We have made an arrangement that we would allow a discussion on amendments 13, 14, 15, 16 together, because it is impossible to disentangle them, and put the question on No. 14 first, which is the one for the largest reduction.
FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—REPORT. - RESOLUTION No. 11.
It was not agreed to by me, as I am afraid I was absent, and I suggest that my two amendments raise definite, specific points. While I am quite willing to have the general question of the fee to be charged for a licence raised on No. 14 and No. 15, I should like No 13 and No. 16 to be disentangled from this general discussion.
They will be. It was the order of putting the question that I was interested in. If Deputy Johnson's amendment No. 14 should be carried, then I think the two amendments in the name of Deputy Cooper would not arise. The same thing would apply if No. 15 were car-ried—No. 13 would not be necessary.
I quite agree to having this discussed generally first.
We will take Deputy Johnson's amendment No. 14.
I move amendment 14:—
In paragraph (1), line 25, to delete the words "one pound" and substitute the words "six shillings."
Amendment 12, which is out of order, was intended to raise a question which can be raised on amendment No. 14. It is a question as to the distinction between the fee of five shillings under the Motor Car Act of 1903 and the Excise duty. I take the position that the fee of five shillings is, in fact, a registration fee, and as the licence is given to any person who applies, without test, it obviously is merely intended to be a record of who has authority to drive a car. When we come to deal with the Excise duty of one pound, we talk about a licence, and a licence suggests to me—and I think when a question of one pound duty is involved it should entail some check upon the capacity of the person to drive a car—that there should be some condition imposed before a licence is granted. But I will wait and hear what the Minister has to say about the distinction between the fee of five shillings and the Excise duty. I cannot understand what the distinction implies. But the amendment I have down is to make the Excise duty six shillings. I would prefer to move that it should be five shillings but for some matter of order. My amendment, in effect, will merely add one shilling to the present cost of the licence or registration fee, whatever it may be called. Under this new proposal it will be called an Excise duty. In the past, it has been called a registration fee. There is no case for increasing this fee to £1 or, in fact, increasing it at all, but I will assume that if my motion is carried it will be satisfactory to the Dáil that it should be increased by one shilling.
The driver of a hackney car is under a considerable amount of expense to-day, and I can see no justification whatever for adding to the fee that is at present paid, unless, as I said, we are going to impose some conditions as to the capacity of a man or woman to drive. There is also the question of the duplication of the fee in respect to a family which will arise on a later amendment. It is unreasonable that a number of persons driving the same car should have to take out separate licences at a high cost. The Minister made the plea that it was necessary to call upon all drivers of cars to pay an increased sum to the revenue, whether as drivers or as owners, except the owners of Ford cars. I am not going to deal with the case of the vehicle duties. In the matter of the licence fee, I think there should be no advance, but I content myself by asking the Dáil to agree that there should only be an advance of one shilling.
I support Deputy Johnson in his claim that this proposed tax or excise duty of £1 should be reduced. In doing so, I desire to draw the attention of the Dáil to the fact that within the past 18 months there have been upwards of 100 taxis put upon the streets of Dublin. These taxi men find it very hard to live at the present moment, and this increased taxation will be a hardship both to themselves and their families. I am aware that these men purchased their taxis out of the pensions or gratuities they got on retirement either from the British Army or from the Free State Army. I think it is very unfair, now that these men having undertaken this expense in making an effort to provide employment for themselves, should have this additional tax placed upon them. I am also aware that there are a large number of idle men who hold drivers' licences at the present moment anxiously awaiting to get a day's work. There are a number of these men who only get a day's work, or probably two days' work, and are very glad to get it. They carry their own licences and pay for them, not as if they were working for big companies and permanently employed where the company would pay the licence fee. On behalf of these men, I ask the Minister to consider seriously the suggestion made by Deputy Johnson that this proposed Excise Duty of £1 should be reduced to a reasonable figure that these men could afford to pay. Regarding the other point that Deputy Johnson has made, as to two or three members of one family taking their turn in driving a car, you have that also in the taxi business. I think it would be a great hardship that there should be more than £1 licence for a car. If there is a second or third licence required the figure should be considerably reduced.
There are two or three points quite distinct, I think, in connection with this amendment. There is a wide feeling that this sudden rise in the cost of a driver's licence from 5/- to £1 is excessive. The object of the Minister is to increase the amount of money available for the Road Fund; so he said: Now that is very desirable. At the same time I think it is incumbent on him and the Dáil to see that in raising that money they do it in a way that ensures that it falls upon those responsible for such great increases in the cost of the roads. Motors, particularly small motors, do far less damage to the roads than ordinary horse vehicles, yet all motors are subject to no less than three separate and distinct duties. First there is the duty payable on cars coming into the country; then there is the tax which is definitely for the Road Fund, and, in addition, now it is proposed to add this amount of 15/- for each licence which hitherto, as Deputy Johnson has pointed out, has been obviously a registration fee. It is obvious that that will be quite unfair in the case in which there are several drivers for the one car, on different occasions. It seems to be quite unfair in the case like that, where the damage done to the roads is that done by one car, that there should be this increase in the amount payable on that car for the upkeep of the roads. In addition to the case of a number of drivers in a private family mentioned by Deputy Byrne, there are, I understand, a good many commercial owners of cars who take out licences for several men whom they want to drive a particular car. No doubt if a man has to pay a pound in the future he will take care to make such arrangements that he will not have that latitude open to him and he will arrange to require a smaller number of licences. I do not think it at all follows that this will increase in the ratio of four to one the revenue that the Minister calculates on receiving. I think that there is a real case for a relaxation on some of the lines indicated in these different amendments. I would prefer that the tax should remain at five shillings, but, if it is to be raised, I think it should be raised in a much more moderate manner than by this sudden increase of four hundred per cent.
