Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 10 Dec 1952

Vol. 41 No. 4

Finance (Excise Duties) (Vehicles) Bill, 1952—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Smith)

In August last a White Paper was published which contained the full details of the Government's proposals for the revision of motor taxation. It was followed in October by Financial Resolutions which were passed by the Dáil after lengthy debates. They, in turn, were followed by this Bill, which was also fully debated in the Dáil.

The Bill is designed to effect comprehensive changes in motor taxation, the chief aim being to increase the income of the Road Fund. At the same time, the opportunity has been taken to remove certain anomalies and to introduce some improvements.

Senators who have contacts with local authorities will not need to be convinced that more should be spent on the roads. The few facts I am about to present will give some idea of the problem confronting road authorities. The average cost of road work is now over two and a half times what it was in 1939, but rates of motor taxation have remained practically unchanged since 1926. The chief exception is the private car class, rates of duty on which were increased by the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1947, the greater part of the proceeds, however, being diverted to the Exchequer. This year, for the first time since 1947, the full proceeds of motor taxation remain in the Road Fund for allocation towards road works. The second part of the adjustment of road finances will take place when this Bill becomes law and rates of duty bearing a more reasonable relation to present-day costs come into force.

While the increasing volume of traffic has brought a substantial addition to the Road Fund, this increase in traffic creates its own demand for more road work. Furthermore, traffic to-day is faster and heavier and operates more miles per week and more extensively over the road system than it did prewar. A striking feature is the tendency of more and heavier traffic to resort to county roads, most of which were constructed to take the horse and cart. Approximately 34,000 miles of these county roads are still unsurfaced, while a proportion of our main roads are also in that condition. Thousands of miles of main road require restoration, strengthening, re-surfacing and realignment. Many of our important bridges must be replaced. In the cities, schemes must be undertaken to reduce traffic congestion.

The extra £830,000 approximately which these proposals should yield is not the absolute amount we need, but rather the amount of the extra revenue which we think can reasonably be collected from road users for the improvement and better maintenance of their "permanent way."

The changes introduced by the Bill may be summarised as follows:—

(1) Private Cars. —Duties are increased by sums ranging from £1 to £2 per annum; this takes account of the fact that the duties on these vehicles were increased with effect from 1948. A new method of calculating horse-power, based on the cubic capacity of the engine, will at the same time be introduced by regulations.

(2) Motor Cyles. —The duties will in future be based on the cylinder capacity of the engine instead of the unladen weight of the vehicle as at present. Low rates will apply to engine-assisted pedal-cycles and auto-cycles, while special provision is made for pedestrian-controlled vehicles (milk trolleys, etc.).

(3) Goods Vehicles. —Duties will be increased by up to 50 per cent. in the case of the lighter vehicles and by higher percentages in the case of heavy vehicles, the new rates being graduated by quarter tons. The extra duty in respect of trailers will be graduated according to the weight of the drawing vehicle. The concession allowed for goods vehicles assembled in Ireland from Irish manufactured parts is extended to vehicles not exceeding one and a half tons in weight unladen.

(4) Tractors. —No increase is proposed for the 5/- class of tractor, while a single rate of £8 is substituted for the rates of £6 and £10 for tractors used for agricultural haulage. The rates of duty on other tractors are increased by 50 per cent.

(5) Large Public Service Vehicles, i.e., Buses. —The rates of duty on these vehicles will be increased by 20 per cent.

(6) Small Public Service Vehicles.— This term comprises taxis and hackneys. Up to 1948 they were liable to the rates of duty charged on private cars, subject to limits at ten and 20 horse-power respectively. As from that year increased rates of duty became payable on private cars, but not on other vehicles. It is now proposed to revert to the pre-1948 position whereby taxis and hackneys will be taxed at the rates applicable to private cars, subject to the horse-power limits I have mentioned.

(7) Hearses.—There has been considerable difficulty over a period as to the appropriate tax category for motor hearses. The Bill makes it clear that in future they will be taxed at the private car rates, subject to a limit of 12 h.p.

(8) Trade Licences.—Rates of duty will be increased by 50 per cent.

(9) Road Construction Vehicles.— These will be exempt from duty.

(10) Driving Licences.—The Bill confirms the increase in duty on driving licences by 10/- as from 23rd October last, which was given force by a Financial Resolution under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927.

In addition to the gains it makes under the Bill, the Road Fund benefits in another respect. Payments will be made by Government Departments to the Road Fund in respect of the use of their vehicles on public roads as from 1st January next. These payments will be borne on the Votes for the Departments and offices concerned.

Apart from the increase in duty on driving licences, the new rates of duty are designed to come into force on the 1st January, which starts a new motor taxation year. Senators will appreciate that it is necessary to have the Bill enacted as early as possible before the 1st January, so that local authorities may proceed with the collection of duty, which in normal years starts early in December. I ask the Seanad, therefore, for the speedy passage of the Bill.

Mr. McGuire

The Minister has told us that this Bill is designed to effect comprehensive changes in motor taxation, the chief aim, he says, being to increase the income of the Road Fund. I view these proposals with disfavour for several reasons.

The first reason is that I feel that here once again we have the arbitrary approach to this whole subject on the part of the Government. Those proposals have been produced without any direct consultation with those concerned. In fact, the proposals are definitely against the advice that has been repeatedly given by the motor interests as to the method of dealing with this particular subject. Repeatedly, the Motor Traders' Association have given their advice on the use of a flat rate of taxation, plus a petrol tax and there is no sign of that. Therefore, once again I must come back to my pet subject, which is that there is no sign of a vocational approach. We still have the approach we are now used to; this one comes following the approach to health matters in the medical profession and also the approach to certain things in connection with the business community. That is my first objection to these proposals.

One of the great arguments in favour of proper consultation with the people concerned before bringing in measures of this kind is that it is an elementary and important principle of democratic Government that you should have the consent of the governed, and there is no better way of having the consent of the governed than by consulting them beforehand, because in that way they are part and parcel of whatever arrangement is produced. It is only right and natural that they should be much more agreeable to the carrying out of proposals framed in that way.

We are told that the cost of making roads has been considerably increased in recent years, that rates of motor taxation have remained unchanged since 1926, and that there would seem to be a reasonable case for an increase in motor taxation. That is not true, and there is not really a case for increased taxation because it ignores the fact that motor taxation through all these years has been too great and motorists have been paying too heavily all along for their share in the taxation of the community. Motorists not only pay taxes for putting vehicles on the road, but they also pay petrol tax pay taxes imposed in the form of duties on motors and parts coming into the country. In addition to that, roads in this country have been maintained to some degree out of local rates and both private motorists and lorry owners and the different people who use motor transport are in most cases taxed as ratepayers as well. Therefore, they are caught both ways, as private citizens and then specifically as motor users.

I think that all Deputies and Senators have had communications from different bodies connected with the use of motors in this country, from lorry owners, chambers of commerce, and even individual commercial firms, pointing out the unfairness of this particular taxation, and not only its unfairness but its undesirability.

Concerning that point I have been making about the impositions motorists have to bear, the Merchant Lorry Owners' Assocation, in a letter which was sent to all members of the Dáil and Seanad, dated October 9th, pointed out that: "The latest figures issued by the Department of Local Government indicated that approximately £5,000,000 was spent on the roads in 1949-50, of which less than £2,500,000 was subscribed from the Exchequer Road Fund. In the same period," continues the letter, "the Exchequer alone collected the best part of £7,000,000 from vehicle owners by way of the duties and tax already mentioned. To-day the difference is even more marked. In spite of these figures we are told that there is a clear case for an increase in motor taxation."

The point there is the one I made in the beginning, namely, that although at first sight it would seem there is a case for an increase in motor taxation, that would only hold if you did not take into consideration the over-taxation imposed on motorists all these years.

Now, this objection has been pretty well dealt with the Dáil, but I think it is no harm that we should have our own say in this House on it. One of the subjects discussed in the Dáil quite extensively was the effect that these particular taxation proposals would have on the object on which the money is to be expended, namely, the upkeep of the roads. There are two ways of dealing with this whole question. In business, the proposition is, first of all, to decide what has to be done and what it is going to cost, and if you have not enough money you naturally turn around and say: "Can I do the same job for less money and do it better, or have I just to get more money?"

The State find it is easy to get money and they go for the money instead of seeing whether the roads can be repaired more efficiently and economically. That is the line of approach. I am not on a county council, but I have read the speeches of county councillors all over the country and they seem to suggest that the method of keeping the roads in the country is old-fashioned, in that each county council is responsible for its own road-making. I know, as a motorist going from Dublin to Cork, that you see an immense difference in the quality and in the manner in which the roads are made. You go through five or six different county council areas; in one area the roads are magnificently kept, in another case they are very bad and, in yet another, middling. There is no uniformity and it is obvious that it must cost more to do the things in that way.

One of the things which should have been examined before these proposals were brought forward is the question of how a job could be done more efficiently and cheaply, and the result might have been that such tax impositions might not be called for, or possibly there would be very much smaller impositions.

Another reason why I view these proposals with disfavour is because the business community and individual citizens are inflicted with worries of all kinds, and especially with the problem of how to live. There is the high cost of living, and everybody is concerned with making ends meet. This particular tax is most undesirable at the moment, when lorry owners find their very existence threatened by certain Córas Iompair Éireann proposals. On top of these proposals they are further worried by ever-increasing taxation on everything they do in pursuit of their occupations. At present those engaged in running any business, and those engaged in the motor trade, are no exceptions; they have had to face wage increases of all kinds, workmen's compensation increases, public health payments resulting from the higher wages, more social insurance contributions, higher interest rates for mortgages, and they now have increased motor taxation on top of all these.

The result must be increased prices for everything they do which, of course, translates itself into the operations and prices of all the people who use transport in any way, either directly or indirectly. In other words, it is another twist to the price spiral, sending it further upwards.

I will not attempt to say anything about the effect of this taxation on the agricultural community, because that is a subject which is best dealt with by somebody more familiar with the problems of agriculture than I am. I would like to say, however, that I feel that here again we have an example of the State ever looking for more and more money, more and more taxes.

There is really a limit to the taxpaying capacity of the community, but there is no limit to the appetite of the State for more and more money. It is most frightening that in every way and every day we see new demands of all kinds. Arising out of these particular proposals, one of the things we should consider is how we are going to cut down ever-increasing expenditure by the State. I suggest that we refer to the meeting in the Gresham Hotel, where the Minister for Industry and Commerce addressed the business community and gave them a piece of advice.

He gave them a piece of advice which, I suggest, could quite easily be applied to Governments as well, that they cannot expect to get unlimited sums of money from the consuming public. He told the business people that they had protection and that that protection could not be extended any further, that the business people must get down to it, and, by efficiency and good management, do things just as well for less money. I recommend the same principle to Governments. I think that the same service could be given on the roads, that we could have better roads for less money, if the whole method of dealing with the roads were on a more business-like basis.

One element in the making of roads which is not conducive to such an achievement is the semi-dole character of roadmaking. Men are put on roads merely for the giving of employment, and, though we are all in favour of giving employment to our workers and agree that it is something which must be done, I suggest that it should not be done in an uneconomic fashion which would very often seem to be a feature of the employment of men at work on the roads. I must say that I regret the imposition of this extra taxation on motorists, in addition to the taxation already imposed on them as citizens, and I still commend to the Minister the proposals which have been put to him and to his predecessors in other Governments by the vocational body best able to give advice in the matter, the motor trade association and those engaged in the motor industries.

Mr. Summerfield

The system of a road tax on motor vehicles was introduced originally in Britain to suit a set of conditions which at that time operated in Britain. In the intervening years, Britain found that the system was crippling the industry which it was trying to preserve, with the result that the road tax, as a road tax, has been dropped and a limited amount of taxation is imposed on motor vehicles, irrespective of size. Though the Minister, as Senator McGuire suggested, did not seek the advice of people who have spent their lives at this job, these people did seek out the Minister, and, three weeks before the introduction of the White Paper, I personally was on a deputation from the motor trade which put before the Minister an alternative scheme, a scheme which we had spent years studying and which we still claim was worthy of more than a scant dismissal because of the Minister's fear about embarking on an experiment, as he told us.

Why should we in this country be, so far as I know, the only country in the civilised world where the mere ownership of a motor vehicle is taxed at the high rate now suggested? We suggested a scheme, carefully thought out and applying to all types of vehicle, whether private or commercial, of a nominal fee for registration, the remainder to be got from a petrol or fuel tax. If we want to make it equitable and just, can anyone suggest a better method than that, a method whereby the amount of tax paid to the State on any vehicle is in direct proportion to the use it makes of the road and the weight of the vehicle itself?

I perhaps will shock the House when I remind them of the load the motor vehicle user has to bear, just because he is a motor user. The figures for 1951 revealed that road tax collected amounted to £2,814,000; that driving licences yielded £115,000; petrol tax, £3,631,000; parts and accessories, £1,107,000; and excise duties on the domestic manufacture of tyres and tubes in Cork, £170,000, giving a total collected from the motorist as such of £7,837,000. Here are the 1952 figures: an increase of roughly £700,000 in road tax, the amount in respect of driving licences doubled; and an increase in the yield of petrol tax from £3,600,000 to £6,200,000. Assuming that the yields from customs duties on parts and accessories and excise duties on tyres and tubes are the same, we find a total of £11,207,000, of purely motor tax collected.

I think I am right in suggesting that it is unfair to say that the motorist is only contributing to the cost of the roads the sums that are paid into the Road Fund, a fund which, as the Minister admitted, was raided year after year by various Ministers for Finance for the purposes of the Central Fund. Although this particular Bill before us only increase the liability of the private motorist from £1 to £2, in point of fact, since 1947, the owner of the smallest car used in this country—some of them as low as 5.4 horse-power—has to pay a tax which has increased from £8 to £13 a year, and the maximum tax, in the case of cars assembled in Ireland, with a content to suit the Minister, has gone from £16 to £30.

I am with the Minister, as every man is, in realising that, if we want roads, and goodness knows we do, they have to be made and maintained, but the motorist is not the only road user. He is, however, the only road user who has to pay specially for the provision and maintenance of roads. Horse vehicles and all the bicycles in the country use the roads, but they are not taxed specially for that use. I have no intention of going over all the arguments which have been used, but I want to say that I have been on three deputations to the Minister—one before this White Paper was thought of, so far as we are aware; another immediately after its introduction; and a third on which all the commercial industries of the country were represented. Each of these deputations stated forcibly the arguments why this additional motor taxation should not be imposed.

It is true to say that the tremendous increase in the cost of the taxation of the commercial vehicle will be reflected in higher delivery costs, which costs, in return, will be reflected in a higher cost of living. There can be no doubt about that. If, as we see is the case, bus transport has to pay a greatly increased tax, will anybody suggest that that tax will not be reflected, in due course, in increased fares? If something more were needed, was it needed on the basis of the punitive action set out in the Bill? I suggest it was not, and, while I feel that I am banging my head against a wall, because we know the Minister's mind in this matter—he has refused all amendments in the Dáil—I still join with Senator McGuire in feeling that these arguments should be placed on record. I am convinced that this is a bad Bill, a Bill which increases the load, already too heavy, on the motorist, whether private or commercial, and I wish that, even now, the Minister would see his way to drop it.

Mr. Baxter

I should like to hear from the Minister some reason or explanation for his being charged with the responsibility of introducing this measure into the Oireachtas. It is purely a measure of taxation, and I think it is a principle which we ought not to encourage that every Minister of the Cabinet can, in his turn, be charged with the obligation of imposing taxation, when, in fact, that responsibility should be borne by the Minister for Finance.

The Minister for Local Government tries to make us believe that the purpose of this legislation is to build up a Road Fund so that the cost of improving the roads in the country will be paid for by the people who are using them. I suggest that the purpose of this Bill is first to bring money into the Exchequer and secondly to do something towards rehabilitating the transport organisation of the country. The excuse given to us that it is for the purpose of building up the Road Fund, that it is going to save the ratepayers and to enable us to make better roads at the expense of the people who use them, is an argument which I discount completely.

