other areas aside. Sufficient has been said by my colleagues about private motorists and North of Ireland motorists. I am concentrating strictly on the economic cost increase that is now affecting business here and in particular export business. I am asking the Taoiseach for his precise views on this aspect, on the contribution that has been made to increase costs by direct Government action in this respect with regard to absorbing decreases and imposing these increases. What is the Government's attitude to be right through this year in regard to further reductions that may take place in oil prices?

It is all nonsense to start talking about tackling the economic problems and providing for economic growth and for further employment opportunities of which there is no mention at all in the Budget Statement. It is all nonsense to pay lip service to the necessity for the sort of investment that we require and the social problem that we have in regard to providing more jobs if by actions of this kind we are deterring further investment and further expansion in regard to manufacturing employment and services employment and over the whole range of commercial activity. I would like to hear what views the Taoiseach has on this matter and to what extent, before the Government took this lazy approach as I categorise it, the Government made any attempt through their various agencies and advisers to quantify the contribution made to increase commercial costs by this type of action.

I gave my name some time ago.

I have only arrived in the Chair.

We are satisfied that this increase in the price of petrol will be counter-productive and anti-social in that it affects the family budget to a significant degree. The average motorist uses ten gallons of petrol per week. He must find £1 per week minimum to meet his petrol costs.

Another very unsatisfactory side to this question that I would like to draw to the Taoiseach's attention is the number of uninsured motorists. The reason that one in six of our motorists is uninsured, and perhaps a higher percentage untaxed, is the high cost of motoring at this time. The tax share of a gallon of petrol in 1980 was 45 per cent. That has now increased to 62 per cent today. It makes a lie of what has been said here about costs some years ago. The average price of a gallon of premium petrol is £2.91 per gallon. The tax element of that is £1.75 and the pre-tax retail price in January 1982 was £1.16 per gallon. Therefore, the pre-tax retail price has stayed stationary, but the amount of tax being drawn off it has increased year by year. We are now the highest taxed motorists in Europe outside Italy. This will impede our tourist industry further.

Take the very simple example where we have been trying to improve our tourist industry market share in the UK market. We lost that share over the years for various reasons. One of the prime reasons we lost it was the price of petrol and the price of drink. We have been making considerable efforts and spending quite some money in trying to woo back the British motorist as a tourist. With the differential of £1 per gallon and beer prices double the cost of those in the UK, how can we expect to improve our position in that regard? There is no doubt that this increase will result in a larger number of uninsured and untaxed vehicles using our roads, and we know the impact that has had on insurance costs when the Motor Insurers' Bureau have outstanding claims standing in excess of £80 million at this time.

Let us look at some of the car sales figures. They give a good indication of how an economy is going. The last good year we had for car sales was 1981 when 106,000 vehicles were sold here. In 1984 that was reduced to 56,000 and there was a slight increase last year to 59,000. It all goes to show that fewer people can continue motoring. Fewer cars are being sold. There is a reduction in the revenue from motor spirit being sold for the simple reason that diminishing returns are now the order of the day in so far as forecourt sales are concerned. We are upset that this will add significantly to business and transport costs. There is no doubt that if the question of competitiveness in our export drive and business generally had been quantified the Government would not have proceeded as they did on this occasion.

Let us consider the self-employed person, the businessman who has quite an amount of mileage to travel and receives no travelling expenses. He is really the victim of this very foolish fiscal policy. We must be critical of it. We shall see diminishing returns. This will affect the family budget and business and, in particular, will make nonsense of the efforts made in the past year to develop our tourist industry. Does the Taoiseach accept these figures? Does he accept that we are the most highly penalised motorists in Europe? Does he propose doing anything to help us out in this regard?