I also would like to add my voice to the protest which this increase has called for. In my judgment, this is perfectly unjustified, and I think that in principle our legislation is moving in the direction of stifling advancement for the good of the community as a whole. There is a very big difference between five shillings and a pound to most people who are using cars. With the present rate it is undoubtedly the practice that people who only occasionally drive a car take out a licence so that they can do so if they get the opportunity, and this advance would, I think, in their case be unjustifiable. More particularly I think it unjustifiable in the case of a great body of men who are getting more and more opportunities for earning a living by driving cars, regularly or spasmodically. If the Minister wants money for the roads—and his maw seems to be an insatiable one in that connection—why on earth does he try to saddle a thing that is only a registration fee and make it into a real tax? I do not see what argument can be adduced in favour of it except that it seems to be the set desire of the Minister to crush out an enterprise that is increasing in importance, in this and in every other country, and make it, and himself, as unpopular as he possibly can to the maximum number of people.
Deputy Thrift has touched upon the fact that motors are to-day called upon first of all to pay an import duty. That is put on, I suppose, with some idea that motors are a luxury. I disclaim that altogether. The number of motors in the Free State, or anywhere else, that are used as luxuries is comparatively small, in fact infinitesimal. when compared with the number used commercially.
To-day?
To-day, yes. I say that the bulk of the motors on the roads to-day are as much commercial assets and commercial conveniences as any other form of vehicle or means of distribution that you have. Do not make any mistake about it, the business concern to-day that has not motors at its disposal, not for purposes of luxury or amusement, but actually connected with that business——
Punchestown.
Punchestown is all very well, but Punchestown is a very small unit in this very big problem, and nine-tenths of the motors at Punchestown to-day are ordinarily engaged in commercial activities. They are engaged carrying people about on their ordinary avocations, and the import tax on these cars practically means a tax upon industry.
It would depend on what enclosure you entered.
I suppose a good many of them went to an open-air enclosure on the side of the road, except that for security, as a matter of insurance, some owners thought it wise to put them in an enclosure where people could not get at them. The charge that is proposed is not in the interests of the general community, and in so far as it is a tax in aid of the roads, I say it is the very worst form that such a tax could take. I think it is not desirable that anybody should be prevented from taking out a licence because of the excessive charge. I would willingly make the Minister a present of the suggestion that the tax might go on to the heavy motor lorries if it is taken off the licences, but I certainly do think that, even if he is compelled to raise so much more money to alleviate the distress of the farmers in the maintenance of the roads, that would be much better than this objectionable form.
I observe that two of the speakers have referred just incidentally to the Road Fund and the costs that are entailed in improving the roads. The Minister does not want this money to put in his pocket. It is not going into the Central Fund. It will be used only to provide very good roads for the motoring public, and people who tell us that it is an undue charge and an unfair burden have not made any suggestions as to how the money is to be acquired from other sources. For their information I might say that the remission of this duty to five shillings would entail an addition of nine per cent. to the road tax that was paid last year in respect of every vehicle on the roads.
That only shows the iniquity of the tax.
Very good, but it does not show where the money is to come from.
I offered, as far as I was concerned, to make the President a present of the suggestion, if he likes to face it, to put the extra charge on the motors themselves rather than to raise the money by this means.
I do not quite understand the suggestion about putting it on the motors themselves.
The heavy lorries.
Any lorries you like.
Fifty per cent. has been added to the heavy lorry tax, and in certain cases it has been graded very steeply. Numerous representations have been made in the Press that it is too steep. That fifty per cent. meant £50,000; this means £45,000. In order to get from the goods vehicles this £45,000, have we to make the increased tax double as steep as it is? That has been put to us as a business proposition.
I do not think it is.
It is not being put as a business proposition?
It is being put as a business proposition in this way, that putting a tax on the driver is, at all events in my judgment, a wrong way of raising money. If the President says that he must get the money—and I dispute that—any other way that he could devise rather than the way embodied in this, would be preferable.
If it be desired I am prepared to go through the whole gamut of the alterations in the incidence of the Road Tax in order to get what is required. The sum required has been announced by the Minister for Finance as three-quarters of a million pounds. Last year we got £540,000. We want three-quarters of a million and we want it to keep rising. That particular three-quarters of a million is required in addition to the rates paid by farmers in 1914, plus sixty per cent. Sixty per cent. has to be added to the rates that were struck for roads in 1914, and the sum that we want is, approximately, £1,100,000.
You might want it but I, for one, would not give it.
