Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 31 Jan 1990

Vol. 395 No. 1

Financial Resolution No. 1: Excise — Hydrocarbons.

The Taoiseach

I move Financial Resolution No. 1:

(1) That the rebate of duty on mineral hydrocarbon light oil provided for in section 56(3) of the Finance Act, 1988 (No. 12 of 1988), shall, as respects mineral hydrocarbon light oil on which it is shown to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners that duty at the rate specified in section 40(1) of the Finance Act, 1989 (No. 10 of 1989), has been paid on or after the 1st day of February, 1990, be calculated at the rate of £2.56 per hectolitre.

(2) That the duty of excise on gaseous hydrocarbons in liquid form imposed by section 41(1) of the Finance Act, 1976 (No. 16 of 1976), shall be charged, levied and paid, as on and from the 1st day of February, 1990, at the rate of £0.393 per gallon in lieu of the rate specified in paragraph 5(9) of the Imposition of Duties (No. 285) (Excise Duties) Order, 1987 (S.I. No. 19 of 1987).

(3) 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 purpose of this resolution is to give effect to a reduction in excise duty of 1.1p, including VAT, on a litre of unleaded petrol, which is the equivalent of 5p per gallon, including VAT, and also to give effect to an excise duty reduction of 43p, including VAT, on a gallon of auto LPG or, as it is commonly known, motor vehicle gas. It is intended that these two reductions will take place from midnight tonight and will have the following estimated effect on Exchequer revenue. The cost of the reduction in unleaded petrol will be £6.5 million in 1990 and the cost of auto LPG will be £0.8 million, making a total of £7.3 million in 1990.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the reduction in unleaded petrol has already been referred to by the Minister for the Environment in his action plan and when it comes into effect it will mean a difference of 10p between leaded and unleaded petrol. This should give an impetus to the sales of unleaded petrol and is in pursuance of our environmental objective. The sales of unleaded petrol have grown from less than 1 per cent a year ago to 13 per cent of total petrol sales at present and we expect that this measure will result in an acceleration of that growth to 25 per cent. We hope that 25 per cent of all petrol sales will be in the form of unleaded petrol.

I will be pleased to answer any other queries that any Member may wish to ask.

An Ceann Comhairle

An amendment has been submitted in the names of the Labour Party Deputies Dick Spring and Mervyn Taylor. It reads:

1. In paragraph (1), to delete "£2.56" and insert "£3.56" in the last line.

Has the amendment been circulated to Members?

Deputies

Yes.

The Taoiseach

I wish to raise a technical point, a Cheann Comhairle. Is the amendment in order seeing that it will result in a loss to the Exchequer? However, if you, Sir, rule that it is, that is all right.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have had time to look at the amendment and it is in order.

Mr. Quinn

I move amendment No. 1:

In paragraph (1), to delete "£2.56" and insert "£3.56" in the last line.

I can understand the Taoiseach's question because this is the only day in the year when such an amendment is in order and to that extent the Taoiseach's intervention is understandable. What this amendment effectively tries to do when you distil, no pun intended, the technicalities involved is to widen the price gap between leaded and unleaded petrol. We welcome the spirit behind the proposal to attempt to get more people to use unleaded petrol than has previously been the case. A figure of 13 per cent is a good achievement relative to the starting point. Let us give credit where credit is due, but if the ultimate aspiration at this time is to achieve only 25 per cent of sales I do not think that is accceptable, having regard to the high profile position recently adopted.

I suggest to the Taoiseach and to the Government that a wider price margin than 10 per cent, given their belief in the infallible efficacy of the market mechanism, would be necessary. There is the additional reality that for many cars, conversion to unleaded petrol is simply not an option.

The Taoiseach

A brief correction: it is 10p, not 10 per cent.

Mr. Quinn

I meant to say 10p. A 10p price differential, in our view, is too small. A target figure of 25 per cent consumption of unleaded as a percentage of total consumption of petrol — which is what I understood the Taoiseach to say based on Government calculations — is too modest. The Government should be aiming for something higher. Bearing in mind the age of our motor stock, the requirement for some cars to convert from leaded to unleaded — when one still must use leaded petrol every third or fourth fill — in order to persuade people into thinking that they should use unleaded petrol, even in cases where their cars cannot be properly adjusted, the price margin must be greater and the differential more attractive than simply 10p. The Labour Party do not believe that this differential of 10p in the price of a gallon of petrol will be sufficient.

