Financial Resolutions—Report.

Minister for Finance (Mr. Blythe)

I move that the Dáil agree with the Committee in Resolution No. 1:—

(1) That income tax shall be charged for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1929, at the rate of three shillings in the pound.

(2) That sur-tax shall be charged for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1929, at the same rates at which it was charged for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1928.

(3) That the several statutory and other provisions which were in force during the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1928, in relation to income tax and sur-tax shall have effect in relation to the income tax and sur-tax to be charged as aforesaid for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1929.

(4) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).

Mr. MacEntee

As we have already expressed our disappointment with the Minister for Finance in not meeting the case of the smaller taxpayers, and as we probably will have an opportunity of repeating that on the Finance Bill, we do not intend to do more than formally oppose the Resolution.

Question put and declared carried.

Mr. Blythe

I move that the Dáil agree with the Committee in Resolution No. 2:—

(1) That the new import duties which were first imposed by Section 12 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, and were (with the exception of the duty on records and other means of reproducing music, the duty on blank film on which no picture has been impressed and the duty on motor cars (including motor bicycles and motor tricycles) and accessories and component parts thereof other than tyres) continued up to the 1st day of May, 1929, by Section 18 of the Finance Act, 1928 (No. 11 of 1928), shall, with the exceptions aforesaid, continue to be charged, levied, and paid on and from the said 1st day of May, 1929, up to the 1st day of May, 1930.

(2) That whenever the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied that any cinematograph film imported into Saorstát Eireann is of an educational character they shall, subject to compliance with such conditions as they think fit to impose, exempt such film from the payment of the duty on cinematograph films included in the duties mentioned in this Resolution.

(3) That the provisions of Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1919, shall apply to the duty mentioned in this Resolution with the substitution of the expression "Saorstát Eireann" for the expression "Great Britain or Ireland."

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Blythe

I move that the Dáil agree with the Committee in Resolution No. 3:—

(1) That the additional duties on dried fruits which were first imposed by Section 8 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, and were continued up to the first day of August, 1929, by Section 19 of the Finance Act, 1928 (No. 11 of 1928) shall continue to be charged, levied and paid on and from the said 1st day of August, 1929, up to the 1st day of August, 1930.

(2) That the provisions of Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1919, shall apply to the duties mentioned in this Resolution with the substitution of the expression "Saorstát Eireann" for the expression "Great Britain and Ireland."

(3) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).

Mr. Flinn

On which of these Resolutions can we discuss the question of de-rating?

An Ceann Comhairle

On none of them.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Blythe

I move that the Dáil agree with the Committee in Resolution No. 4:—

(1) That the excise duties chargeable under Section 13 of the Finance Act, 1920, on the mechanically-propelled vehicles mentioned in the Schedule to this Resolution shall, as on and from the 1st day of July, 1929, be charged, levied, and paid at the rates specified in the Schedule to this Resolution in lieu of the rates specified in paragraph 3 of the Third Schedule to the Finance Act, 1926 (No. 35 of 1926).

(2) That on and from the 1st day of July, 1929, sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1926, shall have effect as if the rates of duty specified in the Schedule to this Resolution were rates specified in the Third Schedule to that Act.

(3) That every licence taken out under Section 13 of the Finance Act, 1920, in respect of a mechanically-propelled vehicle of a class mentioned in the Schedule to this Resolution which is in force on the 30th day of June, 1929, and but for this Resolution would not expire until after that day shall expire at midnight on the said 30th day of June, 1929, and so much of the duty paid under the said Section 13 in respect of such vehicle on the taking out of such licence as is proportionate to the period for which such licence would but for this Resolution have continued in force after the said 30th day of June, 1929, shall be allowed as a credit against duty payable and actually paid in respect of such vehicle under the said Section 13 at the rate specified in the Schedule to this Resolution for the period or any part or parts of the period beginning on the 1st day of July, 1929, and ending on the 31st day of December, 1929, but nothing in this Resolution shall entitle any person to a refund of such first-mentioned duty or any part thereof.

(4) That the purposes for which regulations may be made under Section 12 of the Roads Act, 1920, shall extend to and include the following purposes, that is to say:—

(a) prescribing the method of calculating for the purposes of this Resolution the seating capacity of all or any of the classes of mechanically propelled vehicles mentioned in the Schedule to this Resolution, and

(b) making provision for all or any matters arising by reason of the fact that the alterations effected by this Resolution in the rates of duty take effect during the currency of a licensing year.

(5) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).

SCHEDULE.

RATES OF DUTY.

Mechanically propelled vehicles (other than trams) being hackney carriages as defined in Section 4 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888, and having:—

seating capacity for more than 6 but not more than 14 persons	£70
seating capacity for more than 14 but not more than 20 persons	£100
seating capacity for more than 20 but not more than 26 persons	£130
seating capacity for more than 26 but not more than 32 persons	£160
seating capacity for more than 32 persons	£5
for every such person.