I think we should realise that we have a transportation organisation in this country to-day that is slowly and surely consuming the whole country and which when it has achieved that, is going to die slowly of starvation because there will be nothing left for it to feed on. Behind the mind of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, no doubt, there is that presumption that the burden of taxation which the motoring community will have to bear, under this measure, will make many now engaged in motor transport so sick that they will go off into their corner and abandon their present way of earning their livelihood and leave the transport of the country to somebody else. That is a dream which is not going to be accomplished.

The Minister for Finance, no doubt, has in mind, with the Minister for Local Government as his instrument, making the owners of lorries, cars and tractors who will continue to use the roads pay a much more considerable amount in taxation. I cannot understand how anybody, representing the agricultural community, cannot see the full implications of this taxation and the effects it is going to have on agriculture. But I do not understand how anybody, realising the implications, can be instrumental in imposing such a burden on agriculture in its position to-day. It does not matter whether you are carrying cattle or artificial manures or other farm produce, every penny of the increase in taxation which is going to follow this Bill will eventually come from the farmers. It seems to be the point of view of the Government that by collecting money from the people they can spend it more efficiently for the people than the people themselves can do.

There is no use in the Minister trying to convince me that the farmers in the country are going to be better off under this legislation. Even if he is better off in so far as paying his share of the burden of the maintenance and upkeep of roads is concerned he will have a heavier burden in the cost of transporting his goods. Go to any fair in the country and you will see the number of trucks and lorries which are in attendance at such fairs. There are thousands of trucks at the cattle markets, and what is going to be the effect on the cattle industry of these additional imposts on trucks and lorries? So far as Córas Iompair Éireann are concerned, what they will do to meet the extra taxation will be to charge higher rates for the transport of cattle and other agricultural goods which they might carry. The farmers will have to pay for it.

In the last analysis the increases which will result from the increased taxation will be paid by the producers of the goods. I say that the agricultural community are being very badly served by a Minister who will impose burdens like this on farmers without any effort to discover their point of view or to find out what are the consequences to them as producers. I know this matter has been raised with the Minister in the Dáil. He was very inflexible indeed and it is beyond my comprehension that he should be so. I think in certain districts and areas of the country the dairying industry is going to be considerably disturbed by this measure and the whole scheme of production may be thrown out of gear as a result of this particular taxation.

It has been brought to the Minister's notice that there are areas in the country where the method of transporting milk to the creameries has been completely changed in the last few years. In my opinion that was a tremendous advance but now all that development is likely to be hamstrung as a result of this legislation by the Minister. I think the Minister should reconsider his attitude in this matter because it is of vital importance to the dairying industry in certain parts of the country and may have disastrous consequences if something is not done about it. I would draw the attention of the House to the fact, that in 1939 we had 2,067 tractors in the country and, in 1949, we had 10,145. I might have gone further into the figures to see how many horses we had in one year as against another, but I did not do so. I think we can safely draw the conclusion that there has been a considerable change over to the use of tractors which are taking the place of horses. The development has been such that in some small farms it is not necessary to keep a horse at all. In some of the dairying areas the tractor is being used for bringing the milk to the creameries and it has now become something with which we cannot dispense without a very considerable loss in production.

This matter was raised in the Dáil during the Report Stage. The Minister made a case in the other House. It was somewhat to the effect that four or five farmers with tractors could change about day or week and haul their own milk to the creamery on a day agreed. One would do the work for the others, and the position is not going to be influenced by this legislation at all. That is something I reject. I do not accept that that is the position at all.

Mr. Smith

Well, it is the position.

Mr. Baxter

That is not what is taking place in Cavan as I know it.

Mr. Smith

I am not talking of what is taking place; I am talking about what will take place when these regulations come into effect.

Mr. Baxter

I do not think that will take place because there is no such supply of tractors about which the Minister talked so lightly. It is not possible, in my district anyhow, for the farmers to exchange their tractors. There is no such number of tractors at all.

Mr. Smith

I did not say there was.

Mr. Baxter

That was what you said could be done. I am talking about what the position will be as a result of this legislation.

Mr. Smith

Might I make this point? If I am to be quoted, I should like to be quoted correctly.

Mr. Baxter

I have the Minister's reply here. I will read the whole thing. There was a certain amount of back chat. I will now quote from the Official Report of the 12th November, 1952, column 1332, Volume 134:—

"Mr. Hughes: I understand that a farmer could only haul his own produce.

Mr. Smith: And that of his neighbour if he is not doing it for reward. In hundreds of cases six or eight or ten farmers agreed to take turn about in carrying milk to the creamery or taking pigs or cattle to the market or turf from the bog. They co-operated with their neighbours. I admit that it would be impossible to be sure that there would not be an exchange of payment of one kind or another. But, short of giving a man paying an £8 tax the right to go out and haul merchandise of all kinds, he is perfectly free to engage in the sort of haulage in which he engaged with a horse and cart or to engage, in cooperation with his neighbours, in the pursuit of agriculture. If he has a tractor, he can engage in the haulage that is necessary to enable him to do his work. There is no reason for all these ambiguities which are being built up about this. They are not real; they are only imaginary."

We can get them cleared up. I will give a precise case of which I have knowledge. My neighbour across the road has a tractor. I think he has been hauling the milk of about 15 farmers to the creamery, taking between 300 and 350 gallons of milk a day. He is being paid for that. He was able to do that because of Orders that were made by Deputy Dillon and Deputy Morrissey. Now, that was done on a tax of £6. That will not be possible any longer unless this tractor owner pays £31 as a minimum.

Mr. Smith

On a point of correction. It is not correct to say that the individual described by Senator Baxter was not entitled to do what the Senator has claimed. It was held by some district justices that he was entitled to do so, but on the other hand it was held by the majority of district justices that he was not. There was on that point ambiguity all over the country. There was no legal entitlement—at least it was so held by most district justices. I am not responsible for what the law was or for the regulations that were made thereunder. I am providing as was stated in the extract from the Official Report read out by Senator Baxter.

Mr. Baxter

Whatever about the ambiguity that existed heretofore there will be no ambiguity any longer. I have given a case where a man liable for a £6 tax hauled the milk for 15 farmers about three miles to the creamery. I wish the Minister would let the ambiguity continue. A great many other people would wish the same thing. I do not think there was anything wrong about it. I do not know what the position is. There is in the Irish Trade Journal and Statistical Bulletin for September an Order which was made in relation to the carriage of milk. This is what the Order says:—

"The following notice has appeared in the Press:—

September, 25, 1952. Notice is hereby given that the Government have made an Order under the Supplies and Services (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1946, entitled Carriage of Milk Order, 1952, continuing for a further year up to the 30th September, 1953, the exemption from the provisions of the Road Transport Act, 1933, of the carriage of milk to creameries and separating stations, of separated milk from creameries and separating stations, and of milk containers to or from creameries and separating stations."

It is very difficult to know the law. There is a law making provision for exempting from the conditions of the Road Traffic Act the haulage of milk to creameries. We know it has been done. We know that in our county there were to be some prosecutions, but they were not proceeded with. If the law was broken why were not the prosecutions proceeded with? They did not know what the law was.

Mr. Kissane

There were proceedings in other places and heavy fines were imposed.

Mr. Baxter

There have been prosecutions in our county in regard to this. As the Minister says, the judges in one place were of one mind, and they were of another mind in other places. As far as the actual position was concerned, there was a provision for a period during the time of the last Government when it was definitely permissible to transport milk to creameries.

Mr. Smith

The Order was made, in fact, by their predecessors.

Mr. Baxter

It was not operated.

Mr. Smith

It was.

Mr. Baxter

It was not.

Mr. Smith

It was operated in my time when I was Minister for Agriculture.

Mr. Baxter

Where? In what part of our county?

Mr. Smith

The Order the Senator has quoted was made prior to 1948.

Mr. Baxter

I will challenge the Minister now to name any district in the County Cavan, which he represents, where this Order operated. I have no knowledge of it. I will give the Minister an opportunity to answer. I know that in one district in County Cavan—the poorest district—the farmers tried to get their milk to the creamery five or six miles away. There was no method of transport and the Córas Iompair Éireann lorry, in accordance with the law, came along to transport the milk. It had to come out four or five miles from the depot to the district before it lifted a can of milk. It was discovered that there was very little milk in the cans. There was nothing for doing the job. They stopped doing it, and had not the courtesy to tell the farmers who had put up their cans every morning that they were not doing the job any longer. When that situation operated for a while another position had to be faced.

Mr. Smith

I will give the names of individuals.

Mr. Baxter

I do not know them, I confess.

Mr. Smith

I will give the names, privately, of individuals who, under Order made prior to 1948, were permitted to draw milk to creameries.

Mr. Baxter

I accept what the Minister says. I have no knowledge of it. He probably has knowledge of what I say. He probably knows that that is the truth in regard to that particular area under the Road Traffic Act and that these are the consequences.

I pose this case. I have given the figures of tractors in the country to-day as against 1939. I suggest that these have taken the place of horses. Senator Summerfield, no doubt, thought there were people who were using the road and who were not taxed. He talked about farmers' horses and carts and about the owners of bicycles. If we did not tax the farmer's horse and cart that takes his milk to the creamery, I do not see why we should tax the tractor that does the same job. On the contrary, we ought to encourage it. In the main, the roads concerned are not county roads, but by-roads, and I suggest that the tractor, with its broad tyres, does less harm than the farmer's horse and cart would do to these roads.

The Minister is not unaware that there has been considerable agitation about the price of milk. He has had a word or two to say about it. We have been paying 1½d. per gallon——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Would the price of milk come into this discussion?

Mr. Baxter

I will try to show that it does. I do not want to be out of order. We have been paying 1½d. per gallon last year for the transport of milk to the creamery via tractor-trailer. That is a good deal, with milk at 1/4 per gallon. The man who was doing that haulage informed us recently that if we were to get another ½d. per gallon he might consider continuing but that otherwise he would not pay the tax of £31. He told us that he would not continue to haul the milk unless he got 2d. per gallon and that even then he would think about it. Consider what 2d. per gallon would mean to farmers who send ten, 15 or 20 gallons of milk to the creamery. If the alternative is the horse and cart, the position would be that there would be, say, 15 men going along the road doing what one man and a tractor did before.

The dairying industry in a wide area of County Cavan and in some of the neighbouring counties is entirely dependent on the tractor for its continuance. That is the case, in the main, in the small farming districts. In the bigger farming areas many farmers have runabout vans and have so much produce to bring that it is an economic proposition to make the journey themselves. There is not a sufficient number of tractors available to enable neighbours to do the work alternately. That is not possible. The total number of tractor-trailers being utilised for this purpose to-day is so small that they are not a factor in the amount of taxation received.

The Minister could make a very considerable contribution to the stabilisation of this type of economy if he ensured that agricultural produce of this kind could be hauled by farmers for their neighbours for reward, by tractor-trailer. What is the alternative? The Minister said in the Dáil: "I admit that it would be impossible to be sure that there would not be an exchange of payment of one kind or another." Are we to be continually passing legislation that is making us a lot of liars and hypocrites? What is the point in my getting my neighbour to haul milk and sending my man to him for a week in return and paying his wages? If I get a job done for me I want to be in a position to pay for it and to have the right to pay for it. Why should the law be framed in such a way as to encourage me to do something that is positively dishonest and which the people realise is a breach of the law?

What will be the position of the Garda under this type of legislation? At every fair in our county—I do not know what happens elsewhere—tractors are used to haul trailers loaded with cattle, pigs or other agricultural produce. Are the Guards to be sent nosing around to discover who owns the cattle or the pigs in the trailer, whether they belong to the owner of the trailer or to his neighbour? Are we to perpetuate that other scheme of which the Minister knows so much under which So-and-So, because he had a haulier's licence, bought the pigs from me, by the way, and then brought them to the curers? Everybody knew that that was not a fact. What was that but a breach of the law? It is all wrong. The principle enshrined in this sort of legislation is fundamentally dishonest.

That type of behaviour on the part of our people should not be encouraged. A man who wants to get a job of work done, wants to pay for it and does not want to be ashamed of having paid for it. He should have a perfect right to pay for it. What is the effect of this legislation on the small farming community, where neighbours to-day have instruments of production and power which involved considerable capital expenditure for them, which could be made more profitable for them if they could be hired now and again to their neighbours? That sort of thing should be encouraged.

There ought to be a way and I believe the Minister can find a way, of exempting such people from the imposts under this measure. It is a matter of very considerable concern. I thoroughly dislike the legislation as a whole. In the last analysis, the producers will pay for this. While somebody may make a great fellow of himself collecting the money from the people so that it may be passed back in very considerable sums and may then try to convince the county councils that great benefits are being conferred upon them, it would be much better and more profitable for all to leave the money with the producers and let them see what they can do out of their income to contribute to national services of whatever kind are required to make living easier and better.

This legislation will create a degree of chaos in the dairying industry in County Cavan. It will impose an added burden on milk producers. That is something which we should hesitate to do because in the circumstances of to-day, with all costs increasing, if the cost of haulage of milk to the creameries increases without a corresponding increase in price, you may have a serious reaction on the part of farmers. I do not know what the consequences may be for a number of small creameries. I understand the position perfectly. I am one of the people concerned. Therefore I shall try to see what we can do in this legislation to give the Minister the opportunity of relieving some of those people of the burdens which, under the Bill in its present form, would be imposed upon them.

Mr. Kissane

Senator Baxter is very much inclined to exaggerate. He has told us about the terrible burden which will be placed on the farming community as a result of this taxation, that the haulage of milk to the creamery for those farmers will be more expensive and that consequently they will get a lower price for their milk. Does anybody attach any importance to a statement like that? Whatever way you look at it, the additional cost to any given supplier to a creamery would not be one-tenth of a farthing in the gallon where motor haulage is used. In my opinion, this legislation, instead of being an imposition as alleged, will relieve the agricultural community to a great extent of the cost of the upkeep of the roads, since it will place the burden on those most responsible for the wear and tear.

As the Minister has already stated, there has been an enormous increase in the number of motor vehicles over the past 12 or 13 years—from 73,813 in 1939 to 167,798 at present.

When we consider the increased cost of road upkeep, of road materials and of labour, and the increased cost of machinery used on the roads, must we not turn somewhere to get the additional sum required? It is not inequitable to put the burden on those people who use motor vehicles, as they are responsible for most of the wear and tear. In my opinion, there are too many motor-cars in this country, and the country would be far better off if we had not half the number. All these cars are a drain on the economy of the country, because most of the money paid out in connection with motor traffic leaves the country. While nobody likes taxation in any direction, we must come down to realities. If we are to keep the roads in a proper state of repair, it is necessary to get the money, and if it is not got in this way it will have to be got in some other way. Senator Baxter is very much concerned about the farmers, but it is they who would have to pay, through the rates, for the repair and upkeep of these roads.

Mr. Baxter

They are going to pay now.

Mr. Kissane

The rates would have to bear the additional cost of the surfacing and upkeep, and the farmers are the largest ratepayers. It is better, fairer and more equitable to ask the people who are mostly responsible for the wear and tear to bear the additional expense. Even Senator McGuire said that the policy in future should be to keep down State expenditure as much as possible. This is an attempt to keep down State expenditure and to keep down expenditure through the local rates. If the motorists were not called upon to pay their share in this way, the Exchequer would have to pay and the money would have to come out of general taxation.

Mr. O'Donnell

It is the same thing. The people pay.

Mr. Kissane

It is not the same thing. The people who do not own cars at all would have to pay through the Exchequer. The two things are not the same. I have seen the figure given by the Minister for the cost of surfacing at present. It is two and a half times as great as the cost in 1939. If we go back as far as 1932, we will find that it is now at least three times as great.

I remember that in 1932, in the part of the country I come from, the cost of road surfacing was £1,000 per statute mile. I made inquiries recently of people connected with local administration in County Kerry and I was told that the cost at present would be in the region of £4,000 per statute mile in that part of the country, certainly more than £3,000 per mile. The cost of surfacing roads in places like Kerry is much greater than it is in other parts of the country, as the foundation is not as good or as solid as in other counties and consequently more material has to be used. This enormous cost—between £3,000 and £4,000 per statute mile, I have been told—should make us understand how enormous the problem is of keeping the roads in a proper condition.