That is another question. For the last two or three years, very big sums of money have been spent upon the roads, and we have been told by some people in this country, whose experience of roads is very extensive, that they are not up to the mark, that they are being affected by the present traffic.
Exaggerations.
Let us examine the exaggerations. In 1921 the total number of cars in use, private cars, commercial vehicles, hackneys, including 'buses, and motor cycles, was 11,514. In 1924 the number of 32,927, and in 1925 it had gone up to 36,932. These figures indicate a very considerable curve in the upward progress of the business of the country.
Would the President tell us how many horses have left the roads?
I am not an encyclopædia. It is impossible for me to give figures in relation to horsedrawn vehicles. I was dealing with the motor traffic.
What I am wondering about is whether we are going to have a discussion on the Road Fund on this resolution or whether we are to discuss purely and simply the question of the motor driver's licence.
The point I am at is that £45,000 is required for the Road Fund. That is the reason for this increase and for the decision to make this an Excise duty instead of being, as it formerly was, a registration fee. This money is required, and in some way or another it must come in. There has been a considerable increase in the taxation of ordinary cars. It is anticipated that the amount will run into something between 25 and 30 per cent. on the ordinary cars. On goods vehicles there is an increase of 50 per cent. I do not know the exact curve of increase in the case of buses, but this fund is the final means of bringing in a certain sum of money to maintain and keep the roads in order. No suggestion is made, and no information is given as to how this £45,000 could be raised from any other source.
Take half.
That, of course, upsets the calculations that have been made in connection with what is called the road policy and the figures and the estimates that have been given. The estimates of the receipts in question are all, in my view, rather optimistic. In other words, I believe the increases that are proposed generally will not materialise to the extent of the estimate. If this particular tax be reduced, as Deputy Thrift suggests, obviously we are not going to get half. Then there is the problem remaining to be solved next year of getting this money from some other source. That is the whole case for it. It is not through any pleasure that the tax is imposed, but if there are better methods of raising the money from the principal users of the roads—and the users who will benefit most out of it—we ought to hear of them.
We have heard some talk from time to time about going slowly. We have also heard talk about people being unable to afford what they want. I would like, for instance, to be better dressed, to have better boots, and many other things, but I am not able to afford all the things I want. I have to put up with it, and I do not think it is a good argument for the President to say: "Here is a sum of money that must be got, and the only way we can get it is to put a tax chiefly on the working man." This tax will fall most heavily on the men, I maintain, who are earning their living driving cars. I have seen a few of them and the case they put up to me is that a great number of them are unemployed. If they get employment, they ask, where will they get the money to pay for a licence? That is what appealed to me most. I do think if it is not possible to get the £45,000 this year, the Minister for Finance should take another view and try to do without it until the country is able to afford it. I am as keen on having good roads as anyone. As I said here, when speaking the other day, I object very much to heavy lorries being allowed to travel on the roads because they are injuring the roads to an extent unprecedented by anything that light motor cars can do. As Deputy Thrift has said, I do not think that light motor cars in particular do the roads anything like as much harm as the old horse drawn vehicles.
There is no question that a motor car is no luxury now. I pointed out on several occasions here that, at all events as far as my profession is concerned, it is an absolute necessity to have a motor car, and therefore it cannot be regarded as a luxury. It has already been pointed out by other speakers that if a man buys a motor car it costs him about £200. Then he has to pay a considerable amount in duty when the car comes into the country, something like £45, I suppose, and afterwards he has to pay, say, £12 motor tax. He has also to pay insurance. I do not think anybody has referred to a matter that has been engaging the attention of people on the other side recently, that is to insist on the necessity for every motor owner having a third-party insurance. That means that where injuries are sustained the motor owner would be insured so that he could pay the injured person. I maintain that it is far too much to increase a tax of 5/- at one bound to £1. It will hit the poor man very heavily. I am also quite sure that in many cases the funds will be reduced by people who have been taking out a number of licences for the members of their family taking out only one now. They had separate licences for all the members of the family where there was only one car, so that in an emergency any of them might be able to drive the car. I know a good many who have four or five licences in their family. The car is never out without the best driver. They certainly will not continue to pay £1 for a licence for every single member of the family. I do appeal to the Minister to reconsider this matter, because it will be a very severe tax on the man who has to earn his livelihood by driving cars. If the Minister cannot get the £45,000 this year he should hold his hand a little bit and do like the ordinary individual would do as far as his home life is concerned. He would hold his hand if he could not afford to have all that he wanted.
Would the Deputy give the same latitude to the county councils and say they are not able to pay 60 per cent. over that figure? In the end we would have no roads at all.
Will the Minister give us some figures as to the number of licences at present in operation?
About 53,000 for about 37,000 vehicles.
How much do the drivers' licences bring in?
A little over £13,000.
£13,250.
I would point out that £22,000 is about 3 per cent. of the three-quarters of a million that the President wants.