For the purposes of this Schedule the seating capacity of a vehicle does not include the seat or space occupied by the driver of the vehicle.

Mr. Lemass

When this Resolution was before the House I endeavoured to extract from the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Local Government certain information relative to the Road Fund and road expenditure, in order to enable us to make up our minds whether or not this Resolution should receive our support. We did not succeed in getting that information. I have read very carefully the speeches which were made by the Minister for Finance in proposing the Resolution, and by the Minister for Local Government in replying to it, and I have been unable to discover any case whatever advanced by either of them for this additional tax. It is possible, in fact it is probable, that there is a good case for the tax, but if there is we have not heard it. I do not know if other Deputies are interested, in the matter and have taken the trouble of reading the Ministers' speeches; but, if they have, I am sure they are in the same position as I am. We have received no indication whatever as to the arguments which induced the Government to propose this additional impost on omnibuses. The Minister for Finance stated that up to the present buses have paid something like 4.6 per cent. of the revenue of the Road Fund. It is very difficult to form a conclusion as to what should be a fair contribution. "But," he added, "I feel certain that 4.6 or 5 per cent. is far too little." He did not, however, give us the data which made him feel so certain that 4.6 per cent. or 5 per cent. was far too little. Later on, he stated that having regard to the fact that the road has to be made and maintained at a particular standard largely for the buses, and that a bus containing twenty seats or thereabouts is not paying too much when it pays £100 per year for the use of the roads, for making a profit, as its contribution towards the maintenance of the roads. Again, Deputies will notice that the Minister for Finance was merely stating his own impression, without producing any facts or any information to substantiate it. The Minister for Local Government, in his speech, was no more informative. The kernel of it is contained in the one sentence, that it is quite clear that the buses ought to pay more than they are paying at present. If it is quite clear, I suggest that neither the Minister for Finance nor the Minister for Local Government has done anything to make it clear. We will, no doubt, be discussing this question in relation to the whole question of financial policy on the Finance Bill; but, before it falls to us to do that, we would like very much to hear from some responsible Minister the reasons which induced the Executive Council to propose this Resolution to the House.

They must have had some reason. It is to be presumed that no responsible Government would come to the Dáil with the proposal to increase a particular tax by 150 per cent. without having some reason for doing it. But if they have a reason, they are keeping it very secret. They have done nothing to pass on information concerning that reason to the House. The Minister for Finance dealt briefly with the position of the Road Fund. He said: "We"—presumably referring to the Government—"are satisfied that the roads cannot be maintained at the standard at which they should be maintained, especially having regard to the increased number of vehicles and the present revenue of the Road Fund." We would judge from these remarks that it is the view of the Minister that the present revenue of the Road Fund is inadequate to provide the annual cost of road maintenance and construction. Is it the view of the Government that this additional tax on omnibuses will increase the revenue of the Road Fund sufficiently to make it adequate for that purpose? If the additional £45,000 which it is hoped to secure from omnibuses will not make the Road Fund revenue adequate for that purpose, then the Minister for Finance is open to censure in so far as he brought only the one proposal before the House. If, to his knowledge, that Fund is inadequate to maintain the roads in a proper state, and if it is his opinion that the additional revenue which this tax will produce will not be sufficient to make it adequate, then I think he is open to the charge of neglecting his duty in not making better provision to increase the Road Fund revenue. If it is a fact that the money at the disposal of the road-making authorities is not such as to maintain the roads which have been constructed at great cost, then the money expended on the roads will very largely be wasted.

We are keenly concerned that whatever benefit has been derived from the expenditure of large sums on road construction should not now be lost by reason of the fact that the sum sufficient to maintain them is inadequate. The Minister for Finance gave the House the impression that the tax upon vehicles utilising the roads should be so graded as to provide that each class of vehicle would pay its share of the cost of road maintenance and road construction in proportion to the damage that it did to the roads. The Minister for Local Government appears to take an entirely different view. He said: "I do not agree with the argument that the contribution which the bus traffic should make to the Road Fund should be based entirely on the extent of the damage, or even in great part upon the consideration of the extent of the damage." I would like the Minister for Local Government to amplify that remark. Is it intended that road vehicles should be taxed so as to produce a larger revenue than the Road Fund actually requires? Is it intended that there should be every year in the Road Fund a surplus not required for road maintenance and construction which would be used for some other purpose, possibly for the relief of general taxation? Is it intended that taxation upon the pleasure car should be relieved at the expense of the public service vehicle? When the Minister for Local Government tells us that the taxation upon the omnibus should bear no relation, or very little relation, to the damage the vehicle does to the roads, we want to be quite clear as to what he means. If it is to bear no relation to the damage it does to the roads, what is it to bear relation to? It would be a most undesirable precedent to tax a public service vehicle for the benefit of the pleasure car. It would also, I think, be a most undesirable precedent to tax road transport for the purpose of relieving taxation. If it is not the intention of the Government to take either of these courses, we would like to know what the Minister meant when he made that remark.