It is for that reason we have tabled our amendment to Resolution No. 1. I would invite the Taoiseach or the Minister for the Environment to respond. If necessary there might be some kind of adjusting mechanism introduced elsewhere within the overall budgetary framework. But in regard to this measure, which has received much publicity, we do not believe the Government have gone far enough.

While not germane to this resolution I trust the Ceann Comhairle will allow me to suggest that if we are endeavouring to use the price mechanism to render people more environmentally friendly then it should not be confined to petrol and LPG; coal and other commodities should be included also. I would invite the Government to do so. In our view the proposed price differential incorporated in Resolution No. 1 will not be sufficiently wide to achieve the objective. We are proposing this amendment to render that gap wider so that the exercise would be more productive.

Mr. Byrne

I should like to add my voice in support of my colleague from the Labour Party and to give recognition to the fact that Fianna Fáil are moving somewhat in the right direction with the notion of making it an incentive for motorists to change over to the usage of unleaded petrol. I remember that not so long ago previous Governments sought a derogation from their obligations within the EC to conform and allow the sale of unleaded petrol here. It is my recollection that we fought the implementation of that EC directive every step of the way. Subsequent to that struggle with the EC and the threats on the part of the then owners of the Whitegate Refinery — who threatened the Government of the day with all sorts of statements to the effect that Whitegate was incapable of refining oil to a degree that would conform to the unleaded petrol standard or quality — ultimately the State took a correct decision, put Whitegate into public ownership for which The Workers' Party were very grateful at the time. They took on the seven ugly sisters — the oil cartels — proving them wrong in their contention that they could not refine oil of the quality needed on Irish territory.

We must bear in mind the incredible dangers to public health particularly with regard to children in terms of the absorption of lead into the bloodstream which ultimately lodges in the brain. It has been proved internationally that many children have died as a result of having been exposed to lead. Indeed some unfortunate travellers here have died, through ignorance, having burned lead-lined car batteries. Given the incredible health hazards and the prospect of brain damage the arguments for a wider price differential between leaded and unleaded petrol are indeed strong. Bearing in mind that there are ever more cars being bought, given the disappointing statistics — here I stand open to correction — that fewer than 13 per cent of motorists, with the existing price differential, have moved away from leaded to unleaded petrol, there is need to provide a greater incentive to those motorists who are still reluctant, for whatever reason, to change their type of petrol.

I am particularly concerned that there is not a far greater uptake of unleaded petrol. Because of the increasing use of cars, particularly in Dublin's inner city, the emissions are concentrated on a very small area. Due to the lack of playing facilities in the inner city, many of the poorer children play on the streets and are therefore far more vulnerable to the accumulated lead particles that are emitted at the roadside than children in the outer suburbs and middle class areas where local authorities provide playing facilities.

In conclusion, I support wholeheartedly the notion that we should increase the price differential substantially, given that there is already a tremendous take by the State by way of duty on petrol.

Mr. Dukes

Like Deputy Quinn, I agree that this is a sensible move, a move in the right direction. I would like to ask the Taoiseach what evidence there is for suggesting that a differential of 10p per gallon would achieve the result of bringing sales of lead-free petrol up to 25 per cent of the total sales. Is there any empiric evidence for this? Has a study been carried out of the elasticities in question, or is enough known about this to be able to make that judgment? It seems — and here again I would agree with Deputy Quinn — that the bigger the move we can make the greater the incentive will be to motorists to use lead-free petrol and the quicker there will be a noticeable effect on reduction in atmospheric pollution. I would like the Taoiseach to tell us what the evidence has led the Government to fixing a figure of 10p. From the information he has given us, it seems that every penny of a further reduction would cost about £1.3 million. If that is the case, I would like to know what would be the cost of going further, and if consideration could be given to that.

Mr. McCartan

I acknowledge that the Government are going in the right direction on this issue but I do not consider the gesture is generous enough to achieve a target of 25 per cent of overall consumption. That is not a very commendable target considering the damage that can and does arise from the emissions of lead from motor cars into the atmosphere. There is concern that lead-free petrol is not as readily available throughout the country as it should be. Even in the city the number of outlets still not selling lead-free petrol is very considerable. The Minister for the Environment, who is in the House, might consider how he can impress upon those outlets to provide lead-free petrol and how we can improve on the 25 per cent of total consumption, which is the target in the budget.