It seems to me that whatever may be said in reference to the other amendments, this one is altogether too drastic. In 1903 a fee of 5/- was, I think, fixed, and having regard to the value of money a fee of 10/- would be no more than equivalent to that at the present time. Having regard to the need there is for expenditure on the roads on account of motors, and the necessity there is for relieving the rates as far as possible, I do not think any good case could be made for declining to raise the fee by more than the figure at which it was fixed in 1903. The matter is practically one of putting the increased cost of the roads, as far as we can, on the motor-using population and relieving the agricultural community, as far as we can do so, of that cost. The entire cost pre-war practically fell on the rates. There was no Road Fund contribution worth talking about then. The roads have now to be maintained on a different scale, largely because of the increase in motor traffic. It seems to us desirable that, as far as possible, the increased cost shall fall on those who use motors.
The President explained that we could not very well increase the charges on goods vehicles to an extent that would bring in any substantially increased sum of money. We have considerably increased the rates on goods vehicles, but it is probable that a further increase would still leave enough vehicles on the road to require strong roads, and would not give any very greatly increased revenue. I recognise that in certain cases a fee of £1 would seem to be very heavy, such as in the case quoted of a family perhaps in the country having a car that it might not be convenient to have driven only by one person On the other hand, proposals such as that made by Deputy Cooper would be very difficult to carry into effect. We gave a good deal of consideration to them. Certain anomalies would be produced. For instance, if you had two brothers owning two cars, living in one house, one would get off at the 5/- rate. On the other hand, if they lived in different houses both would pay the £1 rate, presumably.
Would the Minister reserve his reply until I have made my argument?
Is the entire matter to be discussed before a vote is taken on any one amendment?
I protested against that. I want the two special issues that I have raised to be taken subsequent to the vote being taken on amendments 14 and 15.
No. 16 is certainly a completely different thing.
I definitely refrained from speaking on these two amendments. I want to isolate my argument and get a separate reply.
Will the Minister deal with the effect of the change from the fee of 5/- to an Excise duty?
The main duties on the cars are Excise duties. It was thought desirable that the drivers' licence duty should be an Excise duty and that some regulation as regards coverability and so forth should apply as apply to the main duties. Even at 5/- in 1903 it was definitely a tax, as the cost of recording would then amount to nothing like 5/-. If we have a higher fee at the present time, it is very definitely a tax and should be put in the same category as revenue taxes are ordinarily put. I do not want to anticipate Deputy Cooper, but, in my view, it is extremely difficult to devise any system to work satisfactorily for supplementary licences at reduced fees. I think if we were departing from the provisions of the resolution as it stands, that a reduction of the fee would be better than an attempt to have a system of supplementary licences, which would be somewhat difficult to operate, would lead to evasions, and provide anomalies of various sorts. If we were to reduce the fee to 10/- it would mean a loss of probably anything between £26,000 and £30,000. To that extent it would prevent us carrying out the policy it is intended to carry out in relation to the roads. There would be so much less borrowing power, so much less of the capital type of improvement done on the roads, and the annual charges would not be diminished in the way that we would expect they would be diminished if we could push ahead with the work of providing good foundations, and generally strengthening the roads for the carrying of heavy traffic. I believe that any reduction in the Road Fund, from sources other than taxation, can only result in increased charges on the rates When you have motor traffic the cost of maintaining the roads at the necessary standard is extremely high.
I would like to refer to the President's attitude towards the roads.
The Deputy has made one speech on the amendment already.
I beg pardon.
I would like to know how our charges compare with the charges in Britain
No change has been made there.
It remains at five shillings?
Yes.
Are we to take it definitely that this is supposed to be interest on a capital sum to be used on the roads?
It could be put that way. There will be that much less that we can borrow.
Would the Minister explain the position of the person who has a driving licence in Northern Ireland and drives his car over the border of the Saorstát? He will have a five shilling licence. Will he require to take out a £1 licence or will he pay 15/- additional to his present licence or will his licence in Northern Ireland serve?
He would pay the full fee.
Will this help to develop the tourist traffic?
The good roads will.
The Minister's argument is that it is unfair to maintain a national service as a charge on the local rates. Does the Minister realise that he is increasing, in effect, the local rate upon the poor motor driver? Does he consider his case as opposed to that of the other people who are paying local rates?
The whole thing was considered from every aspect and from every angle, and it was decided that we would not be justified in undertaking a capital expenditure unless the Road Fund showed a much bigger revenue.
While I sympathise with the desire of the President and the Minister for Finance in their efforts to secure sufficient money to enable them to borrow a certain amount for the construction of roads, I am in entire agreement with this amendment, because I consider that the poor man is again called upon to supply the money for reconstructing the roads. I dare say if the Minister for Finance were to examine in detail the list of people who have taken out licences this year he would find that the greater number are either in the employment of business firms or are driving hackney cars in the towns and cities. Those people are already heavily taxed in other directions and they should not be called upon to pay this large increase in the licence fees. I would appeal to the Minister to come to the relief of those people and not to insist on this tax going on.