The whole question of road maintenance and construction, and the cost of it, appears to be very largely one of speculation. The Minister for Local Government told us that neither he nor his financial advisers found themselves in a position to state explicitly the amount of damage buses do to the roads. Apparently, however, they have sufficient information to make a guess, even if it is a wild guess, to the effect that they have been doing 150 per cent. more than they have been paying for. Is that a wild guess or merely a shot in the dark? Is it based on any information available for the technical advisers of the Minister? If so, what is that information? So far it has not been placed before us.

In the discussion on the general Resolutions, I asked the Minister for Finance if the proposed increased tax on buses was intended in any way to be a solution of what is called the transport problem, and he said "No." The Minister for Local Government appeared to imply that this tax upon buses has a very definite relation to the railway position. He referred to the fact that the railway company have to maintain a permanent way and pay rates in respect of their undertakings. He said: "We cannot leave out the analogy completely that we have a very important transport system all over the country between the bus traffic and the railways and tramways in respect of the roads over which they run." If this tax is imposed on buses, not because their present payments to the Road Fund bear no relation to the damage they do, but in order to increase the difficulties of the buses in competing with the railways, then we must take it that it is, in part at any rate, some attempt to solve the transport problem. If the Minister for Local Government intended us to understand, as I think he did, that this additional impost is made in order to force the buses to increase fares and then reduce their effectiveness in competition with the railways, we are opposed to it. If it is the Government solution of the transport problem as such, it is totally inadequate.

We have undoubtedly a very serious position. We have the two forms of transport in competition, damaging each other and doing very little which could not be otherwise attained. We recognise the buses offer a very useful public service—a service which we do not wish to see the country deprived of. If the effect of this tax is intended to bring about a lessening of the bus facilities for the benefit of the railway shareholders, then we are against it. But if it is merely intended, as the Minister for Finance implied, to increase the bus contribution to the Road Fund in order to bring it more into line with the damage buses do to the roads, then we are for it. The Minister for Local Government said that was not the purpose of the tax. There appears to be a direct contradiction between the two Ministers in this matter. We want to get the whole position clarified. It has not been clarified as yet for us, although both Ministers spoke for some time when this Resolution was before us. It does seem that the additional tax to be imposed is merely a shot in the dark. The Government find themselves faced with an intricate transport problem, and, unable to solve it, they put this impost on in the hope that in some mysterious manner it will simplify the problem so as to enable them to get through with it. We think if that is so that it is a most undesirable way of doing business. I must say that it is my opinion, although I have no information with which to back it up, that the buses have not in the past contributed to the Road Fund the amount that they should contribute. I want to make it clear that that is merely a guess on my part. If I have that information that the buses are not contributing their fair proportion to the Road Fund, then I intend to support this Resolution. That is to say, if I have the information that this tax is primarily for the purpose of increasing the revenue of the Road Fund, I will support the Resolution.

If we receive from either of the Ministers an indication that the Resolution is not primarily intended for that, but that there is some other intention, then we must have that information if for no other reason than to force the Government to face up to their responsibilities in this matter of transport. I would like to suggest to the Minister for Finance some modification of the tax which would ease the burdens upon omnibus proprietors without decreasing the revenue of the Road Fund. I suggest that the tax could be paid monthly instead of quarterly, as at present, and modified in such a way as to prevent any diminution in the Road Fund revenue. That can easily be done. The Minister said that the additional rates of duty increased the tax by 150 per cent. In fact it increased it much more, because the omnibus companies register their vehicles for only three months, and when they do that they have to pay an additional 20 per cent. duty. These companies receive their revenue from day to day in the amounts received for fares. The fact that they receive their revenue in that form makes it difficult for them to pay large sums at extended periods. It would be much easier for them to pay a small sum monthly. If that sum was so fixed as to prevent any loss to the Road Fund it would be a great benefit to them without conferring any hardship upon the road-making authorities.

These buses frequently break down and it takes practically a month to get them into running order again. If this tax were payable monthly instead of quarterly it would enable the proprietor of a broken-down bus to exempt himself from paying the duty for a month, while the bus would be lying in his garage and doing no damage to the roads. When the bus is lying in the proprietor's garage it does not do any damage to the roads, and the fact, therefore, that no duty was being paid upon it for that period would make no difference to the road authorities. Other companies running buses generally keep one or two spare buses for maintenance of their service when one of the buses on the road breaks down. If the duty were payable monthly it would enable them to license one of these buses for a period during which the broken-down bus was being repaired, and cease paying the duty when it was possible for them to take that bus off the road again.

