Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 11 Dec 1952

Vol. 41 No. 5

Finance (Excise Duties) (Vehicles) Bill, 1952—Committee and Final Stages.

SECTION 1.

Professor Johnston

I move recommendation No. 1:—

Before sub-section (9) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(9) The Minister may by regulation prescribe a 50 per cent, reduction of duty for the vehicles referred to in paragraph 4(c) and (d) of Part I of the Schedule and in paragraph 3 of Part II of the Schedule provided they are used on the public roads exclusively for traffic between a farmer's premises and the local creamery, or within a radius which does not exceed the distance from the farmer's premises to the nearest railway station or his accustomed market town (whichever distance is the greater).

I put down this recommendation because I was very much impressed by the remarks that Senator Baxter made about the important part that locally-owned tractors and tractor vehicles are playing in the bringing of milk to rural creameries and in accommodating neighbours as well as their owners in bringing produce to the market and cattle to local fairs. I think it is highly desirable that we should encourage in every possible way this kind of local traffic. There ought to be nothing controversial about it and there ought to be nothing competitive about it with regard to the interests of the public transport system. In fact, it is eminently suited not only to do valuable service locally but also to fit in with the general public transport system which, as we know, really needs new blood and new traffic very badly.

If this recommendation were adopted the net financial effect would be that a tractor which otherwise would be liable to a tax of £8 would have to pay £4 and a tractor which would otherwise be liable to a tax of £31 10s. would have to pay 15 guineas. The actual loss of revenue would be neither here nor there because, as the Minister pointed out, the total taxation of tractors is only estimated to bring in £31,000. I think the effect in encouraging effective use of scarce equipment and in the saving of manpower, and the effects of that in promoting production, especially agricultural production, would far more than compensate for any indirect loss of revenue that might result. I have much pleasure in making this recommendation to the House.

Mr. Hawkins

While we must appreciate the interest of Senator Johnston in putting down this recommendation, I think any Senator who reads it will admit, no matter how enthusiastic he might be to give certain favourable reliefs to those people employed in agriculture, that this section, as it is before the House, is entirely unworkable. For that reason I would ask the Senator not to press it. I cannot see how it could be worked.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Smith)

I am afraid that is my opinion. Apart altogether from any other objections I might have to this recommendation, I feel that it would be quite impracticable to work a scheme of that nature. I doubt very much if it would even be fair. Suppose you had a trader who was interested in the haulage and distribution of his own goods over a limited radius and let us suppose he employed a small tractor with the same carrying capacity as that of the two to three ton lorry, why should he get a preferential rate of tax? Why should he get a rate of tax which would enable him to achieve the same purpose as that achieved by a businessman who would employ a two to three ton lorry and pay a tax of about £50?

There are all kinds of objections to this recommendation. I think it is entirely unworkable, and I am satisfied that if you attempted to work it, instead of doing justice, you would be doing in many cases a much greater injustice than the Senator is trying honestly to undo.

Mr. O'Donnell

Would the Minister not agree that it should be possible to grant the concession sought on such conditions as would cover the points in the Senator's recommendation? Having regard to the fact that the farmer gets 1/4 per gallon for his milk, out of which he has to pay 2d. for carriage of the milk to the creamery, the production of milk in this country will be on the down grade. It seems to me to be a very exceptional type of case, and it should not be impossible for the Minister to accept this recommendation.

Mr. Baxter

Surely the Minister has replied to a case that Senator Johnston has not made at all? The amendment of the Senator seeks to achieve what the Minister says he cannot accept. Senator Johnston's amendment deals with vehicles used in haulage between the farmer's premises and the local creamery and his radius does not extend outside that. It would not be greater than from the farmer's premises to the local railway station. Senator Johnston visualises these vehicles in the possession of the farmer used only for carrying the farmer's produce within a limited radius and he does not visualise the case of the trader distributing goods, that come in from outside, by means of a tractor to his customer. I think there is a great difference between the transport of the goods which are the produce of the farm from the farm to the point of destination and the case which the Minister cites of a trader using a tractor to deliver a pound of tea from a shop to the customer. I think the Minister has made no case at all against this amendment. I have an amendment further down which is wider in scope and I will deal with that situation when we come to it in a more satisfactory way.

Mr. Smith

I am anxious to get from Senators when a farmer is a farmer and when a trader is a trader. Under the code of motor taxation which this measure will replace, there was a concession given to what were termed "agricultural lorries". That was a special concession which, irrespective of the weight or carrying capacity of such vehicles, fixed a licence duty of £25. That state of affairs continued for 26 years, and when a particular case came before the courts as to whether or not some of the persons paying this tax were, in fact, farmers, so far as I can recall, the courts decided in favour of the owner of the vehicles although, having some land, the owners were mostly concerned with business. Is it now to be suggested that a farmer could not reside in a town and carry on business as well as the farm and use a tractor for business as well as for agricultural work? There is nothing wrong in the argument which I have devised.

Professor Johnston

I shall not proceed with this recommendation any further, but I should like to point out in answer to what the Minister was saying, that there is an administrative problem involved. There is an administrative problem involved in determining when is a farmer not a farmer, but the Minister has assumed the obligation of solving that problem in the very terms of this Act. In Part II of the Schedule the privilege of paying the £8 tax instead of the £31 10s. tax is confined to a person whose only or chief occupation is farming. Therefore, it is not beyond the responsibility and it is certainly not beyond the capacity of the Minister to determine whether any given person is a farmer or not. It is not an insoluble administrative problem, first of all, to convey a certain privilege in the terms of this recommendation and, secondly, to make sure that the privilege is not abused and is confined to the people that he wants to enjoy it. I will withdraw the recommendation at this stage.

Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.

Professor Johnston

I move recommendation No. 2:—

Before sub-section (9) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

(9) The Minister may by regulation prescribe a 50 per cent reduction of duty for vehicles referred to in paragraph 5 of Part I of the Schedule on condition that they are used exclusively within a prescribed radius from the owner's residence or business premises. In prescribing such radius the Minister shall take into account local geographical and other conditions, and the accessibility of local centres where public transport facilities by road or rail are conveniently available.

I should like to explain as briefly as possible what is at the back of my mind in moving this recommendation. The object of this proposed change is to make it easier for privately owned road transport to co-operate with the public transport system. I do not want to introduce any controversial talk about the public transport problem, but I think there would be general agreement that it would be desirable that there should be co-operation rather than competition between privately owned road transport and the public transport system. It is reasonable to suggest that that co-operation will be forthcoming more readily if it becomes worth the while financially of important road transport interests to carry on their undertakings in co-operation with the public transport system and equally I would say that the psychological atmosphere of this desirable co-operation would be furthered if Córas Iompair Éireann would withdraw their proposal to restrict compulsorily the movements of heavier forms of road transport. The powers that would be given to the Minister by this recommendation, if it were adopted, are permissive. He need not exercise them if he does not think it well to do so and it is quite possible that in the present set-up of the public transport system and its relations, or absence of relations, with privately owned transport, he would find little or no opportunity of exercising those powers, but I think it is reasonable to look forward to certain obvious reoganisations of the public transport system.

An Cathaoirleach

The matter of public transport may not be discussed on this recommendation.

Professor Johnston

I want to point out that this particular proposal would fit in with the public transport system better if certain changes were made in that system.

An Cathaoirleach

That matter may not be advocated on this recommendation. This recommendation has to do with a reduction of taxation. The Senator will have to confine himself to that particular matter.

Professor Johnston

It is quite obvious that if locally owned transport that keeps itself within a certain prescribed radius is given a favourable rate of taxation that there are some, and possibly many, owners of road transport who would find it worth their while to qualify for that favourable rate of taxation by keeping the movements of the road transport within that local radius. Within that local radius they would actually be able to reach out to road and rail centres of public transport, and the new reduced taxation I propose would favour co-operation between privately owned road transport and the public transport system. I am sorry, Sir, it is not possible for me to indicate the particular reorganisation of public transport which would make this recommendation clearer and enable it to become by no means a dead letter but a living means of bringing about more active and friendly co-operation between privately owned and public transport.

An Cathaoirleach

Is the recommendation being withdrawn?

Professor Johnston

I would like to hear the Minister's answer to my remarks.

Mr. Smith

The only remarks I want to make on this recommendation are that this idea of prescribing a radius should be avoided at any time possible as entirely objectionable and to my mind as utterly unworkable. How could you provide that a person or persons who would possess this type of licence would operate inside the radius? I agree that no matter what scheme of motor taxation you decide upon you will have cases where there will be some confusion and where evasion can be successfully practised. In any measure of this nature, the Minister and Parliament should do everything in their power to ensure that the number of occasions on which such a state of affairs will arise will be as few as possible. One of the first objections one sees to an amendment like this is that you are asking a Minister to prescribe a radius inside which these particular licences will apply. I would have to resist any such proposal as that vehemently, on that ground alone, irrespective of any other objection.

Professor Johnston

I did not contemplate any single arbitrary distance —20 or 30 miles radius or anything of that kind. I am quite aware that in some parts of the country a 20-mile radius might be adequate, while in other parts, such as Connemara and the West generally there would be no sense in having any less than a radius of 50 or 60 miles, having due regard to geographical circumstances. But one might draw a line—it might be oval or elliptical—indicating the area within which the person might operate at a lower rate of taxation. That would then be represented on a map of some kind of the local area which the vehicle would have to carry on a disc just like a taxi disc on the windscreen. Anybody outside the bounds could easily be stopped by the local Gardaí. That scheme would be quite easy to administer. In all such taxation which in any way affects transport we should bear in mind the general transport problem, and any change that one might make should not make the solution of other transport problems more difficult.

Mr. Smith

The Senator will also remember that to do as he proposes could not, in fact, be done with the provisions of the Road Transport Act as they are.

An Cathaoirleach

Is the recommendation withdrawn?

Professor Johnston

I have said enough about it, and that is all there is to it.

Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Douglas

I move recommendation No. 3:—

In sub-section (11), line 40, to delete "24th" and substitute "31st".

This is a simple recommendation which explains itself. It is suggested that there should be four-quarters of three months, instead of a very short one at the beginning of the year. I know that people who pay quarterly have found it inconvenient to remember that the first quarter ends on March 24th. There may be extremely good reasons for it that I do not understand. I put it down to see what the Minister had to say.

Mr. Smith

I am told that this is provided for because the 31st March is the end of the financial year, and it is desirable to have the period so fixed, because of the congestion which might be caused on account of the need there is to have the money collected inside the period and to have it arrive in the Exchequer by the end of the financial year. That has been the practice since 1920, and it is the practice in Great Britain. If it was found to be a good practice in Great Britain or anywhere else, there is no reason why it should not be followed here.

Mr. O'Donnell

Might I ask if a person who pays the first quarterly tax and does not renew it for a period gets less value for his money than he is entitled to under the law?

