Amendment No. 1 may not be moved.
Financial Resolutions by the Minister for Local Government—Report. - Resolution No. 1.
I move amendment No. 2:—
In page 1, sub-section (1), line 9, after "pound" to add ", with the exception of persons whose main occupation or employment involves the driving of hackney and taxi cars, motor lorries, motor vans, or buses, in which cases the duty shall be ten shillings as heretofore."
At a time when already the workers employed in the transport industry are suffering from so many handicaps and finding it difficult to get employment, or to earn sufficient to keep them, I submit that the increase in drivers' licence fees is completely unjustified. In the majority of cases, those who will have to pay the increases will be the workers themselves. This is an additional imposition upon them. It will have the effect of reducing their real wages still further. That is my purpose in moving this amendment.
Are we on No. 2?
Could amendments No. 2 and No. 3 be discussed together?
I would rather have a decision on this one.
They seek to achieve the same purpose. The Deputy can have a separate decision, if he wishes.
Amendment No. 3 covers substantially the same point as that covered in Deputy MacBride's amendment. My amendment is:—
In page 1, sub-section (1) line 9, after "pound" to add "provided that where a person is employed as a driver of a mechanically-propelled vehicle or is the owner-driver of a mechanically-propelled vehicle, which is regularly used for hire, he shall be entitled to a driving licence on payment of ten shillings per year."
I think it is grossly unfair of the Minister to seek to exact 100 per cent. increase in respect of driving licences on ordinary workers who follow the livelihood of driving mechanically-propelled vehicles. One might understand the attitude of the Minister in saying that he was going to get the additional tax from those who used motor cars, that being prima facie evidence that they had some sources of wealth; but to tax the unfortunate driver and ask him to pay 100 per cent. increase is grossly unfair. In fact, I have not been able to see why the ordinary driver should have to pay any licence fee at all. It ought to be accepted as the right of every person following the livelihood of motor driver that he has a right to drive a vehicle, as it is the source of his employment. If the State, for any reason, wants to identify him as the driver, they ought to give him a certificate that he is So-and-so and is authorised to drive a vehicle. To ask him to pay 10/- for it is an unfair imposition in any circumstances but when the 10/- becomes the subject of suitable taxation then it is going to be aimed at from time to time as a means of raising money for purposes completely unconnected with and of no benefit to the man who is actually engaged in driving a car. If the money was to be used for improving his social status as a motor driver or conferring on him individually or on his class alone some particular benefits, one could understand his being required to pay 10/- or £1, but the £1 is to be levied from him and utilised for purposes completely unconnected with his position as a motor driver.
I put it to the Fianna Fáil Party that it is inequitable to charge 100 per cent. increase in driving licences in the very same year as they remit £140,000 as a free gift to the dance-hall owners. On the one hand you have persons driving motor cars or lorries for a livelihood and you ask them to pay another 10/- a year for their licences, while on the other hand, the State acts the generous uncle with a small group of dance-hall proprietors and hands them back £140,000. I think that this tax on motor drivers and hackney owners is unfair and that in respect of these classes the Minister should leave the fee at 10/-.
Are the three amendments being discussed together?
No. 1 has been ruled out of order.
There is very little that I can add to what I have said already in the course of the long discussion we have had on this matter. I do not mind the exaggerated description that is given to this proposition—I suppose it is only natural to expect it—but I must bring the minds of Deputies back again to the fact that the licence fee was fixed at 10/- in 1926. It was actually fixed then, in the Resolution which passed through this House, at £1 but it was afterwards reduced to 10/- on amendment.
The purpose of this Resolution is to build up the Road Fund and, small as an increase of this nature may appear to be, it represents a considerable sum of money, without imposing any real hardship on anybody. No workman wants to have to give more for the spade, the shovel or the pick that he uses; nobody wants to pay more for any of the instruments or tools of his trade.
He has not got to have a licence to use them.
I am told that this driving licence is the tool of the man's trade.
No, the car is the tool.
He could not drive the car without a licence.
That does not make it a tool.
Well, it is part of it, it is the same as a man using a hay fork and a rake—the rake helps to complete the equipment. If it were reasonable in 1926 to propose here that the licence fee should be £1, I think that, having regard to the changes that have taken place since then, having regard to the increased cost of road improvement and road maintenance, having regard to the increase in wages and the increased cost of materials, and in addition, having regard to the daily demands made upon us for increased grants of one kind or another for the improvement of our roads, this increase could not be properly described here as unreasonable. I do not think that those who are advancing these arguments are really serious. They just seem to think that they have a duty as members of an opposition to paint this sort of picture. It is a picture that nobody believes in outside, that nobody accepts outside. It is carrying discussion and criticism to such a degree of extravagance that it almost reduces criticism to futility.
The Minister surprised me by stating that the argument put forward by Deputies Norton and MacBride and by others was not accepted by anybody outside the House. Surely the Minister himself has received a strong and detailed protest from the Hackney-Car Owners' Association on this matter. As far as I am led to believe, that body represents about 300 persons who live in my own constituency.