I do not think that the imposition of a monthly instead of a quarterly tax would involve very much increased cost in administration. It would involve the printing of different coloured discs in order to enable the Gárda Síochána to know whether the licence was paid or not. Notice would have to be sent to the Gárda Síochána. It would involve but very little extra clerical work, and the increased cost in administration service would be so small as to be practically negligible. I do not know if any representation has been made to the Minister for Finance by the Bus Owners' Association in this matter. If so the Minister has had an opportunity of considering it, and an opportunity of making up his mind on the matter. If the Bus Owners have not already made representations in the matter, I would like if the Minister would consider it between now and the introduction of the Finance Bill. I think that certainly by doing this you would be conferring some benefit upon bus owners and at the same time do no damage to the Road Fund. I would not put forward the suggestion if it would result in any diminution to the revenue of the Road Fund. We are anxious to see that enough money will be made available to maintain the roads that have been constructed. Otherwise, if enough money were not available, it would be a waste. If the amount paid monthly were graded so as to ensure that it would be equal to the quarterly payment plus whatever interest would accrue to the Road Fund from these quarterly payments, then there would be no loss to the Road Fund. I would like the Minister to consider that. I would like him also to say why this Resolution was introduced and the information upon which the Government introduced it.

Mr. Flinn

I want to carry one step further the request which has been made by Deputy Lemass for information as to the policy behind this Resolution. This tax has rather a curious history. It is a tax in substitution for a tax which was announced at a party meeting by the Minister for Finance. That was a tax which was to have been introduced a considerable time ago, and in advance of the Budget. The particular tax which was then announced has apparently gone by the board. Certainly the suggestion in that particular case was that there was some basis of calculation behind the actual figures of the tax that it was proposed to impose. But more curiously, and a matter of more importance in my opinion, the Minister said something of another nature. He said that this tax which was then suggested was part of a policy, and he alluded to the fact that the buses were to some extent interfering with the financial position of the country towns. He examined that proposition, and he said that it was not introduced primarily for that purpose. That is what I want to stress: that here there was a tax announced before the Budget, and announced as part of a policy, and the policy in relation to that was not and has not been disclosed.

If we knew what the policy was we would be in a position to consider this tax in an entirely different way. We might disapprove of the policy and disapprove of the tax, or any substitute for it, on account of the fact that we disapprove of the policy. Or we might approve of the policy and be anxious to meet the Minister as far as possible in relation to the tax, which possibly might not be imposed in the way that we might think best. It is perfectly obvious that unless and until the Minister does disclose his hand in this matter we are not in a position to examine usefully this or any other tax which the Minister may attempt to impose. What is perfectly obvious at the present moment is that there is not in the possession of the Minister any reliable information on which he is prepared to stand as a basis of taxation. I may be wrong. I am not speaking now in any critical sense. If the Minister has had investigations made, and has had a solid basis of scientific examination upon which to create this tax, let him give it to us. There is a very large amount of information in relation to this question which has been collected in France, Germany, Sweden and America. There is some very elaborate and valuable information in the possession of the American Bureau, and also in the technical department of Germany and Sweden. Has that information been co-ordinated by the Minister's Department, and was the original estimate of one penny per mile based on that information or was it a pure guess? We are entitled to know. I understand that technically qualified men in Ireland have volunteered, if given facilities by the Minister for Local Government, to co-ordinate this information and to make experiments in their own time. Has the Minister taken advantage of that offer, or has any substituted activity by his own Department been put in its place?

Personally I have the highest opinion of the Road Board Branch of his Department. It is, I think, in the hands of people who desire to construct good roads. I had, however, the privilege of hearing a discussion at the Engineers' Society in Dublin on this question in which the representative of the Ministry dealing with roads gave such information as apparently was in his possession as to how that estimate was formed. I have some knowledge of the subject. I certainly have been interested in it, and I say that that information was not sufficient upon which to base this tax. What is the policy of the Government of which this tax is a part? We are entitled to know that. It looks to me as if the policy is that adumbrated by Deputy Lemass—a policy of pro-railway as against road transport. It seems to me to be an attempt to produce an artificial condition preferential to the railways as compared with the buses until the competition, which is non-railway competition on the roads, has been eliminated. If that is the policy, let the Minister declare it. Let him have the courage which the Minister for Industry and Commerce had when he declared that it was his policy to make the Great Southern Railway shares a valuable security again in this country. If that is his policy let him declare it, but certainly we are not entitled to have that sort of thing done without its being exposed to the House. Since the speech of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in Cork in relation to this matter, a very excellent and able speech, which was delivered to a University in the spirit in which in my opinion a speech to a University should be delivered, these three things have happened: (1) £75,000 for rates has been taken off the railway companies and transferred to the ordinary community; (2) the Minister for Local Government has intervened to prevent local councils from appealing against that particular manoeuvre; and (3) this tax has been put on which gives a preference to the railway companies as distinct from the buses. That policy may be entirely right. It may be entirely wrong; but what is unquestionable is that a policy of that kind, which is undeclared, is indefensible. We must know what they are trying to do.