Another point that must be considered is the volume of traffic on our roads. Vehicles that crawl along emit huge amounts of pollution into the air. Allied to this is public transport and the replacement of the fleet in the cities. The stock CIE are currently expected to use is old and is doing a great deal of damage to the environment. The replacement of the fleet is inordinately slow due to the starvation of funds. Those issues have to be addressed.

We acknowledge that the Government have moved in the right direction. The Workers' Party support the Labour Party amendment to achieve a higher target but in the event of the amendment falling, we will support this small step in the right direction and hope that more earnest efforts will be made in the coming year to put matters right in this area.

Mr. Howlin

In support of the Labour Party amendment let me say that a start has been made to promote the idea of lead-free petrol and motivating motorists to purchase it. I put it to the Taoiseach that the first 13 per cent of take-up is, in a way, the easy step because the majority of those people were not enticed by the 5p differential to buy this petrol; they were genuinely motivated by a concern for the environment and understand the damage leaded petrol does to the environment. Regardless of the price differential, a minority of people would feel it was a good thing to switch to lead-free petrol, and would have done so as soon as it became available. It has become more readily available thoughout the country in the last 12 months, but we still have a long way to go.

The next step — from the 13 per cent to the Minister's target of 25 per cent — is far more difficult because we have to go beyond those who are motivated or educated enough to understand the consequences of using leaded petrol. We have to reach out to people who have to be nudged and cajoled into buying it and the price mechanism is certainly one effective way of doing that. The 5p differential has not worked because the base is low. The Minister has now targeted 10p as being a sufficient differential to entice a quarter of the motorists to buy unleaded petrol. I doubt that that is enough because if people decide to buy lead free petrol their cars will have to be modified, and there is an expense involved.

The object of the exercise of the Labour Party's amendment is to create a positive financial incentive for people to buy unleaded petrol to go beyond the motivated, sensitive minority and to reach out to a much broader section of the community. I believe the Minister's target of 25 per cent is very modest. Surely our objective should be to entice the majority of motorists to buy unleaded petrol. To pay lip service is one thing but to take concrete action in the sense of providing money for people to convert to unleaded petrol is another, and that is really what is required. If we talk in terms of the green island of Ireland, we have an obligation to take concrete steps on issues such as unleaded petrol.

The point that motivates me particularly is the quite clear case that is now being made on the health issue, the connection between lead pollution in the atmosphere and the damage it does to young children. There is clear and growing evidence that the health, especially the mental health, of young children can be affected by a heavily polluted environment, particularly the heavy lead content in the atmosphere. We have an obligation not to put our young children at risk. In our cities in particular there is a threat to the development of young children from emissions from heavy traffic. From a health perspective there is a very modest obligation on us to ensure that the majority of motorists on our public roads use lead-free petrol at the earliest possible time.

I do not think the amendment put down by the Labour Party is unreasonable. The resources that would be lost to the State by making this adjustment could be recouped. For that reason this amendment is desirable and laudable. Perhaps the Minister, when replying, would assure the House that the Government will do all they can to ensure that ministerial and other public vehicles will run on unleaded petrol. I hope the Minister can give us that assurance. It would be a very good start to this debate if the Minister or the Taoiseach accepted the case being put by all the Opposition parties, a case that is not fundamentally at variance with the budget as it just seeks to move in the direction in which the Minister wants to go at an accelerated pace. It would be a very laudable start to this debate if the Minister accepted the reasonableness of the Opposition and accepted the amendment.

An Ceann Comhairle

Before Deputy Mitchell proceeds, the House will appreciate that Resolutions Nos. 1 and 2 are being taken together and shall be put together for voting purposes at 9.30 p.m. In that situation the House might wish to discuss Resolutions Nos. 1 and 2 within the prescribed time.

Mr. Dukes

I have a small question on procedure. If Resolutions Nos. 1 and 2 are being put together, are they being put in the one question?

An Ceann Comhairle

No, there will be separate decisions.

Mr. G. Mitchell

The Fine Gael Party have submitted amendments to these resolutions which are in the process of being circulated. I would ask the indulgence of the House to raise now the surprise of my party that there is no reference in the Minister's speech to the difficulties of our transport industry due to excessive transport costs. Tourism has merited one paragraph in the ministerial speech.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but we must be precise in dealing with these financial resolutions. Financial Resolution No. 1 deals with hydrocarbons and Resolution No. 2 deals with table waters. I must insist that we confine our remarks to the subject matter of the financial resolutions. The Deputy is straying quite considerably from it.