Mr. Smith

A man will have better value for the second quarter.

Mr. O'Donnell

Presuming a man continues to own his vehicle and taxes it for the first quarter and then ceases to be owner, he is not getting equitable value as compared with the new owner who is licensing for the remaining quarters. There is a moral aspect apart from the legal one and the mere fact that revenue collection is concerned is not an entire justification.

Mr. Smith

It is a very important justification all the same and may outweigh whatever little injustice might be imposed on the man as a result of the duration of the period.

Mr. Douglas

I cannot see it at all and I think that the Minister's explanation is very weak. We do not do it with any other form of payment. I know the State is very hard put, but is this going to make any real difference? That people should pay for one quarter to the 24th March instead of 31st March to qualify for the financial period seems to me inequitable. It seems to me to be one of those things carried on because it is done in Britain and is all right.

Mr. Smith

I would not put it that way. If it were found to be satisfactory in some other country, the fact that it was made use of should not prevent us from using it.

Mr. Douglas

I agree with the Minister as far as that is concerned, but I am suggesting we have had 20 years to change it. It is inconvenient and the only reason why it is done is because money has to be got by the 24th March as distinct from the 31st. It definitely is not convenient and I think most people will agree. You do not have similar conditions in the other quarters. I thought possibly there was some good reason for it. I am not going to press the recommendation. If the Government consider that collecting money from the 24th of March as distinct from the 31st is of prime importance, or of sufficient importance to cause inconvenience otherwise, it is not for me to say to the contrary.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

It has been suggested to me that when this was first established the reason for taking the 24th March was to ensure that the Easter period would practically always be included in the second quarter. When this was first decided on, motoring was not so comfortable an occupation. There will be cases where people are laying up cars for the winter period and not taxing them for the first quarter. That being so, cars taxed for the second quarter commencing on the 26th March would more often be taxed for the Easter holiday period than if the date were 31st March. That has been advanced to me as the reason that this was first established. I am not sure if that is the correct reason.

There has not been a good case made by Senator Douglas for any change except a case of equity, that the other date would be more equitable. Senator O'Donnell has made that case also. It is a small thing and I am surprised that two well-to-do men would be so small about such small things.

The average person does not seem to mind a lot. There are cases where people do not tax their cars for the first quarter. More often than not I think they tax only for the second or succeeding quarters, and so would be on the road for the Easter period. As far as I know, Easter is decided by the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox, again subject to correction, but that, I suggest, was the original purpose in establishing the 25th March. I think that those reasons are as good as those suggested by Senator Douglas and Senator O'Donnell. I think it is better to leave the matter as it is.

Professor O'Brien

I intervene simply in order to give a small amount of accurate information on the subject. I speak from memory, but I think my memory is correct. The last speaker suggested that the 25th March as the close of the quarter dates back only to the beginning of motoring and is in some way connected with the convenience of motorists for the Easter holidays. The fact is that the 25th March is the old quarter day going back to the Middle Ages, Lady Day or the Gale Day for the collection of rents.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

The Ides of March?

Mr. O'Donnell

It has nothing to do with the Ides of March.

Professor O'Brien

Now, when the old calendar was reformed in the beginning of the 18th century and the date was moved forward to the 5th April, the 5th—not the 1st—became the first day of the financial year. If there was to be real consistency in the collection of motor taxation so as to coincide with the financial year, it should be shifted to the 4th April from the 24th March. I think it is correct that the origin of the 25th March goes back to the Middle Ages. Lady Day was the close of the first quarter of the year, and it was in the reformed calender that the financial year was shifted forward 11 days to the 5th April. Speaking subject to correction, I think that is still the beginning of the financial year, strictly speaking.

Mr. Colgan

I would like to oppose this change. I do it in the interests of the poor man who has a car—if there is much a thing as a poor man with a car. I believe that many who cannot afford to run their cars all the year round lay them up for the winter period. As the law stands now, they get an extra week in the second quarter of the year and I see no reason why we should change that. I do not know if Senator O'Reilly's contention is correct about Easter and I am not going to argue about it. The man who has put his car up because he cannot afford to run it in the winter time gets an extra week in the second quarter. I think it should be left with him, as he is in essence the poor motorist.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

I am impressed by the reasons given and am prepared to accept those advanced by Senator O'Brien and I bow to his superior knowledge. Since he suggests it was the reformation of the calendar that caused the change in the financial year, I would like to remind him that when the calendar was reformed there was a stampede in many cases to put back the 11 days.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator is getting away from the point and I must ask him not to do so.

Mr. O'Donnell

In fairness to Senator Douglas and myself, it should be pointed out that there is a moral aspect of this. We are not interested so much in the financial aspect. A man pays a quarter's taxation and it is extraordinary that in this modern age of civilisation we can get anyone to say that the State by law should defraud him of what he has paid for, though "defraud" is not the exact word. There is a very important moral aspect attached to this and Senator Douglas and myself have been prompted by no other reason than that moral aspect, which needs more serious consideration than that of working in a time to suit the State for collection.

Mr. Smith

I do not accept the moral aspect of this business at all and was not anxious to speak again on the matter if it were not for what I regard as an over-emphasis of that point by Senator O'Donnell. If the law sets out in relation to any matter, whether it is for the use of a motor-car or the use of an implement or a machine, that in respect of the licence duty I should pay for two months £5, for the next three months £6, and so on, there is nothing immoral about that. If the first quarter is shorter than the second quarter and if the tax is the same for each quarter, there is nothing immoral about that, so long as the law provides for it. If I do not regard the value I am getting as sufficient, I need not take it; but as long as the law provides it I cannot see where the moral aspect comes in.