In the end, the motorists themselves will gain. If the roads are kept properly, the wear and tear on the cars will be less—and everybody who has anything to do with a motor-car knows what it costs to carry out the smallest repair at present. At any rate, I regard this legislation as necessary. If we did not find the money this way, we would have to get it in some other way. I do not agree with Senator Baxter at all for one moment that this is placing any undue burden on the agricultural community.

Professor Johnston

I find myself in sympathy with some of the points made by Senator Baxter in his speech and at the same time in general approval of the main purpose of the Bill. To deal first with the points made by Senator Baxter, I think there is a very strong case for a very favourable rate of tax or a nominal rate of taxation on transport used for local purposes, especially for bringing milk to creameries and conveying goods from the premises of the farmer or the trader to the nearest railway station, or the nearest centre where public transport operates. I will come to that later and I would like to see the Bill amended to make special provision for reduced taxation in that case.

I think the Minister has made a case for a substantial increase in the general burden of taxation, especially on heavy goods vehicles, and I do not at all agree with the contention urged in this House, and the other House, that the effect of this taxation will be to increase greatly the cost of living for the people generally and that it would be injurious to the increase of desirable forms of production. It has been well said, in connection with this measure, that the principal phenomenon of the past 20 years, and the last five years in particular, has been that the transport capacity of all kinds, both privately and publicly owned, has increased out of all proportion to the goods and passengers available for carrying in that transport capacity. I would like to illustrate that fundamental, economic fact in its bearing on the problems connected with this Bill by reference to some statistics which appeared in the Irish Statistical Survey issued by the Central Statistics Office and, no doubt, circulated to all Senators.

Since 1938, there has been a substantial increase in the volume of industrial output, an increase of 70 per cent. The volume of agricultural output has remained practically stationary, in fact slightly less, than in was in 1938. The volume of consumption, which is a rough index of the increase in the standard of living, has increased between 1938 and 1951 by about 23 per cent., but that increased consumption may be partly due to the relative increase in the volume of imports and may not reflect the real increase in the income produced within the national economy.

I doubt whether the real income of the nation has increased by more than 15 per cent. since 1938. The increase of 15 per cent. in the real income, in terms of 1938 prices, would mean an addition of about £25,000,000 to the national income; in terms of to-day's prices that would mean an increase of somewhat over £50,000,000 to the national income as compared with 1938, but what increased enormously and out of all proportion to that increase in the national income is the increase of the transport capacity and, especially, of lorries privately owned by traders carrying their own goods.

In 1939 there were 11,000 such lorries. In 1952 there were 31,000 such lorries—an increase of 20,000. The figures quoted are taken from a pamphlet circulated by the I.A.O.S. with which I have been deluged, as well as with various other publications apropos of this by various organisations. In this pamphlet the writer estimates that the cost of running an average lorry is £1,200 a year. Consequently the increase of transport costs from the use of 20,000 more lorries than in 1938 must be of the order of £24,000,000; apparently a large part of the increase in the national income takes the form of an increase in road transport, most of which is superfluous to the requirements of economy, not a real increase in goods and services enjoyed by the people at all. In fact, some important elements in the total cost of living, from which we all suffer, and in the cost of public services connected with the expensive upkeep of roads and with the subsidising of the large derelict public transport system, are due to the increase of road transport.

Could we not have brought about a modest increase of 15 per cent. in the national income without that increase in superfluous transport capacity, the cost of which is estimated at £24,000,000 a year? What I want to suggest is that I have no doubt that the individual owners of these lorries find it profitable to use them and have an interest in using road transport of their own rather than use any other form of transport. That is to say, because of the existing system of motor taxation, which the Minister is now drastically altering, what might be economic from the point of view of the private owner of a motor lorry might be a diseconomy from the point of view of the public. It is a legitimate objective of public policy to induce people to carry on their businesses in such a way that the interests which they seek to further are in harmony with the general public interest. In that connection I would like to quote from the first annual report of Córas Iompair Éireann, page 6:—

"Statistics relating to industrial output and imports show that the total volume of transportable goods increased by over 60 per cent. in the period between 1936 and 1950 and the volume of imports by 35 per cent. In the same period the total tonnage of goods carried by the board or its predecessors on its rail and road services increased by 3,584,000 to 3,905,000, or only 9 per cent."

Mr. Smith

On a point of order, it is not clear to me what case the Senator is making and what relation it has to the proposals.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I have been just wondering whether the Senator is getting away from these excise duties in the Bill and whether we are going to have a general discussion on transport.

Professor Johnston

I want to illustrate a point of theory.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

But does it relate to the Bill before the House?

Professor Johnston

If you like, I will leave that out. I think that under present conditions there are a great many people producing superfluous transport services. If one effect of this taxation is to diminish the total number of lorries on the road, and especially the heavy motor-lorries, I think that that would be a good thing and consider that the people so engaged will find some more useful occupation from the country's point of view in some other industry.

Taxation of any kind has one immediate objective, that is, to raise money for the State, but I think it has other possible objectives also that should be kept in mind by the taxing authority. A free economy like what we hope to remain cannot use the methods of a controlled or Communist economy in ordering people about and directing labour to one occupation or another. What it has to do is to create a financial climate in which so far as possible individuals will find it in their interest, of their own free choice, to do the kind of work which it is in the national interest they should do.

In order to bring that about, a Minister for Finance, or a Minister for Local Government in this instance, advocating a tax like this, has under his control two powerful weapons. One is the big stick of penalisation and the other, the carrot of inducement, and I should like to see the Minister using the carrot of inducement in favour of the local haulage of milk to the creameries as suggested and recommended by Senator Baxter: I should like to see the use of the big stick of penalisation to keep these heavy lorries off the road that get in my way every time I try to use the Naas road.

I should like to put on record the three objectives the Minister should keep in mind in any form of taxation. The first is to get the estimated amount of money; the second is to make it the interest of the individual, so far as possible, to do those things which are also in the interest of the nation; and the third, to guide the development of the national economy in harmony with some over-all economic policy of which the Government is fully conscious.

The recent proposals for restricting compulsorily the movement of privately-owned transport seem to me to be a most objectionable use of an objectionable kind of big stick, because they would impose a rigid restriction on where lorries might go, even though they were owned by people carrying their own goods. On the other hand, I think it would be quite in order for the Minister to schedule certain roads, which are obviously not fit to carry heavy lorries and which it would be prohibitively expensive to make able to carry heavy lorries, and to put them out of bounds for every lorry over a certain size. That would be quite legitimate. On the other hand, if you think it desirable to bring about some restriction of the radius of operation of really heavy lorries, you could use the method of financial inducement, if you modify this tax in such a way that privately-owned lorries, which were content to work within a limited radius from their own place of business, could escape with a much reduced rate of taxation—a rate, as I would suggest, of not more than 50 per cent. of the rate now proposed.

Mr. Smith

What limit would the Senator suggest?

Professor Johnston

I should like to introduce an amendment at a later stage when I would define more exactly the kind of limit I have in mind. I am aware that if you say a 20-mile limit, you may bring certain places where a lorry would need to go within the radius and leave out certain other places to which it would also be very desirable that a lorry should go.

Mr. Summerfield

Those of us who have spoken on this Bill did not attempt to deal with these matters. If this subject is to be brought in, I think we should have been given notice of it. It has nothing to do with the taxation scheme. I could have said a lot about the proposed restriction of mileage, but I refrained from doing so.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I have warned the Senator that he must keep to the subject matter of the Bill.

Professor Johnston

I hope I am not departing from it. I am advocating a reduced rate of taxation in the case of lorries which keep within a certain radius and I hope to introduce an amendment in that sense later on. I think it should be a desirable objective of the Bill to make it easy, and in the interests of privately-owned transport, to co-operate with the public transport system, bad and all as it is, in the hope of making it better. I suppose I will be ruled out of order if I say anything about the public transport system and I do not propose to do so in this connection, but in connection with my amendment, I will have to suggest a certain modification of the procedure——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Can it not be dealt with when that time comes?

Professor Johnston

——in respect of the public transport system, in order to make it possible and desirable to have a much lower rate of tax for lorries that voluntarily keep within a certain restricted radius. I will postpone my remarks in that regard until I have actually put down the amendment.

Mr. Commons

One of the few things I want to say about this Bill is that, like many other Bills, it is a Bill which imposes more taxation, and I wonder if we will ever see the day when some Minister will come into the Seanad or the Dáil and tell Deputies or Senators that he is about to reduce the taxation on something. If he does, it will be a great and a bright day for everybody concerned, but I am afraid that, judging by the way things look, no matter who is in power, the hopes of reducing taxation on anything are very remote.

I do not agree that this is a fair or just measure of taxation. It seems to give the idea that the mere ownership of a motor-car means that you are living in semi-luxury and because that idea has found its way into the minds of certain individuals in the Government, or of certain civil servants who are their advisers, it is felt that every motorist should now be practically taxed out of existence, so far as running his car is concerned. A year ago, we had the headache for the motorist in the increased tax on petrol and we now have this increased taxation on horse-power, when every member of the House knows that, in very many cases, the individual who owns a motor-car owns it because it is his way of life. Whether he is a farmer or a professional man, he must own some vehicle to enable him to get from place to place in the course of his day's work.

The professional man, the medical man or the clergyman who is liable to be called out to distant parts of their areas, must have a car for the purposes of his work, and the farmer who resides perhaps five or six miles from the nearest town must own a car so that he can get to the town or the city and back to his work. His time is just as valuable as that of the professional man, but these factors do not seem to bear any weight at all with the men who originated this Bill.

When looking for something to tax —and I agree it is hard to find anything which can bear more tax at the present time—I think it is unfair that we should, in pursuit of that policy, proceed to tax motors out of existence. That is what we are doing in this measure. There may be something to be said for the system of rating which has been introduced in this measure. I will not say that that is one of the bad parts of the Bill which seeks to impose still more taxation on an already overburdened motoring community.

As has been explained by several Senators, various types of vehicles are affected by the measure. Agricultural tractors and the covered or utility van are both vehicles which have been found very useful to the people of the countryside and both of these vehicles are coming under the scourage of this taxation, just in the same way as the higher horse-powered car and the heavy goods vehicle. How could any agriculturist with any enthusiasm provide himself with vehicles which would be useful to him in the course of his work and would help him to increase production if he is to find that when he has started the effort he has the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Local Government coming down on him immediately with taxation to gather into the State funds whatever little profit he might make by providing himself with this extra equipment?

It is very short-sighted policy for any Government to increase taxation in that way. Some years ago the taxation on motor vehicles was increased from £1 per horse-power to 30/- and that was not a very popular system; it was very unfair at a time when motor-cars were being purchased by people who wanted them for their work and to enable them to carry out their duties.

Mechanism has come to this country and has come to stay, even on the smallest farms. Even in the locality from which I come the small farmers and other agriculturists are using tractors which are very steadily ousting the horse in agricultural work. It is futile to ask the farmers to increase their production and at the same time, through taxation on their vehicles, tell them to go back to the horse and the methods of 50 years ago. The introduction of the tractor has made for greater production and has eased the work on the farms, making it a more attractive form of employment. When farmers went to consider their expense in purchasing tractors and agricultural machinery they had the idea that they might earn a few extra pounds which would help to pay the tax, repairs and maintenance and the general upkeep.

The tractors proved very useful in the haulage of beet and turf. There was a difference of opinion as to whether they could be used for those purposes. Some district justices decided that they could and other that they could not. The Gardaí in some cases prosecuted owners with a £6 tax for using the tractors for the haulage of turf and beet but in other districts they did not prosecute. I am not suggesting that the Minister is responsible for that, but quite a considerable sum of money was earned by tractor owners in the countryside and they were giving a great service to their neighbours in the locality.

In the case of the haulage of beet it has often been found that because of a heavy night's frost horse vehicles could not be loaded to carry the beet to the railway stations. They had to wait until mid-day in the hope of a thaw and then the farmers had to work until midnight loading up the waggons which had to be got away on a schedule regardless of the condition of the roads. The tractor eliminated all that and made it possible for the beet to be carried, irrespective of the condition of the roads. The same thing applied in the case of turf haulage and there were many roads which the tractors could traverse that would be impossible for a four or five-ton lorry. The owners of these tractors would now have to bear the burden of a tax of £31 10s. and that is one of the hardest clauses in this Bill so far as the agricultural community is concerned.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

The Senator knows, of course, that many of these tractors with cleated tyres may do considerable damage to the county roads.

Mr. Commons

I know that the cleated tyres could damage the roads, but are we then to go back to the horses? As far as goods vehicles are concerned, I think the provisions of the Bill are harsh and will create quite a problem. The five or six ton lorry is the most commonly used in the country and it will now bear a tax of £145, and how many merchants can afford to pay that?

Many merchants, shopkeepers and so on—I suppose there are Senators here who can speak for those people; I assume, of course, that they are on the side of the House on which they are allowed to speak—having their own lorries and vehicles, find it more satisfactory to use them for the haulage of their merchandise. We know perfectly well that the merchant who can afford his own lorry will always get more satisfaction by maintaining and running that lorry than having to rely on Córas Iompair Éireann or anybody else. It is costly enough having to pay 3/7 a gallon for petrol besides presenting these people with a bill for £125 road tax irrespective of the damage these vehicles do to the roads.

Unfortunately, there are quite a number of Senators who think that every individual who lives in this country has a steamrolled or county road passing close to his door. That, perhaps, demonstrates the little knowledge that has penetrated the Seanad if it thinks thus. There is no comparison between the mileage of main or county roads with the mileage of county contract roads. As far as I know, it is towards the upkeep of the main and county roads that the money from the Road Fund is used. The county contract road—a separate type of road—must be maintained from the local rates. That is at least my understanding of the position. I may be wrong.

Mr. Smith

There are two classes of roads—main and county.

Mr. Commons

Is the county contract road similar to what is called a county road?

Mr. Smith

We do not know of any such road.

Mr. Commons

I know of quite a number of such roads. Coming from County Cavan, the Minister may be much more enlightened.

Mr. Baxter

The Minister is liable for the Senator's county, too.

Mr. Smith

I am speaking as Minister for Twenty-Six Counties. We are not partitioning this country again.

Mr. Commons

The only thing is that we did not leave the County Cavan out of it, or at least some of the individuals living there. If that had been done, the proceedings of this Parliament might have been lightened considerably. We have in the County Mayo quite a number of what are called secondary roads which are maintained by the county council through direct labour. We have then the contract roads which are done by contract. If the money from the Road Fund is expended on these, well and good. There are miles of cul-de-sac roads which never benefit by the Road Fund and which will suffer from the taxation in the Bill before the House.

I will not detain the House unduly. As far as the motoring class in particular is concerned, I thought they were taxed enough. Until some Order is made scheduling the type of road over which a certain weight of a lorry is allowed to pass the roads will never be properly safeguarded. A road going through a bog has not the same foundation as a trunk or county road. A six-ton lorry carrying ground limestone travelling over such a road on journeys to farmers in outlying districts would do an immense amount of harm. The only way to safeguard the roads is to regulate the weight of the traffic going over them. That is the only way I can see of safeguarding the upkeep and maintenance of these roads.

This Bill will not be welcomed. It could not be welcomed by motor-car owners or farmers of any kind. The man who owns a tractor has given satisfaction to his neighbours by doing a certain amount of work not only in the haulage of milk, as Senator Baxter pointed out, but in doing many other jobs of an agricultural type. Up to now a tractor owner could get his tractor and trailer and go to a certain village, collect about seven, eight or ten cattle from the small farmers and bring them to the fair. In some cases he was approached by the Garda but in other cases he was ignored. When this measure comes into force it will be enforced by the Gardaí. Having regard to the £31 tax, it will never pay a farmer to go out and tax his vehicle for that amount. I object to this Bill because I think it is unfair and unjust both to the agricultural community and to the motor owners of this country.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

I oppose this Bill. I cannot understand why it has been introduced. When in September or October last year I read the announcement that such a measure was to be introduced, I was puzzled when I saw that it was the Minister for Local Government who would introduce the Bill. I thought, having considered what the Bill would contain, that it was really the Minister for Industry and Commerce who should have brought it in because, in my view, one inevitable result of this Bill will be to drive off the road many heavy vehicles. I would have thought that that would have been a matter with which the Minister for Industry and Commerce more than the Minister for Local Government would be concerned.