The President has stated that no suggestions have been made as to how this amount of money is to be made up, if the tax went back to its original figure. I have no hesitation in suggesting that it should be made up in respect of the heavy lorries. The President, or the Minister for Finance, may say that that would be placing too heavy a burden on those people and that 50 per cent. has already been imposed upon them. I consider that if another 50 per cent. were put on—I am not quite sure of the figures—he would get approximately the same result. Even if these people refused to pay and took the lorries off the roads, I suggest that it would be a good day's work for the Government. and that the amount of money that would be saved by these lorries being taken off the roads would justify the Government in their action. These goods would then go back to the railways and the roads would be saved. The amount of money that the President and the Minister for Finance speak of would not be required for the upkeep of the roads. I believe that that is the solution of the problem
I think it is very unfair of the Minister to tax poor people in the cities and towns who are driving Ford hackney cars and, thereby, endeavouring to eke out an existence. We may be told that the Ford car licence duty has been reduced from £18 to £10, but how many of those people, whose living is very precarious, are in a position to buy a new Ford car to-day? They all have to pay the old tax of £18, and on top of that they have to pay 15/- extra. As a matter of fact, they have to pay the extra duty on the old Ford car. so that those engaged in the hackney car business have not got any relief in the Budget. I would appeal to the President and the Minister for Finance to reconsider, seriously, this tax and to put it on the heavy lorries and drive them off the roads.
Reading between the lines it occurred to me that the Minister intended to put a heavier tax on motor cars, but did not like to do it, and that he then found a way of doing it by putting it on the drivers. But he has not made the changes in the same ratio. Having increased the licence of the motor car drivers from five shillings to a pound the licence for the driver of the heavy lorry should be increased from five shillings to £5 or £10. There is very little alteration in the tax on most of the cars, but the driver's licence is increased from five shillings to twenty shillings. There is three times the tax in the case of heavy lorries—from £30 to £90, but the licence increase is not in the same ratio
There is a lot of difference between £30 and £90 and five shillings and a pound.
Why not maintain the same ratio all round? I do not agree with this method at all. Why not be honest about it, and put the tax straight on the cars instead of trying to divide it up, so that nobody will notice it? The Government should not try to slip the tax in in that form.
Most of the Deputies here seem to lose sight of the fact that only a few years ago it was absolutely necessary that we should have motor lorries. They seem to think now that these lorries should be taxed off the roads. These lorries had to be procured at heavy expense for the purpose of maintaining transport when the people were not able to maintain the railways and when the roads of the country, to a great extent, were broken up. A great many merchants went to heavy expense in procuring those lorries. It is very unfair that these lorries should be taxed off the roads. Again, we have a great many co-operative societies, and the farmers are, to a large extent, dependent on the co-operative societies. The welfare of the agricultural industry is mixed up with the welfare of those co-operative societies, and it would be very unjust if these lorries were obliged to be taken off. The Minister is taking a fair, if not more than fair, view in the tax which he has put on the motor cars and motor drivers.
Before making up my mind on this question of increasing the licence fee of the driver from five shillings to twenty shillings, I would like if the Minister, when answering the points made, would explain the position in relation to motor lorries that come from the Six Counties into our area. Do they contribute road tax to our road authorities in proportion to the damage they do to their roads? I would like to have that question answered, so that I may be in a better position to decide whether it is equitable to put this increased tax on the drivers of motor cars.
Could the Minister tell us what the effect of this new tax would be upon the owner of a 1922 or 1923 Ford hackney car; that is the additional tax upon the car and the additional licence duty? Would I be right in saying that there would be an addition of £3 6s. 8d. on the car, and 15s. on the licence duty?
He would pay the same rate as the private car would pay.
I believe that the hackney driver will be taxed out of existence if he happens to own an old Ford car. The present rate of taxation is £12 a year for the car, and, with the new tax, he will have to pay £22 in road tax and the extra £1 on his driving licence.
The Deputy is losing sight of the fact that the maximum for a hackney car is £20, no matter what the cylinder is or what the size of the car is.
You increase his rate from £12 to £20. That is an increase of £8 on the Ford car built before 1923. Is not that so?
That is right.
I consider that with the extra £1 for a driver's licence, that is putting a burden on the driver of the hackney car that he cannot bear. Surely to goodness the Government cannot expect that all those Ford cars built before 1923 should be thrown off the road and that the people who own them should be obliged to buy new cars. I think that a proposal of that kind is most unfair. When the Budget was introduced people generally in the country believed that all Ford cars were to be at a level of £10. Now it seems the position will be quite different. The poorer classes of people will be more affected by this than those who are in a better position to pay the extra tax of £8 15s. which is to apply to the hackney car driver in future. If that is a relief I cannot understand it, and I do not know where the relief of the £10 tax comes in. It may be a relief to well-off men who can afford to buy a new Ford car, but it will be no relief to the owners of the old cars. I disagree entirely with Deputy Noonan when he says that the heavy lorry should not be taxed off the roads. I hold that everyone of them over 4 tons should be taxed off the roads. The upkeep of the roads for these heavy lorries is costing the local ratepayers an extra charge of 2/- in the £. I believe that the ratepayers generally can less afford this rate of 2/- in the £ than the wealthy merchants who own these 6-ton and 8-ton lorries. I agree with Deputy Corish that the tax on these heavy lorries should be doubled in order that we might get them off the roads for all time. Most of the roads in the Saorstát are not capable of carrying these heavy lorries. The damage they are doing to the roads is placing a burden on the local ratepayers that they are not able to bear, and I believe that in a short time the running of these lorries on the roads will have to stop of necessity.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided. Tá: 23. Níl: 43.