Mr. Douglas

It seems to me that I have raised a great many hares. I would like to point out to the Minister that my concern was simply that the law should not provide as he says. I think my case is more convincing, if he can put forward no other grounds. If it is considered desirable that there should be a special concession in certain cases, I have no objection; but that is no reason why the first quarter should not be from the period from the 1st January to the 31st March. I am now more convinced that there are no really good grounds for the present position at all. I thought there were good grounds and expected to hear them. I would like to withdraw the recommendation, as it is not of such importance at the moment; and the same applies to the next recommendation.

Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.

Recommendation No. 4 not moved.

Section 1 agreed to.

Section 2 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.

SCHEDULE.

Mr. Baxter

I move recommendation No. 5:—

In Part II, page 9, paragraph 3(a), line 31, to delete "only occasionally".

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Is the Senator taking recommendations 5 and 6 together?

Mr. Baxter

Yes, they must be taken together. I put down this recommendation in the hope that it would be accepted. This matter was debated at some length yesterday and also in the other House, and I want to say quite frankly to the Minister that I have no political motive whatever in putting the recommendation down. There is a problem which I am trying to resolve in the way in which I think it ought to be resolved and can be resolved. From the technical point of view of drafting, I may not, by this recommendation, achieve all I am setting out to achieve and if the Minister wants to say that I am building up a sort of political story around this plan of taxation, he is welcome to say so, but it is not a fact. We are, by a process of taxation, making difficulties for certain groups of our people, and I do not think we are justified in doing so. When we are vested with political authority, it is most important that we should study carefully the use we make of this political power.

I am seeking in these recommendations for permission for the people dealt with in sub-paragraph (c), the owners of tractors, people whose only or chief occupation is farming, whose vehicles are used on public roads, and then only for the produce of their farms to do this agricultural work, the haulage of similar goods, for another farmer for a reward. There is a concrete case which I cited yesterday evening, and this is really a small problem. I have not got all the figures, but the Minister has indicated that what is expected to be received from this levy altogether amounts to £31,000 approximately. There were, in 1949, 10,000 odd tractors, and I am sure that the figure has considerably increased since.

Professor Johnston

14,000.

Mr. Baxter

I have no figures, although they may be available, as to how many of these tractors are doing the kind of work which I know they are doing in my county. I take it that this sum of £31,000 is the amount the Minister expects to receive under the revised taxation or is it the amount received under the existing scale of taxation?

Mr. Smith

It is easy to see that, because, if there are 14,000 tractors, naturally the yield would be more than £31,000.

Mr. Baxter

The number of these licensed for this sort of haulage is very much smaller. The Minister has made use of the phrase here and elsewhere that these tractors might be going into competition with certain other hauliers, people who have lorries, and he does not apparently desire that it should be possible that one man engaged in the haulage of, say, farm products should have one rate of taxation and another man a higher rate. The first point I make against that is that the man with a tractor will not set out from Bailieborough to Donnelly's factory in Dublin with a load of pigs, while the man with the lorry will. You cannot make a comparison between what the man with a tractor and trailer will do in his own district and what the man with the lorry will do.

These tractors, as I know them, are used for local haulage. They are doing a kind of work which is terribly important. It is labour saving; it is an immense convenience to farmers; and it is the greatest convenience of all to farmers in the most backward parts of the country, the men who are away in at the back of the hill and who if, he has four or five pigs to take to the factory, in the morning starts out with his horse and cart and is on the road all day when he could get his neighbour to do the work with his tractor and trailer and pay him. He will take them in and the owner need not go in at all. Similarly, in the case of fairs, if there are a few cattle to be brought in, the neighbour may be going in himself with an empty trailer to bring something back from the fair, but he cannot legally take those cattle into the fair.

Mr. Smith

He can.

Mr. Baxter

Not for reward.

Mr. Smith

That is the way to put it.

Mr. Baxter

I put it to the Minister: if he, living on a farm in Cavan, wants to get something like this done, will he not want to be independent? I have my milk taken to the creamery and it is quite impossible for me to pay back, by this sort of indirect method, the man who takes my milk every day. I want to pay him cash. I do not want to turn out my horse and cart or pony and cart on the road, and have my man spend half the day going to the creamery. If there are, as there are, 15 men in the area, each will have to do that and we can calculate the loss of time involved, in these days when labour in the country is difficult to obtain, in locking up the time of 15 men in doing this work. If any strangers from New Zealand passed along some of the roads down in Waterford, Tipperary or Kerry on a summer day, when the milk is being separated, and saw all the farmers there with their horses and carts, they would wonder what sort of a country this was.

I saw a Danish film the other day showing two horses and a dray hauling milk, and that is the practice in parts of Denmark still, and in Holland, too. I do not think I ever saw—and I have been watching milk being hauled to the creamery for a long time—two horses and a dray doing it in this country. I do not know whether they do it in any part of the South. The stage has been reached to-day when one cannot hire a man with a horse and cart to haul milk to the creamery in any part of the country. What is going to happen? We have enjoyed the facility of having a man with a tractor hauling our milk, and it is a practice which is growing, and the imposition of this additional duty is going to be a very great hindrance to production. I do not think it is justified from the point of view of the tax yield, nor do I think it justified from the point of view of the amount of competition that it will mean with the man with the lorry.