I believe that the buses are performing a very valuable service. I see the real and serious danger in this country of breaking down isolations which have been largely our protection, the isolations under which the little country towns have been able to continue to exist, and in the absence of which it is probable that these towns will cease to exist before we have an opportunity of putting in substitution for them something which will be as valuable as themselves. When the Minister plays around with bus taxation he is playing round with a very serious problem. He is disturbing a very important pool. His actions may have reactions of a great and vital character, and before the Minister is allowed to impose this, or any other, tax as part of such policy, that policy should be clearly declared to this House.

Mr. Cassidy

I must say that I was somewhat surprised at the speech of Deputy Flinn in regard to the taxation of buses, more especially when he referred to the question of preferential treatment of railways. As Deputy Lemass mentioned, I do not believe that the Minister intended that that particular tax should go towards the solution of the transport problem. I do not believe that it will solve it. I would not like it to go out from this House that the impression is that the particular tax on buses is going to give preferential treatment to railways. The position is that in every county through which a railway runs it has to pay a certain amount of taxation, part of which goes towards the upkeep of the roads. The railways do not use the roads. They have to pay for the upkeep of their permanent way and railway stations, and for the upkeep of roads over which their greatest competitors, the bus companies, run their buses in opposition to the railways. Deputy Flinn also referred to the fact that some time ago there was a re-valuation of railway property—in my opinion that was quite proper—and that re-valuation meant a reduction to a certain extent of the amount of money to be spent on roads. It meant that in future the amount of money to be expended on roads would be less than previously. In addition, if we are to keep up the roads we should pay a living rate of wages to the workers on those roads. In my constituency I know they are not paying it. I believe that the buses should be called upon to pay bigger taxation than at present.

It is all very well for some bus owners to say that they are not in a position to pay the tax. Let us examine the position. Go outside the Saorstát and examine it. Some time ago, in the Six Counties, on the borders of Donegal, we had a firm, the Catherwood Bus Company, which also operates in Dublin, taking over the buses from the Corporation of Derry and undertaking for a number of years to pay 50 per cent. of their net profits. I put it to the House, and to Deputy Flinn especially, that if the buses are in such a position that they are unable to bear this tax, and if, as Deputy Lemass suggested, the buses are going to be crushed out of existence, how is it that one bus company in one city can afford to pay 50 per cent. of their net profits to the Corporation? Deputy Flinn also mentioned the fact that the buses give valuable service to the community. I agree, but I would again point out that the buses are working at an advantage compared with the railways. In the City of Dublin you have employees of bus companies working for 20/- for a 56- hour week.

Another fact with which the Co. Councils in the Border area have to contend is that in Donegal, for instance, there are buses coming from the Six County area into the Saorstát which are not contributing their quota to the Road Fund. That is one thing which I would like the Minister to take into consideration. When the Minister is replying I would like to hear from him whether he proposes to take any action in the case of the particular firm, Catherwood and Co., who have taken over the buses in Derry, and who are probably going to make Derry a jumping-off ground to compete in the Saorstát against the Derry and Lough Swilly Railway Company and the Donegal Railway Company. Probably with these buses they will operate in Co. Donegal and throw a lot of railway employees out of employment. Is that firm going to be made to pay its proper contribution as far as the Co. Council and the Road Fund are concerned? I would like to hear from the Minister if he has given any consideration to the problem of buses coming from the Six County area into the Saorstát, buses coming from Belfast to Dublin or from Derry to Donegal. My own impression is that the buses are getting off very lightly with this tax, and that the bus owners themselves will agree that they are getting off lightly. I thought that the Minister was going to be more severe in his taxation. I was glad to gather from what he said to Deputy Lemass that he does not look upon this tax as a solution of the transport problem.

Personally, I believe it is only tinkering with the problem, and I hope that the Minister, in conjunction with the Executive Council, will give that consideration to the transport problem that it deserves. At present a chaotic condition of affairs exists. I quite agree that buses are very valuable to act as feeders to the railway companies in villages in which the railway companies have no stations. Another factor which has to be considered is that the bus traffic in the Border counties inflicts a serious hardship on shopkeepers in villages and in outlying areas. In places like Buncrana you have the people who formerly shopped there travelling by bus to Derry, with the result that they are spending their money outside the Saorstát. The buses are not paying for the great damage they cause to the roads, and I believe they should be made pay for it. Another matter to which the Minister should have given consideration is that lorries with solid tyres cause heavy damage to the roads. I think the Minister should have imposed a higher taxation on them in addition to the proposed taxation on buses.