Tá
- Seán Buitléir.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Sir James Craig.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- John Good.
- David Hall.
- William Hewat.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Tadhg O Donnabháin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Liam Thrift.
Níl.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Séamus de Burca.
- John Conlan.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Dhrisceóil.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Seán Mac Curtain.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Martin M. Nally.
- John T. Nolan.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Conchubhar O Conghaile.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- James Dwyer.
- Michael. Egan.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Connor Hogan.
- Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Donnchadh O Guaire.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
- Caoimhghín O hUigín.
- Seán Príomhdhall.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Morrissey and Hewat; Níl: Deputies Dolan and Tierney. Amendment declared lost.
Amendment No. 15 agreed to.
I move:—
In paragraph (1), line 29, to delete the words "one pound" and to substitute the words "ten shillings."
In accordance with our agreement. I do not propose to re-argue that question, but I would propose to make one or two remarks. I think the Minister is half disposed to yield something in this matter. I think the feels a case has been really made. I want to put the point that he will make nothing like twice the amount of revenue from the double tax. I think if he were to estimate the difference in the receipts at £15,000 he would be on the high side, and if he takes it at £20,000, which I am sure is on the high side, the President will not get the £750,000 he expects. I hope the Minister and the President will see their way to compromise in the way proposed in the amendment.
I support this amendment. Without repeating previous statements, I would ask the Minister to accept this so far as the licensed drivers of hackney cars are concerned. They should get at least some benefit. It should be taken into consideration that in Dublin alone there are over 100 taxis that have been purchased by young men who could not find employment. Through their friends they raised money to purchase these hackney cars, and I think they should get some consideration and not be asked to bear this.
I think the information we got from the President helps us somewhat to see this problem in a proper perspective. As has been pointed out by Deputy Doyle, the additional burden on the drivers of cars who are driving for a living is going to be very heavy. It appears from the figures and the estimates one can make from observation that probably 20,000 of the 37,000 cars in the country are old Fords. I do not know what proportion of these are hackney cars— cars which men drive in order to make a living.
Are you referring to Dublin alone?
I am referring to the Saorstát; so that in the case of the proposal in the resolution, fifteen shillings is to be added to the extra vehicle duty on the hackney cars. I want to emphasise the point that that is going to apply possibly to 10,000 workmen in the country. The President made the case that it was necessary to raise this revenue, but if you are raising a revenue from the owners of cars, what difference does it make to the revenue whether it is paid as a tax upon the cars or as a tax upon the man himself? It is only when you are imposing an extra duty on the workman as a workman, and as distinct from the owner of the car, that you are creating an evil and emphasising the grievance. If you have to raise the money, raise it on a car owner, as car owner, in respect to the car. In this case what you are doing is imposing a tax upon the workman's activities in earning a living. That may be justified. Deputies voted on the last occasion as though they were trying to justify it. They have another opportunity now at least to modify their views, and in the case of the licence duties at least only to impose an additional tax of 5/- instead of £1.
I want to support Deputy Johnson in this matter. I think as a matter of fact this tax is rather a hardship and it requires very little argument to show that the amount that is demanded imposes a very considerable burden on the employee or the assistant. I think that from that point of view alone the amendment should be agreed to, and I thoroughly agree with Deputy Johnson's observations and I support them.
I want to support this amendment and I think the Government ought to accept it as a compromise. I would suggest to them that this particular tax is one of the most unpopular taxes they could impose. In proportion to the amount of tax collected it will cause a greater amount of annoyance than can be imagined. One of the first considerations in putting on a tax should be to put on a tax that will not inconvenience or annoy people to any great extent. I also think that the tax for the upkeep of roads ought be applicable to the vehicles and not to the person driving the vehicle. I think that this method of making the driver responsible for the upkeep of the roads is a new departure and is not really justified. The tax should be applied to the car which is responsible for the damage to the roads. I would press on the Minister the advisability of accepting this amendment, which, though not very satisfactory, is a compromise.
I would be inclined to accept the amendment proposed by Deputy Thrift as a compromise in this matter. It will, of course, prejudice to some extent the future of the roads. Undoubtedly that must be the effect of it. But as the rise is perhaps rather steep—it is fairly steep—I am prepared to accept the amendment. In the case of the Ford hackney I will make provision in the Bill that the old cars will not be hit to the extent that they would be hit under the Resolution as it stands. The reason why the Resolution is so severe is that the more definite information which we have been able to get from the Ford firm since the Budget was introduced has shown us that the cars to which the preferential rate would apply are newer cars. The date of their construction is more recent than the date we had contemplated at one time. There are more of the old cars to be prejudicially affected than we at one time thought. Any concession there will not be in the nature of a continuing loss to the road fund. It will be a loss that will affect it only for a year or two or three.
Will the concession to the old Ford car apply only to the hackney?
Only to the hackney. The increase is small in the other cases. It is quite a different thing from the hackney.
What is the position of the owners of other cars besides the old Ford car?