I have no experience, I confess, of a lorry being used to-day to bring the milk from the farmstead to the creamery. I know that lorries are used to take the cream from the separating station to the central, but I have no knowledge of the other system and I do not think it is going to be done. It did start in one end of our county, but it was found to be too expensive and I think it had to be discontinued. It is going to be too expensive, because the price of milk cannot carry the charge of a lorry transporting it to the creamery.

That is the net position so far as dairy farming is concerned. In addition, I think you are going to handicap the transport of milk and that many people in backward places especially will be discouraged from sending their milk to the creamery. They will go into another type of economy and possibly feed the milk to the calves. If they do that you will have less butter. You may have more beef production, but it will be at the expense of dairying as we know it. I do not think that would be desirable. I believe the Minister could make the law in this regard such that it would assist production. I really think that ought to be the purpose of legislators everywhere. In these days, especially, it ought to be our duty and responsibility to assist our agricultural producers, especially those who are not big enough and whose economy could not withstand the capital investment in transport suitable to the needs of to-day. Those people ought to get assistance.

A large dairy farmer, perhaps, in some of the southern counties could have his own van. He could take in 60 or 70 gallons of milk in his own van. It is economic for him, but the man with seven, eight, ten, 12 or 14 gallons of milk in my county is in an entirely different position. Any Senator who does not appreciate what this means should picture himself living near a bog or some other backward place thinking of having his milk conveyed to the creamery and having to depart in these days from the practice that obtained up to the present day. I believe you will see the result of this reflected in the creamery position in our county.

There is the other aspect, too. The Minister knows our county as well as I do and as well as anybody knows any county. He knows of areas which are seven or eight miles away from the market town. I cannot for the life of me understand why a farmer owning a tractor should not be allowed to bring three or four head of cattle to the fair for his neighbour for payment. I think the Minister can so make the law as to permit of this being done. I do not think other methods of transport will be influenced by it. Not one of these farmers would employ a lorry to bring his cattle to the fair or to take them from the fair back to his own place. It has no influence whatever on the amount of traffic that lorries will carry. Having regard to the plight of the country and the fact that everybody is crying for production, we should not hamstring production at its source. A neighbour of mine cannot bring a trailer of turf from the bog for me for hire. This is a predominantly agricultural country in which so many of our people are still rural. I cannot understand how the law is to operate.

I am not the owner of a tractor or a trailer myself. I ensile my grass. A man comes to my place to cut the grass and takes it in his trailer. Will he be entitled to do that now? I do not know. I do not think he will because he does it for reward. I do not know where this law will lead us. I hope the Minister will harken to the appeal made to him. I hope that our productivity will not be hampered and that every convenience the farmer enjoys to-day will be available to them tomorrow.

We want to keep the people living in the remote and backward places but there is not much more to be done to discourage them to such a point that they will not stay there any longer. Every convenience that is taken from them is making it impossible for them to remain there.

These are the facts. The revenue will not suffer. With regard to competition, the owner of a tractor with a speed of five or six miles per hour will not make any difference to the man with the lorry. I assert positively that 95 per cent of what the tractor trailers would haul in the rural districts would never go on to the lorries at all. If the cost of bringing milk to the creamery is 2d. per gallon out of the 1/4 per gallon which the farmers are paid for the milk, you can estimate what influence that will have on the farmer producing milk.

Mr. Hawkins

I do not think Senator Baxter has correctly put the provisions as they are in the Bill at all. To my mind, there is a very generous provision made for farmers with a tractor. There is no clause which prevents the farmer who occasionally uses his tractor on the road from hauling home his farm produce and that of his neighbour. We should bear that clearly in mind.

Mr. Baxter

There is no one doing it for hire. That is my point.

Mr. Smith

They cannot do it now for hire.

Mr. Baxter

You know they are doing it.

Mr. Smith

They cannot do it legally.

Mr. Baxter

They are doing it in fact and are not prosecuted for it.

Mr. Smith

And they will do it after these regulations are passed too.

Mr. Hawkins

The concession given to farmers both in this and the previous Bill was given, we must assume, for the purpose of encouraging the farmers to go into mechanisation and to use the tractor on the land for developing and increasing farm produce in general. The proposal put before the House this evening by Senator Baxter will have the very reverse effect.

If the Minister accepted the proposal of Senator Baxter—those people are now as in the past getting favourable consideration by having a vehicle at the modest sum of £8 per year—and allowed those people to go into competition with other persons who would be compelled to pay an increased licence duty of say £15, £20, £30 or even £35 as the case might be, depending on horse-power, we would take off the land the very implements which this and the previous Bill encouraged to put on the land. We would be making hauliers out of those people whom we would like to keep on the land. If we accept Senator Baxter's proposal then, we will be encouraging the people who use the tractors on the land to use them on the roads. We will be making haulage contractors out of the farmers. If we accepted Senator Baxter's proposal, instead of there being increased production there would be a substantial reduction.

Mr. Burke

I would like to support Senator Baxter. Anything we can do to help to increase agricultural production would be all to the good and any form of restrictive practices we impose on agriculture are all to the bad in regard to our major industry.