Mr. G. Mitchell

There has been no attempt in the Minister's speech or in these resolutions to take into account the devastation of Border areas by the total——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will have ample time to put that point of view on the debate on the budget proper, which takes place tomorrow, I gather.

Mr. G. Mitchell

There is an amendment before the House relating to hydrocarbons excise duties which affect transport costs. I cannot see how it is out of order to raise that now because the differential which is being placed before the House between lead free petrol and petrol——

An Ceann Comhairle

I am asking the Deputy not to stray too far from the subject matter of the excise duties involved.

The Taoiseach

We have only a few minutes.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Far from straying, I have not even got off the ground to make the point. It is extraordinary when we have such a high cost in hydrocarbons already, in that industry is already paying 9 per cent of their transport costs in excise duty, that there is no mention of this in the budget.

We have 185,000 containers going northwards every year, being collected as far south as Cork and delivered as far south as London and there is no attempt to address the general question of the cost of transport which is costing industry twice the European average and £200 million more than it would cost if the average cost to industry here were the same as that in the EC. Access costs are vitally important. In the Border area the problem created is that 185,000 units are being taken northwards by northern carriers which constitutes a loss of £70 million worth of business to the Republic. With the advent of 1992 and the proposed changes in cabotage which would allow Northern carriers not just to collect in the South but to collect and deliver in the South which means they could collect in Cork and deliver in Dublin on petrol bought——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is clearly straying into the area of transport costs generally. It is not in order. There will be ample opportunity to go into that matter.

Mr. G. Mitchell

In relation to petrol purchased in Northern Ireland what we should do here is address transport costs generally and petrol costs specifically so that we can do something about this before the road haulage business becomes a thing of the past like the car assembly business. I am dreadfully disappointed that the Minister's speech did not attempt to address the question. It is clear that we will not have a road haulage industry if we continue on the road we are going.

Dr. O'Connell

I congratulate the Government on this bold and courageous move in increasing the differential with regard to unleaded petrol. It will go a long way towards encouraging people to use unleaded petrol, but I would ask the Minister for the Environment to persuade petrol companies to provide the super unleaded petrol which is available in Northern Ireland and Britain but which is not available here. Its unavailability is one of the reasons many motorists are reluctant to use unleaded petrol. The normal grade petrol in many cases gives rise to a sluggish engine. Also, many motorists are unaware of the small modification needed to adjust engines to unleaded petrol usage. I was driving around for a long time before I could arrange to get the necessary modification. Many other people have this problem. It is not a case of not wanting to use the unleaded petrol but that they do not know how to get the modification done quickly. A big publicity drive in that direction would encourage people. People are not opposed to using unleaded petrol per se. We supply only the ordinary grade and not the super grade which is necessary for cars, and this should be borne in mind. A move by the Minister for the Environment might bring about the required result.

The use of unleaded petrol will serve a very useful purpose and I hope that the Green Party represented by Deputy Garland will acknowledge the great move being made by the Government in this regard. We have a big problem, as Deputy Byrne said relating to the inner city, having regard to hyperactivity in younger children which is a prominent sympton of lead intoxication. Lead poisoning manifests itself in erratic behaviour and is something that must not be under estimated by our health personnel. The direction the Government have taken is in the best interests of the country.

The Taoiseach

As I see a number of Deputies offering, might it be agreed that I would get in to reply at 9.25 p.m.?

An Ceann Comhairle

Is it agreed that the Taoiseach shall reply at 9.25 p.m.? Agreed.

Mr. S. Barrett

I have circulated an amendment on behalf of the Fine Gael Party to Resolution No. 2, asking that excise duty on table waters be abolished.

Mr. McCartan

I have not seen it.

An Ceann Comhairle

I have not seen it either.

Mr. S. Barrett

It is being circulated.

Mr. McCartan

What does that mean?

Mr. S. Barrett

It has gone to the Bills Office. When they get it I presume it will come this way. The reason for my amendment is that the soft drinks association estimate that——

An Ceann Comhairle

Perhaps the Deputy will read his amendment so that we will have an idea of what he is proposing.