The pre-1913 engines retain the preference of a reduction of 25 per cent. that they had heretofore. The other old cars will be in the position in which they were always.
That is the 1913 car which is not existing at all except as fencing gaps or something like that?
The pre-1913 car.
I want it made clear as to what we are to understand by the old Ford car.
The old Ford car is the car that was new before July, 1923.
What about the other old cars in the country that are not Ford cars, cars that were bought previous to 1923?
We pay respect to them on account of their age.
Respect?
I would like to say that I know a car that was bought prior to 1913. I do not own it myself, but the unfortunate owner has to pay a tax of £13, whereas cars of the same make manufactured since 1923 will have to pay only £7. Again, the owner of an old Chevrolet, a car that is in common use throughout the country, has to pay an increase of £4 since 1922.
I think that a man who keeps a car constructed in 1913 still at work ought to be prosecuted.
Age is honourable.
Owing to high taxation he is unable to buy a new car.
As a compromise.
That makes it impossible to move amendment 13 in its present form. If Deputy Cooper desires, he can move it to the Bill in another form.
The Deputy has prepared a very good speech dealing with motor bicycles, and he will reserve it until the Finance Bill is introduced; then he will put down an amendment to reduce the duty on motor bicycles to 5/-.
took the Chair.
I understood that the Minister was giving way on the ground that this was finished and that we were to have no more of it.
I made no such agreement. I agreed to have my amendment postponed; that was the only agreement I made and I will not be bound by any other agreement, but I will consider the President's argument and see if I can assent to it in my mind after mature consideration. I am not pledging myself to put down a further amendment and I am not pledging myself not to put down a further amendment either.
I am not going to press Amendment 16, but I would just like to put it up to the Minister because he adumbrated certain difficulties with regard to the family licences, and I should like his view as to whether this is insuperable. Amendment 15 did not go as far as it should go. I should have liked it to exempt the paid servant of a family residing in the house, the licence being in the name of the family. In view of the possibility that the paid servant would remove himself from the house or give notice to leave or set the house on fire and burn the family, or conduct himself in any other unforeseen manner, I do not think it advisable to include him. I suggest to the Minister that by the adoption of this amendment he will not lose any revenue. The main argument used against me on a former occasion was that the Road Fund would not admit of the loss of revenue. The revenue has now submitted to having its privileges and licences cut in two as by a sword and apparently it has not suffered.
Oh yes, it has.
At any rate, I am going to put it to the President and the Minister that the adoption of the principle of the amendment will not cause any serious loss of revenue. In a family where there are three or four persons capable of driving a car and likely to drive a car, two things will happen upon the introduction of the increased licence. If they are a very law-abiding family and the father will say—assuming that he is not only nominally, but actually, in control of the family——
A big assumption.
You are assuming a lot.
I am assuming that. Now, I will assume this, that the father or mother will say to the family: "None of you is to use the car except the one who has taken out the licence." If I can draw on Deputy Hewat's imagination yet further, the assumption is that the family will obey. That is my optimistic outlook. Now. in that case there is not much revenue to be got out of that. The alternative supposition is that where there are four or five persons in a family who might drive a car they will not take out a licence for everyone in the family. One or possibly two will take out licences, but the remainder will chance their luck and drive the car in the hope that the Civic Guard will not hold them up in order to look at the licence.
And possibly they will have their father's licence.
Probably they will have the father's licence. I do not think the licences set out particulars in the same way as a passport does—age, height, complexion, and so on.
They may in future.
And likely will.
The Deputy is asking for it.
Now, we can see how the Road Fund is going to be operated. There will be armies of clerks employed filling up these licences and securing particulars. Formerly applicants for those licences used to send in their applications by post, and there was no occasion to present themselves. Now, it is more than likely that they will have to have any particulars they supply checked. Possibly, a note will be made of distinguishing marks, and if there are two pimples on the right ear the clerk will have a look at them.
Not necessarily.
Not necessarily? The Minister for Finance says that personal identification will be absolutely necessary, and I have no doubt particulars with regard to age and appearance will have to be entered on the licences. Now, the Minister for Industry and Commerce tells us that it is not necessary. The trouble with this Government is that they are always speaking with divided voices. Take the case of the President's car. If it is not the President's car it is the Government's car. How on earth are the officials to fill in on the licence the personal description of the person entitled to drive the car?
It will be the licence-holder and not the person who owns the car. The personal description of the holder of the licence is given.
But is it the licence-holder who drives the Government car? As regards the personal description of the licence-holder, I quite agree.
Whoever is described as the driver will be given the licence.
I am speaking figuratively of who holds the wheel at any given moment. If we introduced this form in regard to, not the actual motor car, but the car of the State, and compel a detailed description as to height, age, and so on, we should gain an enormous amount of information. I am afraid I am allowing myself to get out of order. I have been compelled by those very disorderly interruptions on the part of the Ministers, which I deprecate, to stray from my point. My point is that you will not get any more revenue by saying that every member of a family has to take out a licence to drive the same car.