Nobody will go into the haulage contracting business with a tractor running at six miles an hour. The cost of paying agricultural wages would not allow a man to engage in that form of activity remuneratively. There are times when things like beet and other products of farms have to be transported and public transport is not always available. Surely in those circumstances they should not try to prevent a man using his own tractor or hiring it to his neighbours for conveying goods of that nature. I think it is in the interests of increased production to allow farmers to do that service for their neighbours.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

I am prepared to concede that Senator Baxter made a good and sincere case for his recommendation, but I greatly fear that there are many sides of this question which he does not seem to have considered and the implications of which appear to have evaded him. It is my experience, and I am very conversant with the subject, that there are many tractors in rural areas which do a substantial part of their work in haulage of goods on the roads. The net result is that in the spring of the year it is sometimes very hard to get tractors for agricultural work, such as ploughing, harrowing, etc., because the owners find it more economic to use them for haulage purposes of one type or another.

Mr. Baxter

Will the Senator tell us what they are hauling in his district? Is it agricultural produce?

Mr. P. O'Reilly

Yes, it is. In one case in the area for which Senator Baxter speaks, tractors are being used for the haulage of milk to the creameries.

Mr. Baxter

I said that yesterday if you had been here.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

I am quite prepared to concede that, and I was impressed by the case which Senator Baxter made, but there are other sides to it which the Senator does not appear to see. Senator Baxter has asked me what these tractors are hauling on the roads. In addition to milk they are hauling turf as well as cattle to the fairs. Some of them are hauling sand and timber as well as material for the building of houses, and surely that comes under the heading of general haulage.

One point I want to draw to the attention of Senator Baxter is that the fundamental purpose of this measure is to get, with as much equity as possible, from the people who use the roads, the money to make the roads, and that principle should be kept in mind during this discussion. I am quite prepared to say that if tractors being used for a certain amount of agricultural work are also used in a large part for road work, then they should pay for the damage they are doing to the roads in that haulage work. I am satisfied that many of these tractors when used on the roads are actually doing more damage than lorries. I know of one case where a tractor is being used on a cul-de-sac, a private road, and the other people using that road regard this as excessive use of the roadway.

Mr. Baxter

If they are doing that it is a breach of the law and they are liable to prosecution.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

Senator Baxter should not try to destroy the good case he has made by appearing so simple.

Mr. Baxter

They are not doing that in our county.

Mr. P. O'Reilly

Am I to take it then that they are all saints and scholars in Cavan? I am told that in many areas tractors are being used for this sort of haulage work and it is a fact that because of that it is at times quite hard to get tractors to do the type of work for which they were intended. We must be careful in dealing with these matters not to set up vested interests in public transport by legislation. Even if Senator Baxter's recommendation is not accepted, I can tell him that what is happening now will continue to happen.

Only to-day I listened to a debate by public men who argued quite sincerely that agricultural tractors should be allowed to do such work as hauling sand, stone and that sort of thing for local authorities. Is it not quite obvious that if agricultural tractors are to be used for that sort of operation, then there are going to be fewer of them available for farm work and, if he can get them at all, the farmer will have to pay more for the work he wants done. I would regard it as a fatal development if agricultural tractors were to go over to haulage work to the point of being employed by the local authorities and in doing work for which they were not intended and for which they are not paying a proper tax.

Professor Johnston

Size for size there are fewer tractors in this country than in Northern Ireland and if in the same proportion we had a requisite number of tractors we would have something like 50,000. If we had that number there would never be any shortage of tractors for agricultural work and there would be sufficient for the other types of work. The effect of increased taxes would be that there would be fewer tractors used and that would damage agricultural production very considerably. The aim should be to have as many tractors as possible in the country.

Mr. Smith

I am not so much concerned with the stresses put on the motives for this recommendation, or what they are. There were before the introduction of these proposals four different rates of tax for tractors. There was the 5/- rate which will be continued; there was the 5/- rate where the tractor was used on the farm only—that 5/- rate remains. Then there were two rates in respect of two types of tractors used by farmers for their own purposes on the roads. These two rates were £6 and £10. The only change that these proposals make in regard to these two is that there is now only one rate of £8 for all tractors used by farmers on the roads for purposes for which they were always used by farmers. Then there is the rate of tax that was imposed on lorries used for general haulage purposes. There was a special rate of £21 for such vehicles.

There were, therefore, in the past, four rates—a rate of 5/- for a particular purpose, a rate of £6 in respect of an agricultural tractor used by a farmer up to a certain weight, a rate of £10 for another type of tractor used by a farmer for the same purpose, from, say, five tons upwards and the haulage rate of £21 or £22.

What I resent here is the attempt to establish that I am introducing here some new principle. I am not introducing any new principle.

Professor Johnston

We are asking you to introduce a new principle.

Mr. Smith

You were asking me in previous recommendations, but the case that is being made on behalf of this recommendation is made on an entirely false basis. It is based on the argument that I am introducing in these proposals something that does not exist at the moment.

Mr. Baxter

Does the Minister deny that there were tractors hauling for reward?

Mr. Smith

I will deal with these matters in my own time and in my own way.

Mr. Baxter

You will not get away from the facts.

Mr. Smith

I will be in order and I will make my case and make it without interruption, I hope, with the assistance of the Chair, as others were permitted to make their case here. The only change I have effected is to convert the two rates of £6 and £10 into a rate of £8, and it gives to the farmer exactly the same rights as he enjoyed since tractors were introduced into the country.

To contend here that a tractor owner was within the law in hauling milk to a creamery for reward is completely and absolutely to misrepresent the legal position that has existed all down the years.

Mr. Baxter

But he did it.

Mr. Smith

He did not.

Mr. Baxter

He did.

Mr. Smith

In my own county in the last six months I have had representations from a man who was brought before the court and fined.

Mr. Baxter

You do not know what is happening in your own county.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It would be better if Senator Baxter would allow the Minister to proceed without interruption.