Mr. S. Barrett

It reads:

In the fourth line of subsection (1), to delete all words from and including "charged, levied and paid" down to and including "(No. 13 of 1986)." in the seventh line and substitute "abolished, as on and from the first day of February, 1990.".

The reason for this amendment is that the information supplied to us indicates that we are only one of four countries in the European Community that has excise duties on soft drinks. It has been established that a minimum of 8,000,000 litres of soft drinks are smuggled across the Border from Northern Ireland each year.

The level of consumption of soft drinks per head of population in this country is 58 litres per head compared with 75 litres per head in Northern Ireland. All the statistics show that, as a result of the difference in price, we are inviting further smuggling from Northern Ireland if we continue the level of excise duty imposed at present.

The Taoiseach probably knows that 2,750 people are directly employed in the manufacturing plants supplying soft drinks, not to mention the additional revenue available to the State from subsidiary companies involved in other aspects, such as the provision of containers and so on. I know that Deputy Garland wants to say a few words, so I ask the House to support our amendment to abolish excise duty altogether because there is no excise duty in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. As long as we impose excise duty we will face the continuous problem of large scale smuggling from Northern Ireland.

Mr. Garland

I do not want to go over past ground, and Deputy Byrne has spoken very eloquently about the damage which unleaded petrol causes to children. I congratulate the Government on their further gesture towards increasing the differential but it is not enough. The very minimum should be 15p per gallon as against the 10p approximately proposed by the Government. The sales of unleaded petrol are running at only 13 per cent which, while a big increase on a year ago, are still very small. There is insufficient incentive in the Government's proposal to make much difference to motorists and I commend the Labour Party amendment.

Mr. Allen

I support the proposal that the differential between leaded and unleaded petrol should be far greater. However, I should like to focus on the question of excise duty on table waters. I hope that the reduction will be passed on to the consumer because our record in recent times is not very good. I will cite a few examples. There is an excise duty of 36p on alcoholic beer and a 3p excise duty on non-alcoholic beer. However, in a pub they cost the same. The consumer is not getting the benefit, the person who benefits is either the publican or the brewery and there is a scam in that regard. Because of lack of price control they are allowed to charge what they like.

The same applies to currency fluctuations in relation to Polish coal. There was a sevenfold devaluation in Polish currency but there was not one penny reduction in the price of coal to the consumer. There was a reduction recently in the price of coffee but, again, the consumer did not benefit. I hope that any reduction in excise duties will benefit the consumer and that there will be some form of check and price control at retail level.

Deputy Blaney rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

I am anxious to call Deputy Blaney but it was decided to call the Taoiseach about now.

The Taoiseach

He may have one minute.

Mr. Blaney

That is quite sufficient.

Mr. Dukes

Do not wither on the vine.

Mr. Blaney

I support the increased differential but it is very much a secondary consideration. In the interests of the Border counties and the non-competitive situation into which we have been put, I would much prefer if excise duty on petroleum spirit, was wiped out altogether so that we would be on a par with Great Britain. Many people have been driven out of business, I need not go over it but some of my best friends ended up in the local mental hospital as a result of this.

(Interruptions.)

Mr. Blaney

Perhaps Members would suggest that I should be in with them but, if I was, all the other Members would be there before me. That is the truth and the Taoiseach should know it.

The Taoiseach

I do know it.

Mr. Dukes

The Taoiseach is not aware of the depth of public concern on that issue either.

Mr. Blaney

The price differential is a monster about which I warned the Leader of the Opposition before he created it a few years ago.

Mr. Dukes

The monster was there long before I came on the scene.

An Ceann Comhairle

I call on the Taoiseach to reply.

The Taoiseach

It is perhaps a little unusual — but not unpleasant — to be debating a taxation resolution about which there is, if not agreement, at least a reasonably pleasant all-round atmosphere. I want to deal quickly with a number of points raised by Deputies.

Probably the only real objection to the Labour Party motion is the cost, which would be about £8 million. The Minister's proposal in the budget will cost £7.3 million in 1990 and, unfortunately, the Labour Party proposal would cost an extra £8 million. On that score another suggestion could be made: you could widen the differential by reducing the price of unleaded petrol, putting something extra on ordinary petrol and having a neutral budget. However, that would have the disadvantage, which I am sure would bring Deputy Blaney to his feet perhaps even more vociferously, of accentuating the difference between ourselves and Northern Ireland even more. We must keep a delicate balance.