Mr. Davis

There are three parties to my mind concerned in this matter —the proprietors of the railways, the proprietors of motor buses, and the general public, in other words, the rate-paying public. I have to compliment the Minister on taking this step, which is a step in the right direction, and a step which, to my mind, should have been taken long since. As everybody is aware, a considerable amount of money has been expended on the construction of our roads. We had not heard of motor buses until these roads were constructed. The motor buses immediately afterwards came on the scene. Unlike the railways, the buses have only to pay to a very slight extent for the roads which they use, though I might again say that this is a matter of one band of shareholders playing against another band—the shareholders of the railway companies on the one side and those of the motor bus companies on the other. The rate-paying public stand in between these two interests, who are out to make the best they can out of the bargain and make the rate-paying public bear the burden. The position of the railway companies, however, is different to that of the proprietors of the motor buses. When a railway company wishes to build a railway it has to seek special legislation, to acquire land and pay a price for it, and then it has to construct the railway and bear the cost of that. That is a very important consideration, to my mind, as contrasted with the position of the proprietors of buses, who came on the scene, not to construct roads, but at a time when these roads were already constructed at the expense of the general public. When the general public has to bear that expense, I think it is only quite reasonable and businesslike, and that it does not at all inflict an injustice on the bus companies, that the Minister should come forward and say: "If you are using these roads, which have been constructed at the expense of the rates, it is only fair that you should contribute something reasonable to the upkeep of the roads." I think that that is a businesslike and reasonable proposition. I cannot imagine that Deputy Flinn was quite serious in the suggestion that it is not a business proposition.

Some of the people who have to contribute these rates are amongst the poorest section of the community. Of course, other people who can afford to pay are also amongst the contributors, but in the congested counties, such as Mayo, which I represent, where I suppose the average valuation of the holdings would be about £5, poor people form the bulk of those who have to pay the rates. When one considers the mileage of roads to be maintained by the people in a county such as Mayo or Galway, is it unreasonable to say that buses, which come in to use roads upon which upwards of £2,000,000 has been expended, ought to contribute towards the maintenance of these roads? I admit that buses afford a convenience and a certain accommodation to the public, but at the same time they are sometimes a great danger to the public, as is proved by the number of fatal accidents that occur from time to time. That is a question that will have to be considered at a later date. Notwithstanding the great convenience that the buses afford the public, there is one section of the public which still requires to be accommodated. The Minister has had complaints from day to day from people living in backward districts who have to contribute to the maintenance of roads and who have not yet received the consideration to which they are entitled. These people live in mountainous districts where the roads have not been made. They are several miles removed from the roads over which motor buses travel, but, notwithstanding that, they have to contribute to the maintenance of these roads. I think it is only reasonable that the position of such people should be taken into account. It is not as public benefactors that the proprietors of these buses have come into these counties. I admit that we have not very many public benefactors in this country, but these companies certainly cannot claim to be public benefactors. Their idea is to make the best use of their opportunities and turn the services placed at their disposal to the best account. They give a certain accommodation to the general public, no doubt, but it was not for the benefit of the public that they extended their services to these areas. It was for the benefit of themselves and their shareholders. The position is that you have the shareholders of the railway company on one side and the shareholders of the buses on the other. The general public has to pay for the upkeep of the roads, both the rural roads and the main roads. The general public are paying for the maintenance of the roads used by the buses while, up to the present, the buses have contributed practically nothing. There are people in mountainous districts who are twenty, thirty or forty miles away from the roads used by the buses and who derive no benefit from them. These people, however, have to pay for the maintenance of the roads. Judging from what I see from day to day in the different counties through which I pass, it will be utterly impossible for the ratepayers to maintain their position if the buses do not contribute a reasonable share for the maintenance of the roads.

Personally I would prefer that a tax should have been put on petrol. To my mind that would have been the most equitable way of dealing with the matter, and would provide the real solution of the problem. If you put a tax on petrol, every motor user will have to contribute his fair share for the maintenance of the roads for the use made of them. If a man has a car lying up for six days of the week he will only use so many gallons of petrol, but will pay for the use he makes of the roads. On the other hand, the man who has his car running on the seven days of the week will also have to pay his fair share for the use he is making of the roads. To my mind that would be a practical way of making every individual using the roads contribute his fair share to the maintenance. This tax is all right in its own way, but I should like to hear from the Minister something definite as to how it is going to be allocated. I understand it is to be paid into the Road Fund, but I should like to know what is in the Minister's mind as to how it will be allocated. I think it was Deputy Flinn insinuated that there was some other method in the Minister's mind with regard to a mileage tax. A mileage tax, to my mind, would be very fair, inasmuch as every bus would have to account for the mileage which it travelled in certain counties, and the tax on that mileage would be placed to the credit of the counties concerned and be utilised for the maintenance of the roads within those counties. That would be a practical and fair way of using the tax, either that or a tax on petrol. I do not know why the Minister is so shy about tackling this question of a tax on petrol as a solution of the problem. There may be some difficulty about a tax on petrol that I am not capable of understanding, or that other Deputies may not understand, but personally I fail to see any reason why a tax on petrol would not be a fair and equitable way of compelling road users to contribute their fair share for the maintenance of the roads. I realise that the buses are a great convenience to the public, but they are also a source of great expense in the way of taxation for road maintenance, as the ratepayers have to maintain the roads. That is a consideration that I am sure the Minister will keep before his mind, and I expect that he will do his best to protect the interests of the public in this matter. We must not forget that railways are also a great convenience to the public. The buses undoubtedly have had one good effect in bringing down railway rates, and that has been a great boon to the public. If the buses did nothing but that, I would say that that is something accomplished. But if the two services can be maintained, and each is made to do its duty to the public in a fair and equitable way, then the public will have no reason to grumble; but we must try and get the best value we can out of the situation.