Mr. Smith

Is there any use in producing argument—or is it a waste of time—to those who while professing to have innocent motives, in the course of hearing facts stated, want to make it appear that something has happened that I know has not happened and is not happening? I know that the law has been that if a tractor owner with a £6 or £10 licence is brought before a court of law and if it can be shown in that court that he has carried merchandise for reward, he is liable to a fine. In fact, people who have engaged in that type of business have been brought before the courts in every county of the Twenty-Six Counties and at one time or another have been fined. Such an individual from my own county has made representations to me within the last six months when he found himself in that position.

I made a case to Senator Johnston in support of the stand I took in regard to one of his recommendations that we should not create a position where there would be ambiguity, confusion and difficulty in the administration of the law. In designing these proposals the sole concern of my Department and my own concern was to do the utmost to eliminate these ambiguities and these concessions that existed in the past and that made it administratively impossible from the point of view of those whose responsibility it was to enforce the law.

I agree that the tractor owner who will pay in future a tax of £8 is entitled to use that tractor on the road, any place he wants to go in the haulage of his own goods. In other words, he is entitled to use that tractor in every conceivable way that a man used the horse and cart in the past. He is entitled to help me to take in my crop. He is entitled to help me to take in my turf. He is entitled, on a fair morning, to take a litter of pigs for me. He is entitled to do any or all of those things but he is not entitled to accept a reward.

No attempt on my part or on the part of any individual will produce a code of law that will ensure that there will not be abuse under that head. How would it be possible to obtain a conviction against the farmer who would take my produce for reward? I admit freely that, just as in the past it was not possible to obtain a conviction against hundreds of tractor owners who were before the courts of justice, in future thousands of tractor owners, possibly, may be brought before the courts and it will not be possible to obtain a conviction against them because the evidence will not be sufficiently conclusive. The difficulties which have arisen in the past in relation to that matter are the difficulties that undoubtedly will arise in the future. There is no human mind that can design a code of regulations that will change that position.

When speaking on a previous recommendation, I made it quite clear that it was undesirable that this should be the case and I made it clear that it was desirable that we should have as little of this in our laws as possible. I did admit that no matter how we strove towards securing that end, there would still be that residue or remnant that could not be provided for; that has been the position in the past and will be the position in the future, but it is a different thing to saying, in effect, that the owner of every tractor paying an £8 licence will be entitled to carry all sorts of merchandise for award.

Mr. Baxter

I did not say that. My amendment can refer only to agricultural produce.

Mr. Smith

Again we know the difficulty which arises in relation to agricultural produce and the difficulty which has arisen in relation to the interpretation of phrases like that in the past. The only reason I have for speaking at such length is that I want to make it clear that, whatever case there is to be made for the proposal in this connection, I would resist any effort being made to show that there is something new being introduced. There is nothing new being introduced here. It is a matter of trying to make a little more clear and perfect a code about which there have been some doubts and some ambiguities and about which there will be, even after we have done our best, a lot of doubt and many ambiguities arising from time to time.

Senator O'Donnell talked about the haulage of milk to creameries. Even still, in spite of all the tractors that have come into the country, a great deal of the milk supplied to creameries is being drawn by horse and cart. I agree that the horse and cart is rapidly moving out of the scene. But is it contended that you could give to the man who has a horse and cart or two horses and two carts on the road drawing milk for hire to a creamery and who decides to sell his horses and dispose of the carts and harness for a tractor—that you could give to that man entering it as a business the right to haul milk on an £8 licence? Why should he have it? What case is there that he should?

There are now 16,000 farmers who own tractors, and are they not enjoying very considerable concessions in being enabled to use their tractors for the wide range of purposes to which I have referred, on payment of a licence duty of £8? Even if what Senator Johnston would regard as a desirable result—and the quicker it will come about the better for the country, namely, that we should have 50,000 tractors at least—would not Senator Johnston admit that, in the event of such development, you would have to make roads for those tractors?

Professor Johnston

I should hope that they would be kept on the land and not on the road.

Mr. Smith

If they were employed on the land, they would be paying the 5/- duty and not the £8 rate. That was not the Senator's case. If we had that number of tractors and if it was good for us as a community to employ tractors in the replacement of horses, we must have regard to the future use of the roads and the destruction that this increasing number of tractors will have upon the roads and the necessity there will be for having these roads maintained to carry that particular type of vehicle.

Professor Johnston

May I ask the Minister a question? Is the haulage of similar goods for another farmer not the introduction of a new and desirable principle?

Mr. Smith

They are entitled to do that.

Professor Johnston

Were they entitled before?

Mr. Smith

They were. There is no change in that regard. In the Dáil I made it clear, and I know of the circumstances in rural Ireland a lot better than other people. It is the practice and has been the practice for farmers to co-operate in the haulage of milk to the local creamery. I often wondered why in the South of Ireland they had not the same record for that practice as we had in the northern counties. I often thought there was a lot of time wasted in the way they did that haulage in the south, but that was their business and, even if it did not impress me, they had reasons of their own for pursuing that practice.

But, when I explained in the Seanad that farmers co-operated in the use of tractors just as they had been co-operating in the use of horses, I did not mean to convey that every farmer had a tractor. I have no tractor myself and I would have a fair share of work for it. What I tried to convey to the House and the country was that a farmer who had a tractor could co-operate with neighbours even if his neighbours possessed horses, just as they co-operated when they all possessed horses. I did my part in co-operating with other farmers to bring milk to the creameries with horse and cart. If one of our number who formerly co-operated with us purchased a tractor, he was permitted to do his turn of a day or week with the tractor just as previously.