Deputy O'Connell asked about super-unleaded. I have very good news for the good doctor, super-unleaded is available in Dublin. I do not know if I will be accused of commercialism but I might as well give credit where credit is due. Shell have 20 outlets in Dublin where super-unleaded is available, so we are progressing.

Mr. Byrne

What will the differential be on that?

The Taoiseach

I do not know. The way to look at it is that we are making progress and Deputies generally agree with that although some of them would like us to go further. My colleague, the Minister for the Environment, included this in his environmental package for which £20 million is provided in the budget. It is not just in this respect that the budget is environmentally friendly because there is a total of £20 million, including this £7 million——

Mr. Dukes

It is a package of mutton dressed as lamb.

The Taoiseach

The Fine Gael Party have put themselves out of court and I do not listen to what they say. They have withdrawn all co-operation with the Government and I do not really——

Mr. Dukes

We will see the Taoiseach in court.

The Taoiseach

I am not obliged to listen to anything they say.

Mr. Carey

Poor Taoiseach.

The Taoiseach

Diesel is not affected in so far as leaded or unleaded petrol is concerned. We are trying to encourage auto gas because it is environmentally friendly too. My colleague, the Minister for the Environment, also tells me that he is making efforts, apart from this price differential, to have all the Garda and semi-State cars use unleaded.

Deputy Dukes asked if we had any evidence to indicate that this price differential would help the sale of unleaded petrol. I should like to indicate to him that we have very clear evidence to that effect. The reduction of 5p that the Minister introduced in the budget last year was progressively improving the situation. I am told that it improved it quite dramatically. In the first quarter that it was introduced there was a 1 per cent increase in its use, in the second quarter it was 5 per cent, in the third quarter it went to 7 per cent and in the fourth quarter it went to 11 per cent. In December last it went to 12 per cent. The House can see that increasingly it had an impact on the purchase of the product.

In regard to the Labour Party amendment, I should like to point out that when this change comes into operation we will have a differential of 10p. In Britain it is still only 8p. I was asked about the number of outlets here. I should like to tell the House that the number of outlets has been rising rapidly in the past 12 months. At the end of 1988 and the beginning of 1989 there were only 75 but at the end of 1989, possibly because of the result of the 5p differential introduced in last year's budget, that figure had risen to 1,350. We can accept that the price differential is improving the position.

The increased differential of 10p will have a major impact but we should also supplement the incentive of this price differential by propaganda efforts. I know the Minister for the Environment and Members of the House will play their part in trying to promote the sale of unleaded petrol because it is the way that we must go. Eventually we hope we will have nothing but unleaded petrol for sale here. There is a long-term problem in that regard because about one-third of the vehicles in the country can never be adjusted for unleaded petrol. We will have to wait to let the effluxion of time deal with that problem. I hope the day is not too far away when we will have no leaded petrol being used.

With regard to table waters, I should like to say it is only a question of price. Our modest proposal, which will reduce the ordinary bottle of lemonade and so on by about 5p, will cost us about £3 million in 1990 but if we were to do away with the duty altogether, as proposed by Deputy Barrett, it would cost another £17 million approximately.

Mr. S. Barrett

Is the Taoiseach not taking into account the prevention of smuggling?

The Taoiseach

It would be difficult to estimate that.

Mr. S. Barrett

Does the Taoiseach recall the talk about self-financing cuts?

The Taoiseach

In hard cash terms, the Fine Gael proposal would cost us £17 million in 1990. If Fine Gael went into this a little more deeply they would be inclined to use that £17 million, if it was to spare, for some other more worthy purpose. We are making a start here in eliminating the differential between ourselves and the North of Ireland. All this is in preparation for 1992 and tax harmonisation.

In conclusion, I should like to say I am grateful to the Members who contributed to the debate. I can only repeat that we went a little down the road last year, we are going a little further this year and next year, all being well, we will go further again. In the meantime we will use all our good efforts to promote the sale of unleaded petrol in addition to the incentive provided by this price differential.

Question put: "That the figure proposed to be deleted stand."

The Dáil divided: Tá, 82; Níl, 80.