The Taoiseach told this House on 29 January 1985: "Our rates of excise are very high, at or near the top of the EC league." Despite that, the Minister for Finance suggests to this House that we impose a further £15 million on what he already calls an excessive rate of excise tax. That is my first point. Secondly, there is an increase proposed of 11p per gallon on petrol. If you take an average consumption of 12,000 miles per annum, which is 30 miles per gallon, you are talking about roughly 450 gallons. That works out at approximately an extra £50 per year for the average motorist with average consumption. I make that about £1 per week.

It is very important at this stage of the debate on this resolution to be quite clear on what is happening. This £1 extra cost to the Irish motorist makes up half the tax concession which the Government is giving. Take a man with three children on £10,000 a year, according to the Government's figures he would be better off by £2 per week; but we will show where the rest of that £2, apart from the half I have mentioned, will go. One half is gone on this Resolution No. 6 tonight. The other half is spread throughout children's allowances. VAT and the like. That means that the £2 is long gone. Most people will have spent £3 or £4 in return for that £2 which they are getting in regard to PAYE. This is a net loss to the average taxpayer.

That point cannot be hammered home too often. As Deputy Flynn has said, the number of car owners has fallen. That is a point which came out last year. The point should be borne in mind. It is not getting through that in real terms in 1982 we took in, under this heading, £245 million. The following year we took in £275 million and the next year £282 million. Last year we took in approximately £289 million, or £290 million. I am putting these figures forward to show quite clearly that if the price went up the revenue from that price, mainly because of the reduction in the number of cars purchased, fell from £100,000 to £56,000 in two years. The revenue from that tax came down. That is quite obvious from the figures I have put before the House just now. Of goods in this country, 95 per cent go by road freight, which adds to the cost of industry. The cost of freight to Irish industry is 25 per cent higher than all our EC competitors. That further erodes competitiveness, adds to the cost of Irish industry and in the end will probably reduce the final receipts under this heading of tax which makes the whole thing worthless.

I cannot do any better than quote from the Confederation of Irish Industry budget submission to the Government. They put it extremely well, saying that road haulage is an internationally traded service. The rapid expansion of exports offers an opportunity to Irish hauliers to transport these goods by road destinations across Continental Europe and to bring goods from these countries back to Ireland. Irish road transport firms have today the potential to obtain at least half of this internationally traded business. Their current share falls far, far short of this target. They conclude by recommending that taxation on auto diesel oil should be reduced by at least 20 per cent as a first step towards bringing Irish transport costs into line with the European average and therefore increasing Irish exports, with a net benefit to the Irish economy. That submission from the Confederation of Irish Industry makes sense to everybody but the Government.

I have two questions to put to the Taoiseach in conclusion. First, what would the price of a gallon of petrol be today if the reduction in oil prices had been passed on to industry and the consumer? Secondly, what is now the total percentage tax take from the gallon of petrol?

There are other Deputies offering, but I must put the question at 10.30 p.m. and there is the question of information requested of the Taoiseach and he will need some time.

I should have an opportunity to reply.

Despite the drop in world prices for oil, does the Taoiseach intend to fix the price at £3 per gallon for petrol? That is basically what has been led up to from 1983. The Minister for Finance agreed when we indicated the damage done to the complete trading structure of the Border regions by those increase. The Government seem to be hell bent on keeping petrol at that price. Do they intend to keep the price at £3 a gallon or thereabouts?

I have only five minutes in which to reply and I am entitled to reply.

The Taoiseach should be given the right to reply.

The question has been raised again of self-financing tax cuts and I must respond. I am not taking exception to the phraseology of buffonery as far as I am concerned but I am putting to the Leader of the Opposition facts and figures given to me officially from the Department of Finance. I do not think that material of that kind should be described in that manner, whatever about describing a politican in that way. The simple fact is that to keep revenue from spirits the same in cash terms in 1985 as in 1984 would only require a 19 per cent increase. For the real value of the revenue to be the same, a self-financing tax cut means — and if the Leader of the Opposition does not understand that, I hope that he will not be in Government again, otherwise the revenue would disappear——

The Taoiseach should not be so negative. That is not helpful. Let him answer the question.