By reason of the increase in excise duty which will be imposed following this Bill, there will be many owners of lorries, large lorries and lorries from four cwt. unladen up, who will be unable economically to carry out in the future the work which they are doing with these lorries to-day. If they will be able to carry on it will only be at the expense of considerably increased cost to their customers who are, of course, the people of the country. Because of that we should be very careful to see that this Bill does not go through.

The proposed increases of excise duty are drastically high. One has only to read the Bill to see that taxation goes up from £45 to £52 in the case of a vehicle with unladen weight exceeding two tons and not exceeding two and a quarter tons. In the case of a vehicle exceeding four tons and not exceeding four and a quarter tons unladen weight, the rate of tax will be increased from £75 to £112. In the case of a vehicle five and a half tons and not exceeding six tons the rate of duty will be increased from £90 to £200. Are we to let these increased rates of duty be imposed without making some effort to see that a case is made for the Bill by the Minister? There is an increase in one case from £105 to £225. In the case of a lorry ten tons, not exceeding 10¼ tons, the rate of duty is increased from £105 to £755. In the case of more heavily laden lorries the duty is increased from £105 to £1,105.

These, it must be admitted, are drastic increases. I suggest that the Minister is not in the main concerned with getting increased revenue. It appears very strongly to me that the Minister is in the main concerned with driving heavy lorry traffic off the roads. Members on the other side of the House seem to take the view that it would be most desirable that all heavy traffic should be put off the roads of Ireland. If that is the view of members on the other side of the House, let them be clear and frank about it because numbers of Senators on the other side of the House have told people—it has been published in the Press—that under no circumstances will they agree to certain recommendations which were made recently with a view to putting transport off the road. Now it would appear that they will help the Minister, by agreeing to increased taxation, to put such traffic off the road.

A Senator

What traffic?

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

Heavy lorry traffic.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

In the interests of the roads.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

I suggest, Sir, that it is because of that and not because the Minister wants money that he is imposing these increased duties. Any owner of a heavy lorry who will be able to pay these duties will be able to pay them only following increases to his customers, following increased costs all round to people who use the lorries.

The Minister has made no case for the Bill. We have been told that the increase in the case of the private motorist is not very much. To-day, it must be conceded that an increase of £1 or £2 or an increase of £3 with, perhaps—to be quite fair—some reduction in some cases—is not a very big increase. We are told that the private motorist cannot complain. I suggest that the private motorist can complain. There has been nothing but increases so far as the private motorist is concerned. His petrol tax has been increased. The cost of spare parts has increased. The cost of his car has increased. The cost of everything connected with his car has increased. So, while the increase proposed by the Minister is not considerable, it is an increase which the private motorist is entitled to resist.

The Minister has told us that the roads cost a colossal amount. That will be agreed. The cost of road repair and maintenance and road-making is very great and it cannot be denied that the cost has increased considerably within the last ten or 15 years. The Minister does not seem to have directed his attention to the possibility that road-making might not be so costly if it were done by contract in most cases instead of being done by direct labour. I suggest that if the Minister would direct his attention to the details of the maintenance and repair of roadways, a considerable amount of money might be saved.

There is one other matter which perhaps the Minister will consider very favourably. It is a small matter to members on the other side of the House but to us it is not quite so small. I think the case made by Senator Baxter and Senator Commons in regard to the farmer is unanswerable and if the Minister has any sense of fairness, as I am sure he has, and if he will exercise that sense of fairness, he will not impose this increased duty but will leave the position as it is to-day. We have been told that farmers are finding it very difficult to carry on to-day. Despite what a Senator said earlier to-day, there is no doubt that milk will show a smaller profit to the producer, as a result of the provisions in this Bill. An unanswerable case has been made for the farmers. The Minister should not impose increased taxation on tractors.

There is another small matter about which the Minister might give us some information. The tax quarter ending in March ends on the 24th March. In the case of other quarters the date is 30th September and 31st December. Why does the tax quarter ending in March end on the 24th and not on the 31st?

No case whatever has been made by the Minister to us that we should pass this Bill. This Bill affects practically everybody in the country and I do not think that we here should pass it.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

Mr. O'Donnell

In introducing this new taxation, this minor Budget, the Minister must have felt, as many of us felt here this evening, that it was regrettable he should have to do so. I understand that the amount he gave yesterday as being derivable from this taxation is £830,000. I also understand that motorists as such, between this form of taxation and other forms which have been increased in recent years, are paying now something like £4,000,000 towards taxation in one form or another. The only point I want to stress is that at some period or some point this must reflect itself in increased prices. There is no use in pretending here that taxation is not ultimately paid by the consumer. While it is possible that the Minister has a very good reason for this increase, that the Road Fund needs it, it is undesirable that this increased taxation should continue to be enforced by this or any other Government. I do not know—I am not sufficiently equipped to say—whether the Road Fund needs this money or not. I take the Minister's word for it that it does. I also take his word that he has no other means of getting this money. Let us not, however, lose sight of one fact, that this ultimately will mean increased prices. It cannot mean anything else and whether any section of the community is mulcted in greater fashion than another is not of any account when we take thought that ultimately the general consumer will pay for it in one way or another.

I would like to know from the Minister if he hopes to rescue the Road Fund definitely from raids by the Central Fund authority. I understand that for many years this Road Fund has been a sort of saving grace for all Ministers for Finance. I would like to know if the moneys derivable under this taxation will be entirely used for the purposes which the Bill specifies. in other words, if the roads will benefit as a result of this taxation. I would like to know also if the Minister gave any consideration—I presume he did, but it is no harm to ask the question— to alternative forms of taxation that must have been proposed to him by motoring organisations. I have heard arguments put forward time and again, which seemed to me to be very good and very reasonable, that there should be a flat rate of taxation similar to that imposed in England and a petrol tax as well, so that those who use the roads most often would pay by that excise duty on petrol. I wonder if that alternative method has been considered by him and his Department.

After all, I believe that such a proposition was put to him by the people who were associated with the organised motor trade here and they should know their job. If such consideration was given to such a proposition, why would it not be acceptable to him? There is no good in my enlarging upon this because the obvious arguments for it have been made already and I suggest that it is possible for the Minister under the aegis of his Department to do something about centralised road-making.

If there is one national pastime we have here, apart from hurling politics at one another, it is the great pastime of boring holes in the road. It seems to be a form of endeavour which breaks out into an epidemic about Christmas-time and most of the relief schemes find expression in holes made in the roadways, all at junctions where cars want to pass. It is a certainty in Dublin if the watermains burst that the road is opened, and a week afterwards the Gas Company comes along, and then the county council or the corporation will have a job of work to do also. I understand, as a result of the complaints made about our national pastime of hole boring, that some centralised result has been achieved in getting roads repaired at the one time.

As one who travels about the country. I find that in leaving one county and entering another the road in one is in excellent condition, while the road in the other is in a most deplorable condition. There is a tremendous variety in the quality of the roads in the country, and county councils as such should co-operate with one another in seeing that after road-making is done in one county it should be continued in the next, rather than allow the machinery used to go into foreign fields. As a result we might have better roads.

I would like to make one plea for one section of the community who deserve particular consideration under this Bill. People use motor-cars generally incidental to their means of livelihood and use them either as a method of propulsion for pleasure or delivering goods, but the only group who use motor-cars as a means of livelihood are the hackney and taxi-owners. I have read the debate in the Dáil and I am quoting the Minister correctly when I say that the hackney owners reckon it costs £12 per week to run a hackney-car. The Minister pointed out that as a result of the increase they will have to pay 2/8 a week extra, which he does not think unreasonable. I will not argue as to whether it is reasonable and I do not think that it is a vital matter, but what is happening here is that individuals whose whole livelihood depends on the use of motor vehicles are being taxed at the same rate of taxation as the people who are using vehicles for pleasure.

It is a difference in kind, but it is a big difference. While I do not believe that the Minister can change the Bill, I do hope that on some future occasion he will see that whatever benefits can be given will be given to people who make their living out of motor-cars. I want to stress the point because cases have been made for hackney and taxi-owners in the other House and cases have been fully explained to the Minister. Judging from the replies he has made he has a good deal of sympathy with them, but he feels that if he sectionalised the Bill he would not know where to finish.

I have a good deal of sympathy with the cases made by Senator Baxter and Senator Commons about the extra taxation on farm tractors and trailers used for drawing many things. I heard Senator Baxter say that the cost of transporting milk was extremely high—2d. on every 1/4 worth of milk— that is, 12½ per cent. to convey milk from the farmer's house to the local creamery. That seems to me to be very high by reason of what the farmer receives in toto for his milk. I ought not to stress that fact very much myself since there are members here who are agriculturalists, but judging from the number of these vehicles which are being used for that purpose the Minister could make a concession, taking the long-term view. It would be a very wise concession and it would not cost the Exchequer very much. I know the Minister is a farmer and knows more about this than I do and I am quite sure I am speaking to somebody who, on this point, is in complete sympathy with us in his private capacity.

One thing that strikes me is that this increased taxation means increased prices and eventually means that the consumer must pay. How long are we going to keep on, no matter how desirable it is to have better roads? How long are we going to increase taxation in this or in any other manner? Most of the taxation derived will be spent in this country, but, in general, prices will go up due to taxation, whether motor tax or any other form of taxation, all of which is undesirable. At the same time the Minister, as he has told us, needs the money and if the roads need it I am in entire support.

Mr. Hartney

I have listened to the speeches from every side of the House all through the evening and I think that the matter has not been approached from its true perspective. Speaking as a rural ratepayer and as one who has had considerable experience on a local body, it must be agreed that you have reached a crisis from the local ratepayers' point of view as far as road upkeep is concerned. There is no getting away from that fact at all and there is no county to-day spending sufficient on the roads to do as good a job of work on them as the roads demand. I know that holds in my own county and I can say it with safety of every other county. In County Limerick, where I think our roads would be classed as average, if we were to put roads into the condition of repair that people would like to see, even after taking grants from the Central Fund, we would encroach on the rate to such a point that other services would be starved.

The Minister has told us that the extra money derived from this taxation is going to be applied to roads and that is the big attraction that the Bill has for me as a rural ratepayer. I think that we should throw our minds back over a big period. I remember 20 or 30 years ago, when I was a member of the Limerick County Council, that the motor owners and the lorry owners were a very insignificant section of the community, and time and time again I heard it being put forward at the council that the motor owners should be taxed more heavily, that they were not paying in accordance with the amount of damage they were doing. That was 20 or 25 years ago. To-day the motor and lorry owners are a huge section of the community and it is good tactics to speak on their behalf. Further, the people who condemn the motor owner when they did not possess a car have to look at it in a different light now and their tongue has to be in the other side of their cheek.

The roads are not capable of standing up to the traffic which travels on them to-day. There was serious deterioration of the roads all during the war years and when the war finished, it was impossible to get the machinery necessary to restore them to their proper condition. All the county councils were trying to get new plant, without any hope of getting it, with the result that the roads still further deteriorated. That is the position in which we find them to-day. There is one thing certain, that a line should be drawn outside which any lorry over a certain size should not be allowed to operate. It must always be borne in mind that we have a greater road mileage per head of the population than any country in the world. I understand that it is three or four times greater than the mileage in some of the continental countries and it means that expenditure on upkeep must be all the greater.

All public bodies do their best to keep the roads in as good a condition as possible with the amount of money available to them. It was suggested that if the work were done by contract a better job would be done. Up to 40 years ago, the contract system obtained everywhere. It obtained in Limerick up to about 45 years ago and it probably obtains to a certain extent in some counties yet. It has not been found satisfactory, and if a better job could be done on that system, the councils, in their wisdom, would have gone back to it, so that I think we can dismiss that point. If road making were the same as house building, if proper equipment were available and if people could go into road work in a big way, there would be very keen competition to do 100, 150 or 300 miles of road, but nothing like that exists and it appears to me that councils will have to continue as at present, doing the work by direct labour.

Speakers to-day have spoken of the effect of this increased taxation on the haulage of merchandise and have suggested that it will have a natural reaction on the cost of living, but nobody made any effort to point out to what extent it would affect it. It is natural to expect that it must increase it somewhat and perhaps Senator Kissane was right when he referred to one-tenth of a farthing. Nobody contradicted him, so we can accept it that he was right. Is it the intention that, if motor taxation is not increased, the money sacrificed will be found by the local ratepayers? No alternative has been put up by any of the speakers who have opposed this taxation and who have spoken of its being a crime crying to heaven for vengeance to put a penny on the motorists. I have nothing in the world against motorists, private or otherwise, but I do not think they are as hard hit as they would have us believe.

It is a good thing to see a man with a car now—farmers, craftsmen and so on—who did not have a car 20 years ago. I am all for letting anybody have a car who can afford it. It shows that they are getting their place in the sun and there is no place a car is as valuable as in the rural areas. Possession of a car in the rural areas has a value which is very hard to estimate, because it is so useful in bad weather to bring people to church and to take children to school on bad winter mornings. With all the taxation on petrol and everything else, it must still be fairly good value because the price of petrol has, as yet, only reached three-quarters of the figure paid for it in the black market and times are not as good as they were then, so that it must be a cheap product to-day.

If whatever extra money is derived from these proposals goes into the roads, I feel that a very good job is being done. There is a national responsibility, as well as a local responsibility, for the maintenance of roads. Everybody will have to make some sacrifice and the road users must naturally share in that sacrifice. Some of the ratepayers who pay so much in rates use the roads less than anybody and a man who pays £100 in rates, if he has not a motor-car, may not do £5 damage to the roads in ten years. These people are getting very bad value for the money they pay because it must be admitted that any form of mechanically-propelled vehicle is harder on the roads than the ordinary horse-drawn cart, and if they are called on to pay a little more, it cannot be said they are being unreasonably treated, because the effort and the sacrifice must be made.

We must look at both sides of the picture and must remember that the man with the car, in spite of garage costs and so on, is saved very heavy expenditure in other directions. He has no bill from the harness-maker to meet and no smith's bill to meet. A set of shoes for a horse would be about £1; with the eight studs there is an outlay of 36/-. Neither has he to meet the carpenter's bill for repair of his cart or trap. All these are off the list, a fact which must be taken into account and balanced against what is paid the other way.

I am as interested as anybody in seeing that the agricultural tractor is treated as fairly as possible, because the man who is bringing milk to the creamery is working for the good of two sections, the consumer and the producer. The cheaper the milk can be sent to the creamery, the better the chance of the producer remaining in business and of the consumer having a decent supply of butter available to him. I should like the Minister to give that point every consideration. I have often heard people who are trying to make a living on the roads saying that it is very unfair that tractors should be let off so lightly, so it appears that not everybody wishes them God-speed on the roads. I maintain that this Bill is worthy of support and I hope that the moneys derived from it will put our roads in a short time in a condition sufficiently good to enable them to carry the traffic necessary in the everyday life of the country.

Mr. S.T. Ruane

This Bill is intended to supplement the Road Fund, but I have very great doubts that it will do so. Even if it does, it will inflict on a section of the community which can ill afford it a burden which will put many out of business. I know that, in some of these small towns, people who ran hackney services and who had three or four cars have now reduced the number by half. That is due to the increased tax on petrol and the increased costs of tyres and motor parts. These people have told me that they could not run their services as a paying concern. They could not even make ends meet.

Be that as it may, I want to point out that in the remote country districts, some young people have bought cars which they have licensed as hackney-cars and they confer a very great benefit on the people amongst whom they live. They take old people to Mass and market, and, in the case of sudden illness, the service of such a car, avoiding, as it does, the necessity for sending into the town for one, might mean all the difference between life and death. The people rendering this service in the rural districts are not making any profit and certainly they are not putting any money aside for replacements. I know that because they pay their tax from quarter to quarter and must forego the lower rate of tax which they would obtain if they were able to pay in one payment. I am afraid that, if this Bill goes through as drafted, quite a number of these people will be put out of business. The different Parties are interested in stopping the flight from the land and in providing amenities for the people living in remote districts; that objective will not be helped if we deprive them of the service which these hackney-cars can give them.