Apart from the attempt to increase it, the existing tax is one for a licence for an individual citizen in order to enable him to earn his livelihood. If the Minister wants more money for deserving purposes, such as improving the roads, there are other sections of the community who are in a much better position to provide it than those upon whom this additional tax is put. These people have to earn their livelihood driving hackney-cars.
The fact that the Minister said that nobody outside the House accepts the point of view put forward by the previous speakers to-day and on other occasions proves that the Minister did not give this matter any consideration. It proves, in my opinion, that he did not read the protest which was sent to him and the officials of his Department by the Hackney-Car Owners' Association and by other persons interested in this matter.
Do I understand that the first amendment was ruled out of order?
Could we have the reason why that amendment was ruled out of order, Sir?
It was entirely outside the scope of the Resolution. It seeks to amend other legislation, not the legislation before the House.
I propose putting down a motion on the lines of the first amendment.
I already raised this matter in the debate on the Second Stage. The position in the country is that if a man is deaf, dumb and blind, he can get a driving licence. I think that is scandalous. I am quite willing to support any amendment which will ensure that before any licence is issued whether it costs £1 or 10/-, people applying for driving licences will have to undergo a test.
The Deputy cannot drag in amendment No. 1 by means of a side issue. I have ruled amendment No. 1 out of order and the matter may not be discussed.
I do not intend to discuss it.
The Deputy is trying to.
In connection with the other two amendments, I was approached by several people who drive taxis and lorries. I have not heard much criticism from them in connection with the increase in the charge for the driving licence but I have heard plenty with regard to the general increase in taxation for the vehicles. I have a certain amount of sympathy with them in that regard.
I do not see, however, much reason for the two amendments because to my mind the House is seeking to separate all types of drivers under the amendments proposed by Deputies Norton and MacBride. To my mind it is a question again of a means test. Under these amendments we are now going to segregate applicants according to their livelihood and make them ask: "Please can I have a driver's licence for 10/- because I am driving a truck?"
I would prefer to see all the drivers' licences cost 10/-. I do not like to see exceptions being made in regard to sections of the community. There should be the same treatment for all sections. If you are going to stand by a principle of equality for all our citizens, it is most unjust to try and seek a few votes from the minority by suggesting to them that they should be entitled to special privileges on the question of the issue of drivers' licences. I do not think these amendments deserve much consideration from the House.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 60; Níl, 63.
Tá
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, John.
- Blowick, Joseph
- Browne, Patrick.
- Cafferky, Dominick.
- Carew, John.
- Cawley, Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Collins, Seán.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Costello, John A.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Davin, William.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Anthony C.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finan, John.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hession, James M.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keane, Seán.
- Larkin, James.
- Lynch, John (North Kerry).
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Madden, David J.
- Mannion, John.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Hara, Thomas.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
- Rooney, Eamon.
- Spring, Dan.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tully, John.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Dan.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark
- Lemass, Seán.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lynch, Jack (Cork Borough).
- McCann, John.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Maguire, Patrick J.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Moran, Michael.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas
- de Valera, Vivion
- ffrench-O'Carroll, Michael.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gallagher, Colm.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Mac Fheórais; Níl: Deputies Ó Briain and Killilea.
Amendment declared lost.
You are shrinking, boys.
That was a narrow squeak.
That decision governs amendment No. 3 which embodies the same proposal.
I understood you to say that amendments Nos. 2 and 3 could be discussed together, but that there would be a separate vote on each.
They are really the same.
The country ought to know how precarious the position of this Government is.
It is a lot better than yours, with your five bought men of the National Labour Party.
We want a vote on this. The amendments were discussed together but we are entitled to a vote.
You did indicate, Sir, that there would be a separate decision on each.
Very well.
I move amendment No. 3.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 60 Níl, 64.
Tá
- Beirne, John.
- Belton, John.
- Blowick, Joseph.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Cafferky, Dominick.
- Carew, John.
- Cawley, Patrick.
- Coburn, James.
- Collins, Seán.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Costello, Declan.
- Costello, John A.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Davin, William.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Dockrell, Maurice E.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Dunne, Seán.
- Esmonde, Anthony C.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finan, John.
- Finucane, Patrick.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
- Rooney, Eamon.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hession, James M.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keane, Seán.
- Larkin, James.
- Lynch, John (North Kerry).
- MacBride, Seán.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Madden, David J.
- Mannion, John.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- Norton, William.
- O'Donnell, Patrick.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Hara, Thomas.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.)
- O'Reilly, Patrick.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Spring, Dan.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tully, John.
Níl
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Dan.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Calleary, Phelim A.
- Carter, Frank.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- ffrench-O'Carroll, Michael.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gallagher, Colm.
- Gilbride Eugene.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kenneally, William.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lynch, Jack (Cork Borough).
- McCann, John.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Maguire, Patrick J.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Moran, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Breanndán Mac Fheórais; Níl; Deputies Ó Briain and Killilea.
Amendment declared negatived.
Question—"That the Dáil agree with the Committee in Financial Resolution No. 1"—put and agreed to.