——that would require a 24 per cent increase. The actual increase of 17.6 per cent was not self-financing. If you are going to cut taxes in such a way that the value of revenue in real terms as purchasing power diminishes, then you will undermine the entire revenue. That kind of self-financing would ruin the country and the Deputy opposite really ought to face that fact at this stage. I think that he misunderstood me when I referred to his last budget. The fault was mine. I was not referring to his last budget as Minister for Finance, but about his last budget as Taoiseach in 1982.

I am glad that the Taoiseach mentioned my budget.

In fact, his last budget as Minister for Finance was in 1969 and if I recall correctly, it was only in 1972 that Deputy Colley, as Minister for Finance, introduced a budget deficit for the first time. The last balanced budget was, I think, in 1971 — two years after the 1969 budget.

What about the 1974 budget?

On the point raised by the Deputy, through a misunderstanding of mine he is, I think, incorrect. The Deputy did not introduce a budget in 1970, for reasons which I do not think we shall go back over.

Now, now.

I said I had put it forward in 1970.

The 1971 budget was also balanced, as I recall. It was only in 1972 that Deputy Colley changed the Fianna Fáil policy on balanced budgets.

Stop the raméis and answer the question

On the question of petrol prices, a number of Deputies have raised a question here as to what our policy is or will be.

The Taoiseach is factually wrong.

On the present price of oil, and assuming that this is maintained and will not fall further or rise again, there would be at the end of this month a certain reduction in the price of petrol, again at the end of February and again at the end of March. By the end of March, the price of petrol, if there were no tax increase, should, on present oil prices, fall by 16p. The amount we are putting on is not that much, but is 11p, 10½p——

——just under 11p, at present oil prices the price of petrol should be about 285p. by the beginning of March.

The Taoiseach should know.

We take it that the Government are going to claw back that reduction.

Excuse me, please let me finish. That would be 14p lower than January 1985 and only 3½p, or 1 per cent higher, than in March of 1983.

That applies for our competitors as well, they will get the reduction, too.

It is not, quite evidently, the Government's intention to——

(Interruptions.)

A Deputy

The Taoiseach is juggling and dropping the ball.

It is not our intention to increase the taxes further under any circumstances that we can at present foresee. The fact is that the price of petrol will be lower on present oil prices by April than it is now, or has been for some time past.

But it will be lower for our competitors.

The Government are taking 175p out of 291p at the moment. What will they be doing tomorrow?

On the question of cost for industry——

I have to put the question, Deputies, please. I am putting the question "That Resolution No. 6 be agreed to, that the ministerial amendment to Resolution No. 10 be agreed to and that the resolution, as amended, be agreed to."

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 79; Níl, 75.