Where private cars are concerned I am not so interested except in so far as they apply to certain public servants whose duties can only be discharged by having a car of their own. People such as horticultural and agricultural instructors and vocational schoolteachers who have classes in remote districts cannot carry on without a car of their own or a hackney. I may be told that they can claim against the local body for expenses. So they can but those expenses will be an extra charge on the rates at a time when the outcry against excessive rating is not confined to any particular county or province.

There is another point I wish to mention—the question of turf haulage. Years ago it took from three to four weeks for some people to take home the annual turf supply because of the distance they had to haul their supply and because they had to depend for transport on horse-cart or donkey-cart. Where they had neither, they had to employ one. Very often they could only take two or three loads at the most in a day. Now, with the assistance of a motor-lorry—there are several of these in operation—they work on a seasonal basis and the people, by co-operating with each other, can get that work done inside a week. If, however, the lorries have to bear the incidence of the tax which this Bill proposes to impose I cannot see them continuing and the people will have to revert to the old, primitive form of horse-drawn transport again, with the consequent labour, drudgery and loss of time. They will be put to the trouble of working two or three weeks where they could get their work done in a few days with the help of a motor-lorry.

I know that many roads need repair and that they are in a sad condition in many cases. As a matter of fact, there is not a county in the country that could not do with better roads, but I hold that this is not the way to improve them. At the present time people who travel much by car must from time to time come upon road maintenance workers with horse and cart, barrel of tar, brush and sprinkling-can. Really, it is ridiculous, and is enough to provoke laughter if the laughter was not so expensive, because four employed in this manner will cost at least £4 per day.

I am quite satisfied that with the introduction of more up-to-date machinery the work could be done far more effectively and more economically. Even in relation to the actual work itself an official told me some time ago that the work output has decreased to 60 per cent. at a time when wages have increased by 300 to 400 per cent. I do not blame the working people for that. The methods under which they work are responsible for the dilatory manner in which they carry out their duties. This is a matter which should be provided for by a definite Bill which would not saddle further taxation on the people who use cars. It should not be outside the ability of any Government to devise ways and means for getting the assistance of up-to-date machinery by which a far better road maintenance and repairs service could be maintained than is done under existing conditions.

I am not in favour of this Bill. I believe it will put some people out of business, make other people pay extra taxes that they will not be able to bear and that the improvement will not be worth the sacrifice.

Mr. Meighan

I intend to put a few points before the House. I speak as a member of a local committee representing a large number of ratepayers. The views I intend to put forward will be on their behalf. As a member of this House, I was invited to a meeting in Carrick-on-Shannon of lorry owners and those directly concerned in this matter. I feel more or less called upon to put their views forward in compliance with the assurance I gave them at that meeting.

As a member of the local committee, I would appeal to the Minister to be as kind as possible regarding the taxes on tractors because our local creamery at Ballaghaderreen had hard luck for a number of years. It is pretty well on its feet now. The despatch of the cream from Ballaghaderreen to the central creamery in Gurteen is done by tractor. Owing to the slippery conditions of the roads, it is the opinion of the committee that the collection of milk in our area will be by machinery. It is only a week ago since I had the experience of a horse slipping. It had to be destroyed.

Let people say what they may about safety studs, but horses in our area and county are not being used on the roads at all. It is a most unusual thing to meet a horse-drawn vehicle on a great many of the roads. I think it has definitely come to the time when horses should be pushed off the roads. Most people in the towns in the West of Ireland will bear me out on the same subject. It is not necessary in the majority of towns in the West of Ireland to have now what was considered very necessary at one time— accommodation for the stabling of horses.

As a member of the county council, I am interested in the rates of the county and anything that would tend to keep them down. I make no apology for saying that I think the roads of the country were never expected to carry heavy motor traffic. When I say I am referring to heavy motor traffic, I mean the lorry of ten or 12 tons. It is not right for the Government or anybody else to expect the ordinary community of a county to maintain the roads which have to bear this traffic and keep them in order for that traffic. It is most unjust to ask the ratepayers to pay for such roads, and their upkeep should be paid for by the people who are using such vehicles.

Farmers do not get the use of the roads in comparison with what they pay. I pay nearly £84 in rates and I certainly do not get the value out of the roads for that money. These roads which cost so much money are not suitable for horse traffic. I know the money has to be got somewhere but I think its collection could be more fairly divided.

I think that the small hauliers, who perform a very valuable service in the country, should be given more consideration by the Minister. In my area and in the West of Ireland generally there are many of these hauliers providing a first-class service; they have invested their savings in lorries and agricultural machines and they are going to be very severely hit by this measure. If people like that are to be taxed much higher I do not see how they can continue in the business.

In the same way the hackney-owners —and I mean those who are in the business as a sole means of livelihood and not those who are in it as a sideline—should be given some consideration. They, too, are providing a very valuable service to the community.

I notice that under this measure there is a big difference between the taxes to be paid on Austin cars and Hillman cars, which are at present taxed at the same rate. I would like to have some information as to why that should be so.

As I have said, I have no sympathy with the owners of large haulage vehicles, who should be made pay for the roads which they use. I think the biggest offenders in this connection are semi-State sponsored institutions and companies, such as Córas Iompair Éireann, the Electricity Supply Board and Bord na Móna, as well, of course, as a number of private companies. It would be better if these vehicles were highly taxed or, alternatively, compelled to send their heavy loads by rail rather than that the general road user should be taxed to pay for all the damage they do to the roads. Without the upkeep necessary because of the damage done by these heavy vehicles it would not be necessary to impose the higher taxation on the other road users.

Pádraig Ághas

A Chathaoirligh, níl mé chun oráid ná aon rud mar sin a dhéanamh ach tá cúpla pointe ar mhaith liom luí orthu. Is cuimhin liomsa, sara tháinig an Bille seo ós ár gcomhair in aon chor go mbímís ar fad ag clamhsán mar gheall ar na bóithre. Deirimís, deirinn féin é, agus is minic a cuala daoine eile á rá, gur mhór an trua gan breis cánach a chur ar lucht gluaisteán agus bóithre maithe a thabhairt dóibh. Is gearr go gcaillfeadh an méid sa bhreis, atá á ghearradh air leis na cánacha nua seo, ar na droch-bhóithre. Dá stractaí aon bhonn, nó clúdach rotha amháin chosnódh sin an méid sin air. Cuirimid an milleán ar an gcomhairle chontae agus ar an Rialtas toisc gan na bóithre maithe seo a thabhairt dúinn. Anois, nuair deintear iarracht ar an scéal a leigheas, cromtar ar an gclamhsán arís. Tá an tAire ag déanamh iarracht anois ar na bóithre maithe sin a chur ar fáil dúinn. Tá fhios ag an saol nach féidir sin a dhéanamh gan suim airgid a chaitheamh. Níl an t-airgead sin le fáil ach ón dream atá ag déanamh úsáid de na bóithre. Ní túisce a dheineann an tAire iarracht ar an airgead d'fháil ná cromtar ar an gclamhsán arís. Is dóigh liom gur daoine sinn gur maith linn cúiseanna gearáin a bheith againn. Ach ní féidir leis an Aire ná le aoinne eile an scéal a leigheas gan teacht trom ar dhaoine éigin. Mar deirtear as Béarla: "We cannot make omelettes without breaking eggs."

Cuireann sé seo scéal i gcuimhne dhom a chuala fadó i gCo. an Chláir. Tugadh fear ós cóir na cúirte toisc é a bheith ag bualadh asail. Sul ar cuireadh fíneáil air d'fhiafraigh an giúistís de an raibh tada le rá aige. Duirt sé: "Tá. Do cuireadh tasc orm. Níorbh fhéidir liom an tasc a dhéanamh gan deabhadh; níorbh fhéidir deabhadh a dhéanamh gan bualadh; níorbh fhéidir bualadh a dhéanamh gan gortú." Is mar sin atá an scéal againne anois. Tá tasc ar an Aire. Ní féidir leis an tasc sin a dhéanamh gan daoine éigin a ghortú.

Anois, tá mórán ráite anseo mar gheall ar lorraí troma. Níl fhios agam an bhfuilim in ordú ag tagairt dóibh ach tá fhios agam go bhfuil bóithre thiar againne i gCo. an Chláir atá tógtha os cionn na bportach agus ba cheart na lorraí troma a choiméad de na bóithre seo agus gan ligint doibh iad a lot. Tá cuid de na lorraí sin agus bíonn 10, 12 agus 14 tonnaí d'ualach orthu. Tar éis tamaill scoilteann na bóithre fúthu mar tá na bóithre ro-bhog. Is dóigh liom féin gur mhór an tairbhe lorraí dá leithéid a choimead de na bóithre sin.

Tá dhá dhream ann agus ba mhaith an rud é dá dtugadh an tAire faoiseamh dóibh. An chéad dream na daoine atá ag tuilleamh a mbeatha le gluaistéan amháin, taxi. Tá dream eile ann agus bíonn taxi acu agus feirm nó siopa ina theannta. Ní bheinn ag lorg aon fhaoisimh dóibh sin. Ach na daoine nach bhfuil aon tslí bheatha eile acu ach atá ag tuilleamh a mbeatha leis an ngluaisteán, bheinn ag lorg faoisimh dóibh siúd.

Tá dream eile fós ann agus is dóigh liom gur mhaith an rud é faoiseamh a thabhairt dóibh sin leis, an dream atá ag tabhairt bainne do sna feirmeoirí go dtí an uachtarlann agus ag tabhairt bainne géar ar ais chucu. Is mór an áis atá siad seo a dhéanamh do na feirmeoirí agus ba mhór an trua chur isteach go ró-mhór orthu.

Sin a bhfuil le rá agam.

Mr. McCrea

This Bill is a matter of very great concern, not alone to lorry owners, taxi owners and private motorists, but to a great proportion of our people. Therefore, it is a Bill that we must tackle, criticise and deal with as fearlessly as we are capable of doing. I am encouraged to do so by the lack of enthusiasm shown by supporters of the Government on our right and I am sure the Minister must feel rather perturbed, having brought in this Bill that will inflict such hardship on our people, for which there is such a lack of enthusiasm on the part of his people.

Mr. Smith

Do not provoke them, please.

Mr. McCrea

I am trying to stir up some enthusiasm for the Minister on the other side of the House.

Mr. Smith

Time is running short.

Mr. McCrea

The approach of the Government in connection with this transport matter is of a very doubtful nature, of a very shady nature. It will be remembered that some short time ago, prior to the introduction of these penal taxes, a feeler was thrown out by the suggestion to restrict private lorries to a radius of 20 miles.

Mr. Smith

Has this anything to do with the present proposals?

Mr. McCrea

Am I doing something that is wrong?

Mr. Smith

I wanted to know from the Chair if the suggested restriction had anything to do with these taxation proposals.

An Cathaoirleach

I will hear the Senator.

Mr. McCrea

I think it is relevant. I bow to your ruling.

Mr. Baxter

The Chair has agreed that you have a right to deal with it.

An Cathaoirleach

The Senator may not discuss transport policy in general. That would be a matter for the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

Mr. McCrea

I am speaking of the Government's policy generally on the matter of transport. This is the matter to which the Minister has taken exception. It raised such a storm of indignation at the time that they sounded the retreat and got back to the second line of defence which they thought was the easiest way to annihilate the whole transport system of the country. That was my opinion and I think it was the opinion of a great many people.

The question of increased road grants, to my mind, is only a sop. It is only so much eyewash. I have been a member of a public body for 26½ years and I know and every representative knows that all Ministers have raided the Road Fund. The same thing will apply in this particular case. That is my view. I agree that possibly for the first couple of years we may get increased grants but again it will be raided by the Minister for Finance to balance some other matter.

It would have been more honest of the Government to have faced up to the position and to have told the people that they must get off the roads because as a result of this taxation a number of the smaller people will have to get off the road; they will not be able to face up to it. A few big business people may stand up to it and may be in a position to line their pockets and to carry on but eventually the increased cost will go back to the producer and eventually to the consumer.

It is accepted that the whole intention behind these taxes is to drive lorries and hackneys off the road and to direct the business to Córas Iompair Éireann. If the Government think that that is good business, that is their job. A position has been created in the country, owing to the lack of transport and the closing down of railways which will take some time to get over. In County Wicklow two branch lines have been closed down, one in the south of the county serving South Wicklow and a great part of North Wexford and another in West Wicklow.

Five or six years ago, when these branch lines were closed down, fairs and markets were dislocated and the haulage of produce became deranged. The people built up their own system in the meantime and any interference with the arrangements at present in operation would be very serious for the people concerned.

Senator Hartney remarked that some years ago lorry owners and motorists were not a very important body of men but that it is very popular to speak for them to-day. It definitely is. From a document issued by the lorry owners' associations I see that there are over 21,000 vehicles in the country, 50,000 employees and £12,000,000 being paid in wages. That is a very important matter. I asked a neighbour in Wicklow yesterday how he is affected by the increased tax. I knew he was a friend of a Wicklow Deputy and I told him about the remark that gentleman had made in the other House, that he had consulted lorry owners and had found they were not perturbed about the increased taxation. He replied that he was very concerned about the increase, which meant an increase to him of £94 10s. in a year. I also inquired about his friend and he said the increased taxes on his friend would be about £300 a year.

Senator Hartney may be right in saying that a great many councils had not lived up to their responsibility and struck sufficient rate. I am speaking now for my own county, where we have 260 miles of main roads and where we have reconstructed and maintained 250 miles of them. The remaining ten miles have yet to be reconstructed; I believe they are under reconstruction at present and will be completed within the financial year. We have 829 miles of county roads, of which 208 have been reconstructed and brought up to the standard of main roads. This has all been done without any increase in motor taxation. We put the roads under direct labour 25 or 26 years ago. All our roads, even those not reconstructed, are in reasonably good repair, equal to, if not better than, the average roads in any county in Ireland. Prior to the introduction of this Bill, we had started on a five year plan for county roads, to reconstruct another 134 miles of county roads.

I think councils could have carried on reasonably well without this terrific blister being put upon motorists and lorry owners. I am opposing the Bill and I think that in doing so I am speaking for the great majority of our people. I know that it is hard for Senators opposite to get up and speak in favour of this Bill. It is a most unpopular thing to do, as it is a matter which affects a great proportion of our population.

Mr. Yeats

If there is one matter on which Senators on all sides of the House would be prepared to agree, it is that the Irish road system is badly in need of repair. That would be generally agreed. In fact, Senator Ruane went out of his way to say that he was satisfied that our roads needed repair. In view of that fact, that it is universally accepted that our roads are in need of repair and improvement, it is a great pity there has not been a better attempt by Senators on the other side to deal with the situation that lies before any Minister for Local Government in deciding how this is to be done. One could do it by increasing the rates, by increasing the sums paid by local authorities from the rates, to improve the roads. We know the attitude that Senators on all sides of the House would have to that. Another way would be to increase the State grant through the Road Fund. That is what this Bill does. There is no use in saying that this is penal taxation or inequitable taxation, unless those who say that are prepared to get down to the question as to what else can be done, what other method there is of providing the finance for improving our roads, other than the one that is incorporated in the Bill.

One or two Senators attempted to get around the problem by suggesting that the methods of roadwork could be improved. They were careful not to go into details. No evidence has been produced that an improvement in methods would, within a comparatively short period, lead to an improvement in our road system without increasing expenditure. There is another point I might mention in regard to that suggestion. It is a point that rural Senators should consider. If more modern machinery were brought in and used on the roads, is it not quite clear that people like Senator Ruane, Senator McCrea, and perhaps even Senator Baxter, would get up at the local authority meetings and complain most bitterly at the dismissals of road workers which would take place.

Mr. Baxter

You do not know Senator Baxter.

Mr. Yeats

I will leave Senator Baxter out of it—maybe he would not. Senator Baxter may approve of that policy. I admire his courage if he does—if he will stand up at Cavan County Council and say so. We all know that most of the other Senators who have spoken here in favour of improved methods of roadwork would be the first to complain if machinery were imported and men were dismissed. We cannot have it both ways. We must be realistic and deal with conditions as we find them and methods of work as they are at the moment.