Mr. Goulding

I should like to ask the Minister if it would be possible to make some differentiation between the buses that run parallel with the railway line and compete directly with the railways and those buses serving outside districts where there is no railway. The latter buses are of far greater benefit to the public. I should, therefore, like to know if it would be possible to let these buses off more lightly than the others. It may not be easy to do that, but I consider that the buses serving the outlying districts are deserving of more consideration than the others. With reference to the point made by Deputy Cassidy, that solid-tyred vehicles do more damage than pneumatic-tyred ones, I think some effort should be made to levy the tax in proportion to the damage done. Vehicles fitted with pneumatic tyres, particularly buses, principally use the tarred roads. The other vehicles do a lot of travelling on the second and third-class roads which are made of waterbound macadam. I have seen such roads practically destroyed in a few weeks as a result of these vehicles passing over them constantly. Whatever tax is put on them will be no compensation for the damage done. If they were confined to the tarred roads it would not be so bad, but it is impossible to keep the waterbound macadam roads over which they run. Some effort should be made to discriminate against that class of vehicle.

Then there is the question of speed. The damage done by a vehicle is in proportion to the speed at which it travels. We all know that buses which are supposed not to exceed twenty miles per hour constantly exceed that limit, and occasionally do up to forty miles per hour. The damage that can be done by a heavily-laden bus travelling at thirty miles an hour over any road is considerable and, therefore, some effort should be made to prevent speeding. Not alone is it bad for the roads, but it is very dangerous for the public—not only for the pedestrians, but for the passengers. If the buses were limited to twenty miles per hour, I know it would interfere with them very much, as they would not be able to compete with the railways, but, until such time as we get special roads for them, I think every effort should be made to curtail the speed.

Mr. Colohan

I intended to support this Resolution. I do not think the Minister has gone far enough in taxing the buses. All county councils throughout the country will tell you that they do not believe that buses are paying enough towards the maintenance of the roads. The county councils have been at a loss in rates through reduction of rates on railway property varying from £1,500 to £3,000 or £4,000 in each county. Are the county councils to be at a loss both through the railways and the buses? I say no. I think the Minister was very wise in bringing in this Resolution.

The county councils are continually asking for grants from the Road Fund to meet the cost of maintenance. I ask Deputies how can they get any grants when there is no money in the Fund. Therefore I intend to support this Resolution and I hope that when next year comes round there will be further and higher taxes put upon the buses. Of course, we know the buses are of great benefit to the country districts. That is one thing. But another thing we know is that they are a great source of loss. Deputy Cassidy gave us an instance of the loss of trade due to buses from the Six Counties trading in the Saorstát. The same applies to traders in the country towns in Ireland. They are at a loss through the convenience which the bus affords in bringing their customers to Dublin. I am not going to say too much in their favour but I think the equity of this side of the question should be considered. I hope this Resolution will receive the support of all Deputies in the House.

Mr. Daly

I, too, believe that buses should be taxed. The county councils are grumbling at the large amount the ratepayers have to pay as a consequence of the buses travelling over the roads. Buses do a lot of damage to the small towns, in bringing customers from them into the cities. After all, the small towns and the rural districts must be catered for as well as the cities. I do not agree with Deputy Davis that the tax should be put upon petrol. Petrol is used for a great many services as well as road service. Petrol is used for agricultural purposes, supplying motive power for engines pumping water and it is used for aeroplanes and a number of other services. It would be inequitable, in my view, to tax petrol instead of buses. Let us face up to the issue and find the prisoner guilty. The buses are really the cause of the heavy road taxes. We shall be told, of course, that they are a great convenience to the poor who desire to travel. So they are, but sometimes they are an awful danger. I should like to see the speed of the buses curtailed a bit although, sometimes, one thinks they are not travelling half fast enough if one wants to catch a train.

We did not know, until recently, how hard it is for any Government or any Minister, carrying on the government of the country, to please everybody. Some people like myself will want to tax buses because they are the real culprits as far as the roads are concerned. Others want to tax petrol. I believe it is our duty on this occasion to stand by the Minister for Finance and to vote for the taxation as prescribed by him.