  • Allen, Bernard.
  • Barnes, Monica.
  • Barrett, Seán.
  • Barry, Myra.
  • Barry, Peter.
  • Begley, Michael.
  • Bell, Michael.
  • Bermingham, Joe.
  • Birmingham, George Martin.
  • Boland, John.
  • Bruton, John.
  • Bruton, Richard.
  • Burke, Liam.
  • Carey, Donal.
  • Cluskey, Frank.
  • Collins, Edward.
  • Conlon, John F.
  • Connaughton, Paul.
  • Coogan, Fintan.
  • Cooney, Patrick Mark.
  • Cosgrave, Liam T.
  • Cosgrave, Michael Joe.
  • Coveney, Hugh.
  • Creed, Donal.
  • Crotty, Kieran.
  • Crowley, Frank.
  • D'Arcy, Michael.
  • Deasy, Martin Austin.
  • Desmond, Barry.
  • Desmond, Eileen.
  • Donnellan, John.
  • Dowling, Dick.
  • Doyle, Joe.
  • Durkan, Bernard J.
  • Enright, Thomas W.
  • Farrelly, John V.
  • Fennell, Nuala.
  • FitzGerald, Garret.
  • Taylor, Mervyn.
  • Taylor-Quinn, Madeline.
  • Flaherty, Mary.
  • Glenn, Alice.
  • Griffin, Brendan.
  • Harte, Patrick D.
  • Hegarty, Paddy.
  • Hussey, Gemma.
  • Kavanagh, Liam.
  • Keating, Michael.
  • Kelly, John.
  • Kenny, Enda.
  • L'Estrange, Gerry.
  • McGahon, Brendan.
  • McGinley, Dinny.
  • McLoughlin, Frank.
  • Manning, Maurice.
  • Mitchell, Gay.
  • Mitchell, Jim.
  • Molony, David.
  • Moynihan, Michael.
  • Naughten, Liam.
  • Nealon, Ted.
  • Noonan, Michael.
  • (Limerick East)
  • O'Brien, Fergus.
  • O'Brien, Willie.
  • O'Donnell, Tom.
  • O'Keeffe, Jim.
  • O'Leary, Michael.
  • O'Sullivan, Toddy.
  • O'Toole, Paddy.
  • Owen, Nora.
  • Pattison, Séamus.
  • Prendergast, Frank.
  • Quinn, Ruairí.
  • Ryan, John.
  • Shatter, Alan.
  • Sheehan, Patrick Joseph.
  • Spring, Dick.
  • Timmins, Godfrey.
  • Yates, Ivan.

Níl

  • Ahern, Bertie.
  • Ahern, Michael.
  • Andrews, David.
  • Aylward, Liam.
  • Barrett, Michael.
  • Barrett, Sylvester.
  • Brady, Gerard.
  • Brady, Vincent.
  • Brennan, Mattie.
  • Brennan, Paudge.
  • Brennan, Séamus.
  • Briscoe, Ben.
  • Browne, John.
  • Burke, Raphael P.
  • Byrne, Seán.
  • Calleary, Seán.
  • Collins, Gerard.
  • Conaghan, Hugh.
  • Connolly, Ger.
  • Coughlan, Cathal Seán.
  • Cowen, Brian.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • De Rossa, Proinsias.
  • Doherty, Seán.
  • Fahey, Francis.
  • Fahey, Jackie.
  • Faulkner, Pádraig.
  • Fitzgerald, Gene.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
  • Fitzsimons, Jim.
  • Flynn, Pádraig.
  • Foley, Denis.
  • Gallagher, Dennis.
  • Gallagher, Pat Cope.
  • Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
  • Harney, Mary.
  • Haughey, Charles J.
  • Hilliard, Colm.
  • Hyland, Liam.
  • Kirk, Séamus.
  • Kitt, Michael.
  • Lemass, Eileen.
  • Lenihan, Brian.
  • Leonard, Jimmy.
  • Leonard, Tom.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Lyons, Denis.
  • McCarthy, Seán.
  • McCreevy, Charlie.
  • McEllistrim, Tom.
  • Mac Giolla, Tomás.
  • MacSharry, Ray.
  • Molloy, Robert.
  • Morley, P. J.
  • Moynihan, Donal.
  • Nolan, M. J.
  • Noonan, Michael J. (Limerick West)
  • O'Connell, John.
  • O'Dea, William.
  • O'Hanlon, Rory.
  • O'Keeffe, Edmond.
  • O'Leary, John.
  • O'Malley, Desmond J.
  • Ormonde, Donal.
  • O'Rourke, Mary.
  • Power, Paddy.
  • Reynolds, Albert.
  • Treacy, Noel.
  • Treacy, Seán.
  • Wallace, Dan.
  • Walsh, Joe.
  • Walsh, Seán.
  • Wilson, John P.
  • Woods, Michael.
  • Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Barrett(Dún Laoghaire) and Taylor; Níl, Deputies V. Brady and Browne.
Question put and agreed to.

Financial Resolution No. 6 is agreed to, the ministerial amendment to Financial Resolution No. 10 is made and Financial Resolution No. 10, is amended, is agreed to.

Top
Share