To suggest to me that there is some change being effected in these proposals and that I am providing in these proposals for a new form of taxation, is entirely misleading. Appeals and requests have been made to me that I should remove the system of taxation which is there in relation to tractors and make it possible for all tractors with an £8 tax to be used for any and every purpose such as the haulage of sand, timber and coal—that all this could be held to be, in many sets of circumstances, agricultural work.

As I say, one thing I resent and resist is the attempt made to cloud this issue. I hope by what I have said, even if it does not convince those who naturally do not want to be convinced, that at least I have on the record a clear statement of the facts showing that what is proposed here is in fact something which has been in existence and been practised for many years with certain minor modifications.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The recommendation is being pressed?

Mr. Baxter

Yes.

Recommendation put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 14; Níl, 27.

Tá

• Baxter, Patrick F.
• Burke, Denis.
• Butler, John.
• Douglas, James G.
• Hayes, Michael.
• Johnston, Joseph.
• McCrea, James J.
• McGuire, Edward A.
• McHugh, Vincent.
• O'Brien, George.
• O'Donnell, Frank H.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Reilly, Patrick F.
• Ruane, Seán T.

Níl

• Ághas, Pádraig.
• Colgan, Michael.
• Dowdall, Jennie.
• Farnan, Robert P.
• Fitzsimons, Patrick.
• Hartnett, Noel.
• Hartney, Seán.
• Hawkins, Frederick.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Hearne, Michael.
• Honan, Thomas V.
• Ó Siocfhradha, Pádraig.
• Ruane, Thomas.
• Summerfield, Frederick M.
• Kilroy, James.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lynch, James B.
• Lynch, Peter T.
• Nic Phiarais, Maighread M.
• Ó Ciosáin, Eamon.
• Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
• O'Dwyer, Martin.
• Ó Grádaigh, Seán.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• Teehan, Patrick J.
• Yeats, Michael B.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators O'Higgins and P.F. O'Reilly; Níl: Senators Loughman and Ó Ciosáin.

Schedule and Title agreed to.

Recommendation declared negatived.

Bill reported without recommendation and received for final consideration.

Agreed to take the Fifth Stage now.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be returned to the Dáil."

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

Will the Minister tell us what meaning he would attribute to the words "only occasionally" in line 31, page 9, Part II?

Mr. Colgan

Anois is arís.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

I should like to get the Minister's idea as to the meaning of these words.

Mr. Colgan

Now and again.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

If the Minister gives us a satisfactory explanation, it may be that we shall avoid a lot of trouble later on. Some people might have one view as to their meaning and others might have a different view. One person might say that "only occasionally" might mean once or twice a week and another that he would not be committing an offence, if he used it four or five times a week.

Mr. Smith

I cited the case of a man hauling milk to a creamery with a horse, for hire. He was known to be doing that type of work for hire and he received for his work so much per gallon which was deducted by the creamery to which he was delivering. There could be no doubt that that man was hauling milk for hire.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

For reward.

Mr. Smith

Yes. If that man disposed of his horses and bought a tractor and trailer, collected the milk from the same supplier and brought it to the same creamery, he would be drawing for reward and in that case would pay the tax. But if four of us are neighbours and we agree to take our milk to the creamery, if I take it one week, Senator Hearne the second week, Senator Hawkins the third week and Senator Loughman the fourth week, and if I had a tractor and the others had horses, the fact that I was only doing it once in four weeks would mean that I was occasionally using it and I would, therefore, be entitled to use it at the lower rate.

I could have a tractor and trailer and could be engaged in the haulage of live stock for reward. I could have that vehicle on the road every day attending local fairs. That would be a case of using a tractor for the same purposes as those for which a lorry would to-day be used. On the other hand, there might be a tractor owner who would take cattle to neighbouring fairs. That would arise once, twice or three times a month and would be "occasional use". He, therefore, would be entitled to take advantage of the £8 tax for such work. That would be my interpretation of it. "Occasional use" would be use for attending local fairs or doing an exchange with neighbours in regard to the haulage of turf, manure, hay, corn, or any commodity or crop in the production of which farmers engage. The other type would be the man who is known to be on the road every day, doing it as a commercial proposition.

Professor Johnston

There is a very important distinction to be made between financial reward and reward which takes the form of the exchange of neighbourly services. We should encourage that exchange of neighbourly services, while being somewhat against the development of the use of tractors for financial reward.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

I do not know that I made myself clear. My question did not go to the point of reward. I am quite clear on that—it is an offence for an £8 tractor to be used where the carrier is obtaining reward. I was concerned more with the farmer who uses his own tractor.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator does not propose to make a Second Reading speech?

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

I do not think so.

Mr. Hearne

This is a stage on which a person can speak only once. I submit that we cannot have a repetition of the Committee Stage.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

I am still on the question I asked. It may have been thought I was making a speech, but I do not think I was.

Mr. Baxter

On the Final Stage, you can.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

I asked the Minister if he would give me his view as to the meaning of the words "only occasionally" in line 31. These words do not go at all to the point of reward.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Minister has answered the Senator.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

I suggest he has not.

Mr. Smith

I should like to know in what way I have not, because I tried to do so.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

I will repeat the question.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator cannot. He has already repeated it and cannot make a second speech.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

Am I making a speech?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It appears very like it to me. The Minister has answered the Senator to the best of his ability.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

Very good.

Question put and agreed to.