Senator O'Reilly and others have raised complaints about taxation on the heavier type of lorry. I feel that the general principle is sound, in the first place, that the people who use the roads, the motorists and lorry owners, should pay for their upkeep. An extension of that principle is equally sound —that the vehicles doing the most damage should pay the most. The heavy lorries, which cause a great part of the damage on county roads and by-roads, and the repair of which is such a burden on the taxpayer and on the farming community who have to pay rates, should be made pay their share. That seems to me to be an eminently reasonable principle and a principle that those talking about heavy lorries being driven off the road should have regard to.

It is surprising to see the number of Senators from rural areas who have come in to attack this Bill. If there is one thing that is reasonably certain, it is that under this Bill additional funds will be provided and a great deal of very valuable and much-needed employment will be given in rural districts. Every 1d. that comes in under this Bill will go into the Road Fund and then will go out towards repairing the roads. Most of that money will be spent in rural areas and will go to provide additional employment over and beyond what exists at the moment. One would think that Senators from rural areas would have some regard to the fact that taxation levied under this Bill would bring greater and much-needed benefits to those in need of employment on the roads in their particular areas, but not a bit is said about that.

Senator McCrea suggested, in spite of the warnings of the Minister, that there was very little enthusiasm on this side of the House for the Bill. I would suggest that, while nobody is ever going to stand up and cheer a Minister in regard to any measure that imposes taxation, this Bill is a much-needed and valuable Bill which makes a genuine effort to put our road finances on a realistic basis. Besides that, it will provide gradual and much-needed employment in rural areas and will undoubtedly bring about a considerable improvement in the standard of our roads. In doing that, it will be of considerable benefit to the community in general. The Bill will also be of great benefit to those who use the roads, the motorists and lorry owners and for those reasons I have no hesitation whatever in recommending this Bill to the House.

Mr. Douglas

I intend to be very brief. I have listened to the debate and I am just as puzzled as I was as to what exactly is the object of the taxation. The last speaker's most important object was to deal with unemployment——

Mr. Yeats

I did not say that at all.

Mr. Douglas

Well, important aspect —I certainly do not want to misrepresent him. Senator Kissane sought to get a reduction in the number of motor-cars and he thinks it would be an advantage if we had half as many. He also would use this as a means of saving expenditure and I presume the idea is that we would spend less if we had fewer motor-cars.

It is the first time for some years that we have had a Money Bill introduced by a Minister other than the Minister for Finance. When it came from the Minister for Local Government I, in the first instance, assumed that it was put forward as the Government's contribution towards the solution of what I think must be admitted is a serious problem, that is, the maintenance of the roads in a reasonable standard of repair all over Ireland. Having listened to the debate, I have my doubts as to whether that was intended, and I have come to the conclusion that the proper way to examine this is from the point of view that it is additional taxation of a substantial character and that it should be judged from the point of view of additional expenditure.

Now, the principal reason why I rose, and I was encouraged to do so by Senator Yeats when he said that nobody had suggested an alternative method of collecting the money—I presume he was absent when Senator Summerfield was speaking; if he had not been, he could hardly have made that remark——

Mr. Yeats

On a point of explanation. I said there was no way of improving the roads other than by raising taxation.

Mr. Douglas

I thought he said that this was an excellent Bill.

Mr. Yeats

Oh, yes.

Mr. Douglas

It is not an excellent Bill and it is not the fairest or best method of raising taxation. Whether there should be this amount of taxation I am not sure, but I am sure there will have to be a certain amount of taxation if the roads are to be maintained and nobody is foolish enough to pretend otherwise. But what has disappointed me most is that in the course of this Bill, which provides for very unpopular taxation, taxation which a very large number of people feel to be unfair and which, like all taxation, I know, gets round to the consumer with everybody paying his share, we have not been told by the Minister or any member of the Government the reasons why they did not propose to put a tax on fuel. Senator Yeats suggested, and he was quite right, that the user should pay the largest proportion of the costs of roads and I know of no method by which you can apportion usage better than by the amount of fuel used. To say you must pay a high tax because you have a car and use it once a month, possibly a much higher tax than anybody using the road day and night, is absurd.

There may be excellent reasons why the tax should not have been imposed in the main on fuel. The experts and those in the motor trade who have gone to a great deal of trouble—I am not connected with the motor trade—have convinced themselves that the money could be raised and raised fairly by the method that Senator Summerfield has more or less suggested, and the only reason the Minister gave against it was that he was chary about starting an experiment. It is not a good enough reason, and as this is taxation which I can assure the Minister is unpopular even by those accepting it—a large number of people regard it as unfair, particularly taxi-drivers and others earning their livelihood from it—the Minister should give the public detailed reasons why he was not prepared to tax fuel.

Mr. Summerfield

There is 2/9 a gallon on it already.

Mr. Douglas

Even if it was to be made higher, the money has got to be collected. If the taximan pays according to the user of the fuel, it is possible to adjust his fares, but if he has to pay whether he gets a fare or not, he is put into an unfair position.

The principal point I want to make is that I think there is an alternative method of taxation. It may be there are first-class reasons why it should be rejected, but we have not been told them. The money is going to come out of the community and the users of cars, whether collected when they pay for petrol or otherwise, and it only matters which is the more equitable method. It seems to me that no taxation is equitable which does not relate to usage, particularly if it is for the purpose of maintaining the roads. The medium-sized car used every day and night will do much more harm than a large lorry used once or twice in the month. There is no relation I know of better than the tax relating to fuel.

One small point was raised by Senator O'Reilly. I have never been able to understand why the first quarter of the year ends on March 24th. There may be some mysterious reason why that should be, and the probable reason is that the British Government introduced it and it has gone on ever since. It should be changed to March 31st. I am not the only person to forget about the quarter ending on that date, because you do not expect it. The Minister ought to change it to March 31st and it would not lose anything in taxation, not that I know of.

One other point I would raise and I would be glad if the Minister would deal with it. I am not quite clear why it is necessary to have a differentiation between Irish assembled cars. I think the number of cars imported under quota is about 40 or 50 and it is now quite small——

Mr. Summerfield

There is no limit over a certain price. That is what it amounts to.

Mr. Douglas

That is what I was about to say. It seems to me that the higher tax should not be on the horse-power but on the price of the car. If there is to be a concession at all toward Irish assembled cars it should apply to the lower horse-power as well as to the higher horse-power cars as at present. Above a certain horse-power the Irish assembled car benefits by lower taxation. That is causing a good deal of comment and it seems to me that the additional rate should be on the value of the car rather than on the horse-power.

Pádraig Ó Siocfhradha

Nuair a tugadh an Bille seo isteach inniu, cheap mé go mbeadh sé simplí go leor ach níorbh fhada go rabhmar ag caint mar gheall ar iompar bainne agus iompar muca chun margaidh agus iomad rudaí eile. Is trua liom gur gá tuilleadh cánacha a chur ar dhaoine; tuilleadh cánacha a chur ar lucht gluaisteán. Luíonn sé sin, ón bhforbairt atá déanta in Éirinn maidir le cúrsaí iompair, ar gach uile dhuine agus níl dul as.

Do réir mar is eol dúinn, agus mar tá daoine tar éis a admháil, is gá na cánacha seo a chur ar dhaoine agus is gá an t-airgead a sholáthar chun na bóithre d'fheabhsú agus ní féidir linn dul gan é. Sin í an cheist atá ann agus caithfimid aghaidh a thabhairt air sin. Is beag comhairle a tugadh cad é an modh eile, an tslí eile go bhféadfaí an t-airgead seo a sholáthar, agus níl aon ní is dírí ná aon ní is macánta ná an cháin a chur ar na daoine gur gá na bóithre seo dhóibh, na daoine a úsáideann na bóithre seo agus a loiteann na bóithre seo. Ní dóigh liom go bhfuil aon ní is dírí ná is córtha ná é sin.

I gcaint de chuid de na Seanadóirí, do bhí cuid mhór iomrá ar scéal na dtarrachóirí talmhaíochta agus a n-úsáid ar na boithre. Ní hannamh cloiste agam féin daoine ag gearán fé chuid den obair sin. Is eol dom ceantar ina n-úsáidtear na tarrachóirí chun nithe a thabhairt chun margaidh agus chun iad a thabhairt abhaile ón margadh, agus sé an gearán a bhí ag locht lorraithe sna áit sin go raibh ar fhear an lorraí ó £25 go dtí £50 de cháin bhóthair d'íoc as an lorraí, ach, ar an dtaobh eile den scéal, ná raibh ar fhear an tarrachóra ach £6 nó £8 a íoc agus go bhféadfadh sé an tráchtáil bhóthair céanna a dhéanamh agus dul as ar cháin i bhfad níos lú ná mar bhí ar an lorraí.

Sin gné den rud a tháinig im aigne nuair a bhí caint ar iompar biatis, móna, beithígh, ainmhithe agus a leithéid eile ar na bóithre le tarrachóirí agus trucaill ceangailte in a ndiaidh. Is rud é gur ceart machnamh a dhéanamh air agus is rud é a thuigeann chuid de mhuintir na tíre, agus go mór mhór daoine a bhfuil lorraí acu, agus éagóir orthu féin é go mbeadh cead ag daoine tarrachóir d'úsáid chun na hoibre sin.

Tá baol eile sa scéal ná cloífidh siad le hiompar ainmhithe, agus torthaí talún agus móna. Chonac féin go soléir ualach bairillí pórtair agus ualach siúcra agus rudaí eile acu. Beadh an baol sin ann i gcónaí má bhíonn an ceart acu trácht a dhéanamh ar na bóithre mar lucht iompair, fé mar atá á mholadh ag roinnt daoine. Scéal eile sea é iad a bheith ag obair ar ghnó a bhaineann le talmhaíocht. Is dóigh liom gur ceart go ndéanfaí gach aon faoiseamh is féidir a thabhairt do tharrachóirí chun gnó talmhaíochta agus soláthair bhídh a dhéanamh agus go gcaithfear bheith aireach fé chead tráchtála bóthair do thabhairt dá leithéidí sin.

Bhí gearán ann go ruaigfí den bhóthar mórán daoine agus a gcuid gluaisteán de bharr breis cánacha a bheith á cur anois orthu, ach tá breis cánacha ó bhliain go bliain ag dul ar úsáid gluaisteán agus in ionad bheith ag dul de na bóithre nó laghdú ar thrácht na ngluaisteán is amhlaidh go bhfuil méadaithe fé dhó go leith laistigh de 10 mbliana orthu.

Níl puinn comhartha ansin go bhfuil an t-ardú cánacha ag ruaigeadh na ngluaisteán den bhóthar agus ní dóigh liomsa go ruaigfear iad leis an gcáin eile seo. Má tá lorraithe troma ag milleadh na mbóithre, mar is milleadh dáiríre ar na bóithre is láidre agus is daingne atá againn go mbeadh ceann de na lorraithe móra de mheáchain 8 nó 10 tonna agus dá thrucaill ina dhiaidh agus breis agus 20 tonna meáchain iontu ag imeacht orthu, ba cheart go níocfadh siad as. Ní dóigh liom gur féidir leis na bóithre seasamh sa chás sin, agus is dóigh liom má tá locht le leigheas agus bóithre le deisiú gur ar na lorraithe sin agus na h-ualaí sin is cóir an cháin mhór a leagan.

Maidir liom féin, ba mhaith liom, amhail an Seanadóir Summerfield, go gcuirfí an cháin ar an artola agus nach ar an chárr féin. Rachadh daoine mar mise agus gach duine príobháideach eile as an scéal go han-mhaith dá mba ar an artola a rachadh an cháin. Rachadh na daoine príobháideacha go han-mhaith as, ach conas a bheadh an scéal ag na taistilíthe gnótha a bhíonn ar an mbóthar ó mhaidin Dé Luain go hoíche Dé Satharn? Conas a bheadh an scéal ag an lucht gnótha a bhfuil dhá cheann nó trí cinn de thrucaillí nó de lorraithe acu? Conas a bheadh an scéal ag na daoine a bhíonn ag taisteal ar na bóithre gach uile lá, daoine a bhfuil orthu luach artola a íoc? Beadh an scéal i bhfad níos dírí orthu san agus i bhfad níos fearr do na ghluaisteáin phríobháideaca dá mba ar an artola a bheadh an cháin. Tá dhá thaobh leis an scéal sin agus níor mhiste dhúinn machnamh orthu. Measaim go mb'fhéidir ar deireadh gurbh é an rud ab fhearr ná an cháin a bheith ar an charr mar tá fé láthair.

Níl fonn ormsa óráid a dhéanamh ar an scéal seo, ach sin pointe nó dhó agus sé suim an scéil sin go bhfuil riachtanas le deisiú na mbóithre, le hathdhéanamh na mbóithre, go bhfuil riachtanas práinneach leis, go bhfuil costas na mbóithre anois le bheith ina ualach ró-throm ar na comhairlí contae agus nach féidir leo aon phingin eile sa bhreis a chaitheamh as rátaí na gcontaethe agus na rátaí talún. Ní féidir le contaethe go bhfuil rátaí 25/- go dtí 40/- sa phunt iontu anois aon bhreis costais a chur orthu féin chun na bóithre d'fheabhsú. Cheana féin ar fud na tíre ar fad, tá furmhór na gcomhairlí contae ag éileamh go dtógfaidh an Rialtas na príomh-bhóithre ar fad orthu féin. Tá sé sin le léamh sna páipéirí gach aon lá a mbíonn cruinniú de chomhairle chontae, agus is fíor nach féidir leo an costas a sheasamh. Scéal greannmhar é, measaim, an rud a bhí ann 10 mbliana ó shoin agus an rud atá inniu ann. Táthar ag iarraidh inniu ar son na bhfeirmeoirí, ar son na talmhaíochta, gur cheart go mbeadh cead tráchta bóthair ag tarrachóirí na bhfeirmeoirí. Deich mbliana ó shoin, is cuimhin liom go maith thíos i gCiarraidhe, i dTiobrad Arann agus i gcuid de Luimneach, na feirmeoirí ag déanamh clampair chun go bhfágfaí trí nó ceithre troigh ar thaobh an bhóthair i gcóir na gcapail i dtreo nach dtitfidís. Tá athrú tagtha ar an saol agus tháinig athrú ar an ngearán a bhí ag na feirmeoirí seo agus ag daoine eile. Sin é mo thuairimse fén scéal agus sé is trua liom go gcaithfear cánacha breise a chur ar ghluaistéain d'fhonn na bóithre do chothú sa treo gur ceart iad a bheith againn ar fud na tíre uile go léir.

Mr. O'Higgins

I want to join with the other Senators in protesting against this increase in taxation. In discussing this matter most people overlook the fact, including a number of the Senators opposite, that this Bill is in effect part and parcel of the Government's Budget. It was forecast by the Minister for Finance when he introduced his Budget and the only surprising thing about it is that the Bill is introduced in this House and was guided through the Dáil by the Minister for Local Government rather than by the Minister for Finance. This Bill is part and parcel of the Budget and contains proposals on which that Budget was framed.

It seems to me that the Minister to a very great extent withstands the opposition to this taxation by using the arguments that it was a small drop in the ocean as compared with the general expenses of motorists. For instance, he said that taxi owners and hackney owners have to pay much more in expenses in comparison to what the increase will be in taxation. I am certain the Minister did use that argument when the case was put to him by the taxi owners' and hackney owners' association that the amount of the difference caused by this Bill was minute and could be disregarded. That argument could be used by any Minister in relation to every other item of taxation provided that they regarded that particular item as an individual item and refused to look over the whole picture of increased taxation and the increased cost of living which has been inflicted on the people of this country since the present Government took office.