Tá

• Ahern, Bertie.
• Ahern, Dermot.
• Ahern, Michael.
• Andrews, David.
• Brennan, Mattie.
• Brennan, Séamus.
• Briscoe, Ben.
• Browne, John (Wexford).
• Burke, Raphael P.
• Calleary, Seán.
• Callely, Ivor.
• Clohessy, Peadar.
• Collins, Gerard.
• Connolly, Ger.
• Coughlan, Mary Theresa.
• Cowen, Brian.
• Cullimore, Séamus.
• Daly, Brendan.
• Davern, Noel.
• Dempsey, Noel.
• Dennehy, John.
• de Valera, Síle.
• Ellis, John.
• Fahey, Frank.
• Fahey, Jackie.
• Fitzgerald, Liam Joseph.
• Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
• Flood, Chris.
• Flynn, Pádraig.
• Gallagher, Pat the Cope.
• Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
• Harney, Mary.
• Haughey, Charles J.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hilliard, Colm.
• Hyland, Liam.
• Jacob, Joe.
• Kelly, Laurence.
• Kenneally, Brendan.
• Kirk, Séamus.
• Kitt, Michael P.
• Aylward, Liam.
• Barrett, Michael.
• Brady, Gerard.
• Brady, Vincent.
• Kitt, Tom.
• Lawlor, Liam.
• Lenihan, Brian.
• Leonard, Jimmy.
• Leyden, Terry.
• Lyons, Denis.
• Martin, Micheál.
• McCreevy, Charlie.
• McDaid, Jim.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• Molloy, Robert.
• Morely, P.J.
• Nolan, M.J.
• Noonan, Michael J.
• (Limerick West).
• O'Connell, John.
• O'Dea, Willie.
• O'Donoghue, John.
• O'Hanlon, Rory.
• O'Keeffe, Ned.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Malley, Desmond J.
• O'Rourke, Mary.
• Power, Seán.
• Quill, Máirín.
• Reynolds, Albert.
• Roche, Dick.
• Smith, Michael.
• Stafford, John.
• Treacy, Noel.
• Tunney, Jim.
• Wallace, Dan.
• Wallace, Mary.
• Walsh, Joe.
• Wilson, John P.
• Woods, Michael.
• Wyse, Pearse.

Níl

• Ahearn, Therese.
• Allen, Bernard.
• Barnes, Monica.
• Barrett, Seán.
• Barry, Peter.
• Bell, Michael.
• Belton, Louis J.
• Blaney, Neil Terence.
• Boylan, Andrew.
• Bradford, Paul.
• Browne, John (Carlow-Kilkenny).
• Bruton, John.
• Bruton, Richard.
• Byrne, Eric.
• Carey, Donal.
• Connaughton, Paul.
• Connor, John.
• Cotter, Bill.
• Creed, Michael.
• Crowley, Frank.
• Currie, Austin.
• D'Arcy, Michael.
• Deasy, Austin.
• Deenihan, Jimmy.
• De Rossa, Proinsias.
• Doyle, Joe.
• McGahon, Brendan.
• McGinley, Dinny.
• Mac Giolla, Tomás.
• McGrath, Paul.
• Mitchell, Gay.
• Mitchell, Jim.
• Moynihan, Michael.
• Nealon, Ted.
• Noonan, Michael.
• (Limerick East).
• O'Brien, Fergus.
• O'Keeffe, Jim.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Sullivan, Gerry.
• Dukes, Alan.
• Durkan, Bernard.
• Enright, Thomas W.
• Farrelly, John V.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Finucane, Michael.
• FitzGerald, Garret.
• Flaherty, Mary.
• Flanagan, Charles.
• Foxe, Tom.
• Garland, Roger.
• Gilmore, Eamon.
• Gregory, Tony.
• Harte, Paddy.
• Higgins, Jim.
• Higgins, Michael D.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Howlin, Brendan.
• Kavanagh, Liam.
• Kemmy, Jim.
• Kenny, Enda.
• Lee, Pat.
• Lowry, Michael.
• McCartan, Pat.
• McCormack, Pádraic.
• O'Sullivan, Toddy.
• Owen, Nora.
• Pattison, Séamus.
• Quinn, Ruairí.
• Rabbitte, Pat.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Ryan, Seán.
• Shatter, Alan.
• Sheehan, Patrick J.
• Sherlock, Joe.
• Spring, Dick.
• Stagg, Emmet.
• Tylor-Quinn, Madeleine
• Timmins, Godfrey.

Tellers: Tá, Deputies V. Brady and Clohessy; Níl, Deputies Howlin and Ferris.

Question declared carried.

Amendment declared lost.

Financial Resolution agreed to.