There may be cases where two brothers have two hackney cars, but these cases are not very numerous, and the net loss will not be very great, and therefore I would suggest to the Minister that some consideration in the way of cheaper licences should be given. I am not pressing this amendment tonight. The whole situation has been altered by the acceptance of Deputy Thrift's amendment. I do think the principle of cheaper licences for other members of the family should be considered. I would like to hear the Minister's view on that matter.
I would like to go further than Deputy Cooper with regard to a reduction of licences for members of a family. We have in most garages young men who are apprenticed to the motoring trade. If this proposal passes in its present form all the members of a garage staff, who will have to take out a car from time to time, will have to take out a driving licence.
They have to do it now.
Is it desirable that they should be asked to take licences out? They will not take out as many licences as they otherwise would if facilities were given them. Then again, you will not have as many people learning motor driving. I do not think the revenue will be increased under this proposal. The owner of a car, or whoever is to drive the car, will take out one licence and no more. If the cost of licences was reduced to something within reason, perhaps two or three members of a family would be inclined to take out licences. If the cost were reduced licences would be taken out in the case of learners. With a 10/- licence I do not see very much inducement offered to people. This proposal will not lead to efficiency in driving motor cars. You will not have as many people driving cars. What you need to cultivate in the country is efficiency in driving. The necessity for efficient driving is rapidly growing.
Why did you vote against a reduction of the licence fee?
A certain inducement was held out that has since materialised; that is the reason.
Mr. O'CONNELL
That will not save you.
I would suggest to the Minister that he should consider this matter seriously, particularly because of its effect in regard to families and learners. In the coming generation it will be an essential thing that almost everybody should know how to drive a car. Motoring will be one of the forces of the future. While a 10/- licence fee has to be paid you will have very few learners, and very few members of a family will be inclined to pay 10/-. They will pay only what is absolutely necessary. Few people are ready to pay 10/- for nothing. Ten shillings mean a lot in the country.
Can the Minister say if there is any proposal to increase the driving licence payable by drivers of agricultural tractors and engines used on the road in connection with farming operations, such as threshing machines?
There is no proposal to make any change.
What has the Minister to say in regard to the suggestion I have made?
The case made in regard to this particular matter is very much weakened by the fact that the main licence is now reduced to 10/-. I think a 10/- fee is not too high a charge if we have regard to the fact that 5/- was fixed when the value of money was very much greater than it is now. As compared with the pre-war period we are not increasing the fee at all.
I think it is very much increased.
Not as regards pre-war. I think it is not a fee that is at all too high. I do not think it is desirable that anybody should get a licence for a very small sum, a sum they would not think very much about. There is another side to the case that Deputy Gorey put up. It is very desirable that people who are in charge of cars should be expert drivers. I do not think it is a good thing that people should, at a very small fee, be able to get a licence to enable them to drive. There is some advantage, for instance, in discouraging school children from taking out licences. I think a 10/- licence is advisable in so far as it will discourage people from taking out licences who would otherwise be undesirable as drivers. Deputy Cooper's amendment, I think, if it were being adopted, and if we had been retaining the £1 fee, would have to be extended so as to cover employees as well as members of a family; then there would be anomalies and difficulties which could not have been completely surmounted. It was partly because I did not see any way in which we could operate such a system of licence entirely satisfactory that I was prepared to agree to what I regarded as a compromise. If we had kept to the pound I believe we would have had to try to make some sort of exception, because there would have been hardship if there was no exception.
I support the Minister in this matter, and I do so largely because of the conciliatory spirit in which he met the amendments reducing the fee from £1 to 10/-. I think I would have had a lot to say, even against the fee of 10/-, had it not been for the Minister bowing to popular opinion in the matter.
The Minister has, at any rate, done one thing. The new learners will now have to go out into the fields to learn to drive.
In that case they will not be wearing out Deputy Gorey's roads.
With the leave of the Dáil, I withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I want to ask the Minister a question regarding the motor licence duty. In regard to Ford cars, when the licence duty has been paid this year for the full period at the ordinary rate of £18, will there be a rebate allowed, now that the rate has been reduced to £10?
No.
That means that a man who only took out a six months licence will get an advantage, whereas a man who took out a year's licence will be at a disadvantage.
So far as the new tax is concerned, where a new licence is being taken out within three weeks or so, it will now be issued for the remaining part of the year at the new rate.
A man who paid the tax for the full year will get no rebate?
No.
That seems unfair.
Question—"That the Dáil agree with the Committee in Resolution 11 as amended"—put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 50; Níl, 13.
Tá.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Séamus de Burca.
- John Conlan.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Dhrisceóil.
- James Dwyer.
- Michael Egan.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Good.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Connor Hogan.
- Donnchadh Mac Con Uladh.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Seán Mac Curtain.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Eoin Mac Néill.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Pádraig Mag Ualghairg.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Martin M. Nally.
- John T. Nolan.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Conchubhar O Conghaile.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Tadhg O Donnabháin.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Donnchadh O Guaire.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
- Caoimhghin O hUigin.
- Seán Priomhdhall.
Níl.
- Seán Buitléir.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- David Hall.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Dolan and Sears. Níl: Deputies T. O'Connell and C. Hogan (Clare). Motion declared carried.