But, you cannot regard this taxation being imposed by this Bill as a separate entity and without having regard to the other taxation imposed on the people by the present Government and without having regard to the general all-over picture of the rise in the cost of living. It would be easy for the Minister or any other Minister of the Government to make that case in relation to any tax. It would be quite easy for the Minister for Finance in relation to an increase in bread, for instance, to say that that was nothing, that it was only 3d. per loaf and that the people should not whine or groan about paying an extra 3d. for a loaf of bread. It could be equally quite easy for the Minister in regard to tea to say that it was only 2d., 3d. or 4d. and that it was nothing covering a period of a week or a fortnight. The same thing could be applied to various other commodities. That is the Minister's attitude in relation to the taxation proposed in this Bill. I want to say to the Minister and to the Senators sitting behind him that you cannot regard this new imposition in this light; that when we are considering this Bill we are entitled to have regard to the fact that the people on whom these increases are being imposed have already suffered and suffered grievously by reason of the taxation imposed in the Budget proper as apart from the taxes now being imposed on the owners of motor vehicles, lorries, private cars, etc., and who have also suffered by the increase in the cost of living which is related directly to the Government's action in deliberately removing the subsidies on food as part of the budgetary policy. We have also to have regard to the fact that many of these people have also suffered because of the increased income-tax and so on and that these proposals merely constitute an additional burden. In considering whether or not it is fair to impose this additional burden, we are entitled to have consideration of the other burdens already imposed.

I want to ask the Minister whether he agrees with Senator Yeats and Senator An Seabhac that the principle behind this Bill is that those using the roads most should pay most towards road maintenance. I do not think that I am in any way misrepresenting Senator Yeats in saying that that was his argument.

Mr. Yeats

I said that those who damaged the roads most should pay most.

Mr. O'Higgins

I understood both Senator Yeats and Senator An Seabhac to have put forward the proposition that those who use the roads most should pay most towards their upkeep and maintenance.

Mr. Yeats

No, I said those who damaged the roads most.

Mr. O'Higgins

If Senator Yeats had put forward that proposition that those who use the roads most should pay the most I would have been prepared to agree with him but apparently he does not make that proposition. His proposal is that those who damage the roads most should pay most towards their maintenance. Senator An Seabhac seemed definitely to put forward the proposal that those who use the roads most should pay most in taxation.

Mr. Colgan

Your Irish must be defective.

Micheál Ó hAodha

Shíl mise go ndúirt sé é sin agus dúirt.

Mr. O'Higgins

I agree my Irish is not as fluent as that of Senator An Seabhac, and perhaps I should have relied on Senator Colgan as my interpreter.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Senator O'Higgins should be allowed to continue.

Mr. O'Higgins

I want to get this clear that we are now increasing taxation through the proposals in this Bill. I think it is fair that, when raising money for roads, the people who use the roads most—and presumably it is those who use them most who cause the most damage— should be expected to contribute to a greater extent towards road maintenance than those people who are not using them to the same extent.

I think that is quite a fair proposition. In that connection I want to say that I believe the case put forward by Senator Douglas is a perfectly fair one. I do not know whether the Minister proposes to deal with it in his reply. Senator An Seabhac made some attempt to reply to Senator Douglas's point but it was not, I think, a satisfactory one. Senator Douglas asked if that principle was behind the Bill why did not the Minister endeavour to raise this £830,000 odd which he hoped to get by means of an additional tax on petrol or fuel used on these vehicles? I know, as Senator Summerfield interjected, that petrol does already bear a heavy duty but if the principle behind the Bill is that those who use the roads most—I do not care whether they are vehicles for the purpose of this argument, light or heavy —should pay most, then surely the right method of approach—it is certainly a very much fairer method of approach—would have been to increase the price of fuel?

As things stand under the Bill which the Minister has brought before us the position is that those who are the owners of vehicles and who use them only once a week or four times in the year—once every quarter—are going to pay just as much and as heavy as a person who has his vehicle on the road every single day of the year. I do not believe that that is a fair method of approach.

Senator An Seabhac endeavoured to reply to the case put up by Senator Douglas by saying that if you increase the price of petrol, the price of the fuel used in the vehicle, then the commercial traveller or the firm with a fleet of two or three lorries on the road would find themselves in a worse position by the time we were finished with them than under this Bill. That is so. It would at any rate show some consistency if the view were taken that those who use the road most and cause the most deterioration to the road should pay most for their repair.

I put forward the point of view to the Minister that the provisions of this Bill do not represent a fair approach at all. Also—and possibly the Minister is not to be blamed for this; it is a matter that will take some time to work out—there should be some method of differentiating between private cars which are used essentially for business purposes, professional purposes or other business purposes and those which are used purely and simply for pleasure purposes. I think the Minister might at any rate consider the point and see if any provision could be made to meet it. It is definitely unfair to require that people who use cars for business purposes should be taxed in exactly the same manner as the person who can afford to use the car and does use the car solely for pleasure purposes.

Senator Hartney used very much the same argument as the Minister used in the Dáil, that the amount of increases are very, very small and really were not worth bothering about. I have already dealt with that attitude. I think that kind of plámás can go a certain distance with a certain number of people but you cannot use it too often. Certainly, under the present Government if we tried to use that argument to justify each individual increase in taxation and the cost of living you would be sick and tired of hearing your own voice at the end of it.

Senator Ashe advanced the proposition—I think Senator Colgan may rest assured that I got it correctly this time because Senator Ashe paid Senator Colgan the compliment of translation into English——

Mr. Colgan

He did not.

Mr. O'Higgins

——that you cannot make omelettes without breaking eggs. Unfortunately that is true. It is a very convenient argument to use if one is not the egg himself. Who are the eggs in this omelette the Minister is making? They are ordinary people, many of whom have used their cars in order to earn their livelihood committing no greater crime than that they have a car with four wheels on the road for the purpose of trying to earn a livelihood for themselves or making a home for their families.

Many of these people, particularly taxi owners, are people who, when they came out of the National Army having given lengthy service, including service during the emergency, put whatever gratuity they got into buying a taxi or a hackney car. These are the eggs in the Minister's omelette. It is all very well for a Senator to stand up and use that argument. It is a callous type of argument at the best of times but it is particularly callous when you consider the type of men who are affected by this legislation which the Minister has introduced.

I think we are also entitled to protest against a 100 per cent. rise in the cost of driving licences which has already been imposed. I think it was imposed as from the 23rd or 24th of October last. It is being confirmed in this Bill. We are entitled also to resent the manner in which that increase came about. I think I am right in saying—the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—that while the Minister for Finance did forecast that these duties on motor vehicles would be revised, he did not mention the fact that the Government were going to double up the cost of driving licences. I think no one was given any hint of that until the Minister actually introduced his resolution to that effect in the Dáil.

Other Senators have made the point —I merely want to refer to it but I do not intend to emphasise it at any great length—that this particular legislation will add further to the spiralling cost of living, that in a number of cases the taxation which has been imposed by the Minister under this Bill will be passed on to the consumer. If that is not done, if business people who are subject to the drastic-taxation imposed by this Bill do not pass it on to the consumer there is only one other way of meeting it and that is by reducing the numbers of those in employment.

Senator Yeats made the case that there would be a general outcry if more modern machinery were used for road making and that numbers of Senators would come in here and cry out that by reason of this machinery being used men were being dismissed. I am not going to deal with any kind of hypothetical case like that. I am going to cry out that this legislation which Senator Yeats is standing over and which he is welcoming to the House as a much-needed and valuable Bill is a Bill which will cause unemployment and dismissals. Either that or it will add further to the cost of living.

You cannot have it both ways. This legislation and the forecasting of this legislation by the Minister in his Budget statement has already had very serious effect on the employment position in this city and in other large cities. There are people connected with the trade who can verify or reject what I am saying but I believe it is true to say that since this legislation was foreshadowed by the Minister in his Budget statement and, more particularly, since it was introduced by the Minister for Local Government in the Dáil there has been what can only be described as a slump in the second-hand car market. I believe I am correct in saying that. I am open to challenge on it if I am wrong.

I believe that the reason for the slump in the second-hand car market is this bit of legislation that we are discussing to-day, that Senator Yeats recommends to the House as a much-needed and valuable Bill. It will cause unemployment. It has caused unemployment. It will cause hardships to many people who have put their investments into taxis or hackneys. It is a further and savage impost on these people who have already suffered grievous harm by the Fianna Fáil Budget.

I want to finish by reminding the House that the present Taoiseach when he was leader of the Opposition, on the occasion of the increase of petrol prices by the inter-Party Government, went on record as condemning the increase in petrol tax as a type of hidden taxation which was contributory to increasing the cost of living. I have not got the actual date of the Taoiseach's speech but I can get it, if necessary.

That was his view then. I say his view if he were consulted with regard to these proposals would be very much more drastic because we are not merely increasing petrol tax, which I think would be fair if the principles are such as Senator Yeats and Senator An Seabhac would have us believe——

Mr. Yeats

Would the Senator support an increased petrol tax?

Mr. O'Higgins

I would certainly support an increased petrol tax if this legislation was withdrawn. Will the Senator urge on the Minister to withdraw it and to increase the petrol tax? Certainly I would have no hesitation in doing that.

Mr. Colgan

It would be another story.

Mr. Patrick O'Reilly

The Senator would not bring his colleagues along with him.

Mr. O'Higgins

Senators have asked what is the alternative. That is one alternative. I am certainly prepared to put myself on record as saying that I think it would be much better to raise the equivalent amount of money by an increase in petrol and, if there were no alternative, I would support an increase in petrol rather than this legislation.

There are other methods suggested. I do not want to go over them. Senator McGuire and other Senators referred to the possibility of improved methods of road making and road maintenance. I think there is room for improvement. I think Senator Yeats misjudges his colleagues in saying that they would restrain themselves from trying to bring up to date and more modern methods into being. Essentially, there must be some drastic change in the whole set-up regarding road maintenance.

There should be established some central road-making authority and, as a requisite precedent to that, the Minister in his own Department or outside his own Department should set some inquiry on foot as to the possibility of improving the methods employed in road making and road maintenance and as to the shape a central authority, having authority to deal with the whole question of road maintenance throughout the country, would take.

I know that that it going somewhat outside the scope of the Bill and I will not continue.

The impositions here are harsh. To a great extent they are unjust. The method of approach is completely wrong. I would be glad if the Minister would listen to the views of Senator Yeats if he urges the withdrawal of this Bill and the imposition of a petrol tax instead.

Mr. Hearne

It is now five minutes to nine. Would it be possible to get an indication as to the number of Senators who still want to speak on this Bill? It would be desirable to finish the Second Reading of this Bill to-night and we could then have the Committee Stage to-morrow and amendments could be submitted up to say 2 o'clock to-morrow. That would avoid the necessity of our sitting next week.

Mr. O'Higgins

How long does the Minister want to reply?

Mr. Hearne

If the Minister can get in to allow him sufficient time to take the Second Stage of the Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Bill, his speech will take about half-an-hour. After hearing what the Minister has to say, it might prove acceptable to the House that the Seanad Electoral (Panel Members) Bill be referred to a select committee as it is a highly technical Bill. That committee could meet during recess. It would enable the committee to do some work before the Seanad would reassemble.

Mr. Baxter

As far as we are concerned, the Minister can get in at latest at 9.15.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Are there any other speakers? I want to be definite on this.

Padraig Aghas

As a matter of explanation. Senator O'Higgins misinterpreted what I said. He pretended that I wanted to break up the taxi owners.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator may not make a speech. When the Senator is as long in public life as Senator O'Higgins he will not be so sensitive.

Padraig Aghas

The taxi owners are the only people for whom I made a plea.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

The Chair asked if there were any other speakers. I had intended to speak very briefly but if the Chair rules against me——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I am not ruling against you.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

As I understand the Minister wants to conclude this debate I will not detain the House very long. There is one matter to which I must draw attention. From the speeches of Senator Commons and others who allege that they speak for the agricultural community one would think that the provisions of this Bill were intended simply to punish the agricultural community. So far as tractors are concerned there is one fact that all those people refuse to refer to. I do not know whether I should suggest that they did not read the Bill or that they did not want to record the fact that the agricultural tractor doing agricultural work is taxed at the rate of 5/-. That simple fact has not been referred to.

Mr. Commons

It must carry its own implements.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

Not necessarily.

Mr. Commons

Yes.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

You are a better lawyer than I am.

Mr. Commons

A better farmer.

Mr. Baxter

That is true enough-An inspection would prove that.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

There has been a great deal of talk about principle. In the latest instance the question has been raised by Senator O'Higgins as to the principle behind this Bill.

As to the principle behind this Bill, I suggest it is based on the simple principle of raising money for the building and maintenance of roads with the greatest possible equity. It is said there may be greater equity by putting it on petrol. I could give good reasons why that is not so and the people who made the argument could give those good reasons also but do not want to do so. I take it that the Minister will give those reasons, so I will not go into it. I think it is quite unfair for people electing to speak for the agricultural community to try to put it across that the tractors will have to pay an increased tax. It is one type of vehicle tax that is not being increased. Those people surely should have the common honesty to refer to that, but that has not been done.

Might I suggest that people with tractors with cleated tyres who propose to do transport work on the roads, in rural areas where you have not many main roads, do more damage than lorries, because those tractors are built to work on land and not on roads? They destroy the county road, which has not a waterproof carpet or surface. Those tyres dig into the roads and plough them out. Since many of the people who propose to use tractors for purposes other than agriculture, are using the roads for transport, surely we can get down to the principle that the people using them pay for them. Otherwise, is it not the neighbours who still have horses and carts who will have to pay their county council rates for the maintenance of those roads which are being damaged by those people? I am quite prepared to argue that it is desirable that those using the roads should pay for them.

This Bill is based on the principle of trying to collect the money with the greatest possible equity. It would be quite unfair that people living in congested districts would have to pay higher rates, year after year, to maintain roads for heavy vehicles and motor transport generally. In my own county, I have seen vehicles do damage to the roads, heavy vehicles carrying heavy plant through County Leitrim and part of County Roscommon, going north-west, carrying a type of machinery that the roads were not built for and which they were not intended to carry. Transport of that sort does definite damage to them, and surely those who do the damage should pay for it.

This Bill will create a larger fund at the disposal of the Minister for the allocation of money to local authorities. I trust that when the Minister is making the allocations he will do so with the greatest possible equity, so as to ensure proper treatment of those counties with a contracted taxable capacity where they are unable to maintain the roads on that account up to as high a standard as other counties with a higher taxable capacity. I ask him to see that the money will be disbursed with a degree of equity which will ensure that such counties will have as high a standard in roads as those with the higher taxable capacity.

In the counties with the contracted taxable capacity the land is poor and more often boggy, and it is more expensive to make roads because of the lack of good foundation. Those counties in the West are being asked to maintain roads up to a high standard for vehicles travelling, often from Dublin. Many of the motor vehicles are taxed in Dublin, even though they operate in the country. Though taxed in Dublin, while travelling through the country, they do that measure of damage to the roads, and it is only fair that, in the disbursal of this money, the counties that cannot maintain roads out of their own revenue, to the same standard as other counties, should obtain sufficient to enable them to provide roads up to the higher standard of those other counties.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister to conclude.

Mr. Smith

Senator McGuire, in opening the discussion on this Bill, suggested to me that one of his principal complaints arose from the absence of consultation with the affected interests. I suppose that that is not an unusual kind of charge to hear here in this House or in the Dáil itself—but it is not accurate. Senator Summerfield has made it clear that there was consultation on quite a number of occasions during the consideration of these proposals. I would like to tell Senator McGuire also that these proposals are the result of an inter-departmental committee set up by me, which went thoroughly into every aspect of what is provided for in this Bill. Furthermore, I would like to tell Senator McGuire that my predecessor in office, in the Government that I take it he supported loyally, saw also the need to have this matter of motor taxation examined; and he, too, set up an inter-departmental committee. That committee recommended an increase in motor taxation. That Labour Minister, that colleague of Senator McCrea, who sees no merit at all in this measure——

Mr. McCrea

He did not implement it.

Mr. Smith

——that colleague saw fit to waste the time of the officials of his Department in preparing a memorandum setting out proposals for an all-round increase of 50 per cent. in motor taxation. But, as was usual in those days, the memorandum and the report of the committee and all the work and justification there was for its setting up, went for nought because the Government of the day did not want to face up to the responsibility which was theirs.