Mr. Haslett

I am not going to vote against this proposal for the reason that I think, after listening to the Minister, that what he has done in putting this tax on buses is a sort of experiment and that the question will be dealt with in a larger way later on. I did not gather from him, as some Deputies suggested, that it was out of spite towards the buses that this tax was put on. Motor traffic has come to stay, and the bus has come to stay, and one might as well try to stem the incoming tide as to prevent them going on. The only thing that can be done is to see that the traffic on the roads contributes an equitable share to the upkeep of the roads. I am inclined to agree with Deputy Davis that a tax on petrol is a fairer way of dealing with the question than a tax on buses. It would help the motor trade and it would be a more equitable tax. The argument is used very often: Why should a person who is only using his car, for instance, once or twice a week pay the same tax as a person whose car is on the road every day? We would arrive, I think, at a more equitable conclusion if the tax were put on petrol in some proportion so that the more that lorries or buses or motors are on the road the more tax they will pay. Deputy Daly pointed out that there would be a difficulty in regard to agriculture if there was a tax on petrol. I do not see any difficulty whatever. It is a road tax and it would be only collectable from persons using the roads. There is a precedent, because in war time there was a rebate given on petrol used for agricultural purposes. There is no difficulty whatever in that matter except that there would be a little cost for collection.

Another thing militates against the farming community in this respect: There may be some farmers at present who find it a great convenience to have a Ford car. Cars rapidly wear out and become unfit for passenger work. I know many farmers who would find it very convenient if they were able to put a lorry body upon the Ford chassis when the car wore out. They are prevented from doing that now, because if they got another car they would have to pay two taxes, whereas if the tax was on petrol they would pay only in proportion as they used the roads. I think it is a matter for future consideration as to how this tax should be adjusted. Even if other countries have not put the tax exclusively on petrol, it is not beyond the power of the Minister in this country to see that those who wear the roads most should pay the most for their use.

General Mulcahy

Deputies probably want to find what is the policy in putting on this tax, and in looking for policy in the matter they seem to want to emphasise certain differences here and there as between the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Local Government and Public Health and the Minister for Industry and Commerce rather than to make any attempt to see, in a broad way, what our policy is in the matter. Naturally, there is more than one aspect of road taxation to be taken into consideration, and, as far as I am concerned, my policy in this matter, and what I am particularly keeping in mind, is in the first place to see that money is available to provide us with roads, and in the second place to see that the responsibility for providing that money is fixed, as far as we can fix it, on the proper shoulders. There is not necessarily any difference as regards my policy, because I will expound it in these particular terms. There is not necessarily any difference when the Minister for Finance looks at it from another point of view and states certain aspects of it from his point of view, or when the Minister for Industry and Commerce looks at it with the railways in mind. The position, as far as it shows itself up to me, is this. In the year 1913-14 there was spent on the roads £670,960 from rates; there was spent some money more than that, in terms of loans and other matters like that for roads, but there was spent in the upkeep and maintenance of roads £670,000. In the twelve years there was £637,000 spent from the Road Fund for the whole of the 32 counties, so that less than £50,000 a year would have been spent on roads together with what came from the rates at that particular time. That was only fifteen years ago.

During last year there was £940,000 spent from rates alone, and it is proposed to spend this year from rates £1,040,000. That represents an increase of 58 per cent. of the expenditure from the rates over the moneys that came in in the year 1913-14. Last year there was only 42 per cent., or £940,000, spent from rates on the roads, so that it is anticipated that during the year that we are now in there will be more money spent on roads from rates, the comparison with 1913-14 being 42 per cent. increase last year and 58 per cent. increase this year. The reason for the increase this year is whereas the Executive Council laid down as a policy a few years ago, with regard to the share of the responsibility for maintaining roads that might be expected reasonably to remain on the taxpayer, that 50 per cent. increase might be expected to remain as the responsibility of the local ratepayer there were a certain number of counties which, during the last couple of years, evaded that responsibility. Some of them brought down their expenditure on roads to, say, 20 per cent., or perhaps a little less for 1913-14. That, in our opinion, was unjust to the road situation and did not fit in with our views as to the responsibility that the ratepayers should shoulder. There has been pressure exerted through my Department on local bodies to see that the amount of money that will be spent by them will be nearer the 50 per cent. increase over 1913-14 than some of them have been spending.

As I say, when the whole of the county councils are taken into consideration they will spend this year 58 per cent. more than they spent in 1913-14. Cork has been spoken of here, and Mayo and Waterford have been spoken of here. Cork has proposed to spend 66 per cent., Mayo has proposed to spend 63 per cent., and Waterford has proposed to spend 95 per cent., whereas in some counties, like Galway, 126 per cent. more than 1913-14 is necessary in order to deal with the road situation. I have said that, in my opinion, it will be necessary to assist certain local bodies, at any rate to a greater extent than they are being assisted from the Road Fund, and I am satisfied that, while we cannot go very much below the 50 per cent. all round, in certain counties where the road situation is such at present that they are spending nearly 100 per cent. over 1913-14 that that can perhaps not continue very long, so that it is of importance to us to see that the road income is increased.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht - Wednesday, 15 May 1929

Financial Resolutions—Report.

Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 15 May 1929