Mr. O'Higgins

They did face up to petrol.

Mr. Smith

The Government of the day and the Minister who was my predecessor, and a member of the Labour Party, submitted a memorandum suggesting an increase in motor taxation higher than that provided in these proposals; he must have been convinced of the need for these proposals for increasing motor taxation and that there was a useful purpose to which the proceeds of that increased motor taxation could be applied, or he would never have taken that course. Therefore, I say to Senator McGuire and those who suggest that there was no consultation and that this was not the proper approach or method, and I say to my critics on the right who have been speaking along these lines, that these proposals are none other than the proposals suggested by my predecessor to a Government which was afraid to face up to the responsibility of making a decision upon them.

Professor Hayes

Were these proposals suggested by the Minister or to the Minister?

Mr. Smith

These proposals were the result of the setting up of an inter-departmental committee by my predecessor.

Professor Hayes

Were they not the Minister's proposals?

Mr. Smith

Following the receipt of the committee's report, the Minister had a memorandum prepared for circulation to members of the Government suggesting that the Government should agree to an over-all increase of 50 per cent. in motor taxation. That is exactly what I did. That is exactly what these proposals here provide for, except that they are not as severe.

Professor Hayes

Is the Minister revealing now what is on Cabinet files? I was not in the last Government, but this is a private matter which the Minister is revealing.

Mr. Smith

There is no question of revealing any Cabinet secrets and, if I am in error in any shape or form in revealing what I have revealed, I will be the first to try to make amends. I am entitled to say that because it is on the records of my Department that a committee was set up by my predecessor, a committee composed exactly of the same Departments as the committee which I set up, and their findings were exactly the same. The aim which my predecessor had was exactly the same as my own, excepting this, that after circulating the memorandum to the Government he was able to make them come to a decision.

Mr. O'Higgins

The Minister went further. In the first instance he said that, having brought the matter before the Government, the then Government for a particular motive which the Minister attributed to them had relegated it——

Mr. Smith

I did not.

Mr. O'Higgins

I beg your pardon. It will be on the records that the Minister stated that for motives of unpopularity the then Government did not introduce them.

Mr. Smith

I am entitled when I state the facts, and the facts were that the memorandum suggesting to the Government a 50 per cent. increase in motor taxation following the report of this departmental committee was shelved and the Government refused to make a decision on it—I am entitled to come here and state what my suspicions are as to what the reasons were. My suspicions are that they were afraid to face up to the responsibility of making a decision on that memorandum.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister has made a statement and is entitled to proceed with his reply.

Mr. Smith

Senator McGuire and other Senators as well as Dáil Deputies have suggestions that there was another way by which this road problem could be tackled, and suggested the introduction of more modern methods of approach to the reconditioning, making and repair of roads. They suggested, too, that the amount of money at present going into the Road Fund from motor taxation, if used intelligently, could in that way achieve the same results as might be achieved by increased taxation using the present antiquated organisation. Now, it is grand, of course, to have these suggestions coming from Senator McGuire, but I know that there are Senators in this House who understand all the implications of these suggestions.

I have not taken the line in my discussions in the Dáil, nor will I take it here, that there is no room for a modern approach in the making of our roads, but members of the county councils are aware, surely, that there is a human problem behind this that has to be remembered always, not only by the county councils but by county engineers and their assistants. How often have we heard and read discussions at county council meetings protesting against the establishment of central quarries, the critics of such action giving as their reason the withdrawal of work from all over the administrative area and placing it in one central spot. I have explained that the engineering advisers to county councils and my Department are fully alert and very anxious to develop along these lines as best they can, but they have to have regard to these difficulties that Senator McGuire would brush aside.

If you approach it with what he would like to have, the businessman's approach, that may be all right, but if some of the businessmen had experience of county council membership they would realise that it is not so easy to make that clear-cut departure from one system which may appear now to be antiquated and much more expensive than the new system. There is, on the part of county councils, county managers and county engineers, a progressive movement in that direction, having regard to the difficulties of the situation, and there is evidence everywhere that they are trying to get along and trying to surmount the difficulties for which people with real experience of local administration can vouch.

Other Senators asked me to comment on proposals made from time to time as to a new method of motor taxation. Senator Summerfield and the members of his organisation met me on a few occasions. Both the committees to which I have referred, the committee set up by my predecessor and the committee set up by me, examined this proposition made by the Motor Traders' Association and my feeling about the suggestion made by the association—I think I was entitled to look upon their approach in this way— was that in making the suggestion they made to me and in recommending a new system of motor taxation, they were more anxious to secure a relief in taxation for the motorist and the motor trade than to achieve the purposes which I, as Minister for Local Government, was bound to try to achieve.

The Senators have undoubtedly given a very good political display. As a matter of fact, when coming here, with the limited experience I have of the Seanad, I was wondering if they could generate the atmosphere around these proposals that I had experience of in the Dáil, and I must say that they made a reasonably good effort to do so. Are the Senators who generated that atmosphere around these proposals really serious in suggesting to this House or to the country that a code of motor taxation, which was designed in 1926, having regard to the costs of road making, wages and the overall costs of making and maintaining our roads, is an equitable system now? Do these Senators who suggest that those of us who have to take responsibility for these proposals here have not got our ear to the ground and do not know what the public mind is in regard to them?

I think I meet as many people in the outside world as most Senators and it is true to say that from the day on which the White Paper indicating the extent to which motor taxation was to be increased was published, in not a single instance did a lorry owner approach me and make a protest. I suppose it is natural to expect that an effort would be made to surround these proposals with this political smoke-screen, but any businessman down the country with a two-ton, a three-ton or a four-ton lorry knows very well what it is costing him to place two men on that lorry and what it must be costing to make and keep our roads. He knows that far better than we do, and, being a reasonable man, he knows that the making, the maintenance and the keeping of our roads in good condition is far more important to him than the difference it will mean to him—an increase on a two-ton lorry of £16 per year. A businessman using a two-ton lorry will pay £16 per year more and that is £16 of an increase in a rate of duty determined away back in 1926, when roads could be made for exactly one-third of what they cost to make to-day.

It is not my intention, nor is it my desire, to minimise the effect of increased taxation, whether the amount be small or large. Senator O'Higgins's approach was that whatever the amount of the increase is, it is an important matter. I am prepared to concede that taxation, however small, must have a bearing on the situation and that those who are responsible for imposing it should have regard to all the facts and circumstances, to the need and the justification for it. I concede that, but is it seriously contended, even if 2/4 per week may mean a packet of cigarettes to a hackneyman, that that increase in his costs is going to put him out of business? Is it seriously contended that the businessman who has enjoyed a rate of tax on his lorry which was fixed in 1926, when costs were as I have described, is going to be crucified because he has now to pay an additional £16?

Is it suggested by Senator O'Higgins and those who would have us believe that they speak for rural Ireland that a code of motor taxation, which provided only for the taxation of a six-ton lorry and that all vehicles in excess of six tons would pay no tax at all and could roam our roads— vehicles which are the property of Comhlucht Súicre Éireann, of Roadstone, Limited, and of the gypsum industry—battering them down and smashing our bridges, while paying no tax whatever in respect of that destruction, should be allowed to remain in operation? Is it suggested that in these cases, where, in County Tipperary, the county manager has had to resort to the powers provided for local authorities by law to prevent such vehicles from travelling on certain roads in order to protect roads which were never designed to carry such weights or to enable such vehicles with their loads to pass over them, it is an indefensible thing to come in here—as I would say, belatedly—to introduce proposals of this nature and to stand before this House and to defend them?

Some Senator was anxious to build up around me and the Government of which I am a member all the unpopularity naturally attaching to a proposal to increase taxation, and then said that this was all being done in order to give the Minister the pleasure and the popularity which is associated with the distribution of the moneys which will come into the pool by being able to say to the local bodies: "Am I not a great fellow to be able to provide for you in this way?"

Well, I do not mind saying that I will take special pleasure in seeing this Road Fund increased to the extent of between £800,000 and £1,000,000 and I will be very glad indeed to see that fund grow as a result of these efforts. You can take it from me that when these disbursements from the Road Fund come to be made, there will not be any question arising at any county council as to whether the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Local Government was responsible for them because it will then be a case of "a rose by any other name will smell as sweet."

Some reference has been made here to the extent to which the Road Fund has been raided by successive Governments in the past. I have some figures here dealing with that matter and they are not very important. The raids were not very extensive, but I want to be put on record here as saying that I cannot give the Seanad or anybody else an assurance that at some future time the Road Fund will not again be raided by some future Minister for Finance. If I am here to take charge and responsibility for these proposals I am glad in a sense that the Government have chosen me to take responsibility for the matter and in that way have definitely associated the Minister for Local Government, whoever he may be, in a very definite form with the Road Fund. I have, since I became Minister, endeavoured to prevent any interference with the Road Fund. I have succeeded in stringent times in inducing the Minister for Finance this year to release his grip on the Road Fund to the extent of £600,000. If I am associated with these proposals, while I cannot give an assurance that the fund will not again be raided, I am taking it that my association with these proposals will convey to those people responsible in the future that the Road Fund should be used for the roads.

There is evidence everywhere in every county—and Senators who have been critical of these proposals have to admit it—that we have to tackle this problem of roads. I have had suggestions from the county councils to the effect that the grants that are being made from the fund for the making of roads should be used by them to pay the interest and sinking fund on larger loans which they may borrow because of the road situation and the problem facing them. They say that, even when the increased amounts are given, it will not be sufficient to keep up with the problem with which the local bodies are contending, and they suggest that I should give them permission to use a proportion of the grants which they get to pay the interest and sinking fund on much larger sums which they would borrow for the purpose of roads.

Agriculture, I was pleased to discover, has a tremendous number of friends in all parts of the House and in all organisations and societies. Almost everybody who spoke here, critical or otherwise, came down in full sympathy with the agriculturists and the burdens and hardships, trials and privations which would result from the implementation of these proposals. Of the total of £830,000 which it was estimated would result from the proposals in this Bill, agriculture will pay only £31,000. The tractors that are used for agricultural purposes and the tractors that are used for general haulage purposes will pay a total of £31,000 out of that £830,000.

It was not correct to say that prior to the introduction of these proposals the farmer with a £6 tax on his tractor could use it for general haulage purposes. That was not the position anywhere, with the exception of a couple of districts in which district justices found in their interpretation of the law that they might do so and those who were brought before them escaped. What I am providing for in these proposals as far as the farmers are concerned is that the man who uses the tractor on his land will pay the 5/- licence duty that he has always paid, while a man using a tractor for haulage on the road will pay an £8 licence duty, and for that duty he can haul his own produce or his neighbour's produce, turf, cattle or other goods in any way he likes; he can cooperate with another farmer as he has done heretofore. If, however, he goes into commercial haulage he will then have to pay a duty of £31 10s. It is all very well for Senators to say that this is a point on which some concession should be granted. This matter was also examined by the committee, and they considered the suggestion which has been made here by Senator Johnston. The committee, in the course of its deliberation, having examined this point, recommended against it and I agree with that recommendation.

Professor Johnston

Think it over again.

Mr. Smith

There has to be finality somewhere. Some people can think of things all their lives, but there are a number of other people who have to get them done and must decide. There is no aspect of this Bill that has not been examined by the two committees to which I referred, by myself and by other interested bodies.

Much play has been made of the case of the taxi owners and hackney owners. In this country any group that can organise itself and that can bring the threads together, form some kind of an association, call public meetings and invite public men to attend them and make an exaggerated case as to the difficulties which proposals will create for them, can as a result of that get public men to give them assurances of one kind or another. I admit what has been said here by Senators that these taxi and hackney owners perform a good service.

Senators spoke about hackney owners, their importance and the important contribution that they make in rural Ireland. I concede that if one looks at any rural district one will see the changes that have taken place in a period of 15 or 20 years are undoubtedly tremendous. Most Senators who know these parts know full well that in hundreds of cases the owners of these hackney cars are using them in the main for private purposes. In some cases they are using the cars for taking the owners and maybe their neighbours to work and they make them available on Sundays for hackney purposes.

Do not Senators know quite well, that a concession was made to these hackney owners and taxi owners in 1947 when taxation on private cars was increased by 50 per cent. in order to subsidise the price of bread and flour, that taxi owners and hackney owners were exempt from that increased rate of duty because of the strained times through which they had come during the war years and because of the shortage of supplies and the difficulties which confronted them in earning their living. They obtained that concession as between 1947 and 1952.

It is only natural, as I said in the Dáil, that they would strive and agitate to secure a continuance of that concession. It is only natural that those to whom the roads mean more than any other class would be called upon now to come into line with the private motors and pay their share and help the local bodies who are engaged in this tremendous task of making our roads.

I do not want to speak at any great length on these matters. Several points were made with which I would have liked to deal. They were points with which I could have dealt in a very effective way. For my part, I want to assure those who have suggested that, in my approach to the proposals that are set out in this measure, I am in any way timid or doubtful as to the justification or the need for them, or doubtful that it is the only means of approaching this situation that that is not the case. Some Senators suggested that this is not the time nor is this the way the matter should be approached. How often have we heard the same thing? It is never the time to increase taxation. It is never the time to face up to a problem like this. It is never the time to call upon public men to face up to the fact that, while the road rate struck in 1939 for the making and maintenance of the roads averaged 3/11 in the £, it is now well over 8/- in the £. It is never the time to say, while the rates throughout the country for the maintenance of the roads have increased by more than 100 per cent., motorists have the same rate of tax as in 1926. Those who are tremendously interested in agriculture have cried tears at the injustice that was to be done to agriculture, because we were going to the motoring industry and saying: "Look here, now, you have had a fairly easy time so far as motor taxation was concerned since 1926. With the exception of private cars, you have enjoyed a rate of tax that was applied at a time when things were altogether different than they are to-day." The ratepayers have increased their contribution to road maintenance by more than 100 per cent., and it is not unfair to ask the motorists, private car owners, hackney car owners, taxi owners, owners of commercial vehicles and, especially, owners of heavy vehicles to contribute their share. The heavy vehicles are designed, not as Senator O'Higgins and others suggested to give employment, but for the purpose of carrying heavier loads to relieve these companies and private individuals from the necessity of paying two men on a smaller vehicle carrying only four or five tons.

There is justification for these proposals, in fact, no matter from what angle you examine them providing you have an open mind and are not full of a desire to introduce a political atmosphere in regard to everything that is discussed which is designed to be helpful to the country. Any man approaching these problems, and who examines them closely as I have done, relates them to the present time and need and compares them with all the other changes I gave, will realise there is justification for them.

I never had greater confidence in sponsoring proposals than I have now in sponsoring these. I know that sensible people, even those sensible people affected by the proposals, will see the need for them and will understand thoroughly.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 28; Níl, 15.

Tá

• Aghas, Pádraig.
• Colgan, Michael.
• Dowdall, Jennie.
• Farnan, Robert P.
• Fitzsimons, Patrick.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Hartnett, Noel.
• Hartney, Seán.
• Hawkins, Frederick.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Hearne, Michael.
• Honan, Thomas V.
• Johnston, Joseph.
• Kilroy, James.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lynch, James B.
• Lynch, Peter T.
• Nic Phiarais, Maighréad M.
• Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
• O'Dwyer, Martin.
• Ó Grádaigh, Seán.
• Ua Guilidhe, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• Quirke, William.
• Ruane, Thomas.
• Teehan, Patrick J.
• Yeats, Michael B.

Níl

• Baxter, Patrick F.
• Burke, Denis.
• Butler, John.
• Commons, Bernard.
• Douglas, James G.
• Hayes, Michael.
• McCrea, James J.
• McGuire, Edward A.
• McHugh, Vincent.
• Meighan, John J.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Reilly, Patrick F.
• Ruane, Seán T.
• Summerfield, Frederick M.
• Tunney, James.

Tellers: Tá, Senators O'Higgins and Loughman; Níl, Senators McHugh and P.F. O'Reilly.

Question declared carried.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When is it proposed to take the next stage?

Mr. Hearne

To-morrow.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Recommendations are to be in before 2 o'clock to-morrow. That is agreed.

The Seanad adjourned at 10.10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 11th December.