Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 11 Feb 1960

Vol. 179 No. 2

Finance (Excise Duties) (Vehicles) (Amendment) Bill, 1959: Second Stage.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The Bill is designed to implement the Financial Resolution agreed to by the Dáil on 9th December. As Deputies will recall, the Financial Resolution introduced a fresh definition of unladen weight for motor tax purposes. I do not not propose to go into detail again on the reasons for bringing in the Financial Resolution. To avoid any misconception, however, I should like to recall two points. First, it was designed to give effect to what had been the generally accepted interpretation of the previous definition up to recently. Secondly, it was necessary to deal with the matter as an urgent one to enable local authorities to deal with applications for licences for the present calendar year.

The definition of unladen weight, exactly as set out in the Financial Resolution, is contained in Sections 1 and 2 of the Bill. Various suggestions had been made for the modification of the definition, and these were all fully and carefully considered. It had been suggested during the discussions in the Dáil in December that the definition needed tightening to ensure that it would not catch such items as barrels of water. I gave the Dáil then the reasons why it is considered that such amendment is not necessary and I am happy to tell them that no difficulties have arisen on this score in connection with the licensing of goods vehicles for 1960 on the basis of the new definition. Licensing authorities have interpreted the definition reasonably and I do not think that vehicle owners can complain on that score.

Representations were also made that the definition should be modified so as to afford concessions to various classes of vehicle operator. These again were fully and, I may say, sympathetically considered, but I regret that it is not possible to meet them. The principle followed in the 1952 Act was to cut out special concessions of this type and to base the tax rate on the class of vehicle. This principle was followed to the extent that, by an extra-statutory arrangement, Stateowned vehicles were required to make a contribution to the Road Fund in the same way as other vehicles. Motor tax is a service charge, for the use of roads, and any concession given merely shifts the ultimate charge to other users. Despite strong complaints made at the time of the 1952 Act, road users on the whole have come to accept it as operating equitably and fairly in the matter of revenue for road works. The same principles have to be applied in this Bill. If a concession were given to one group, another would seek it, and so on, until eventually the whole purpose of the Bill was lost.

Sections 3 and 4 contain provisions relating to enforcement. They will enable the Garda and the local authorities to deal with the case where a vehicle is taxed at a certain weight and later used at a higher weight. The normal owner will see to it that the extra tax is paid before the higher weight is used. There will always be the occasional case of the man who seeks to evade the law. The present powers to deal with him are contained is the Road Traffic Act, 1933. For reasons which I shall mention later, these powers are defective, so far as motor taxation is concerned.

Under subsection (1) of Section 3, a member of the Garda Síochána will be empowered to require a person in charge of a vehicle which the Guard suspects to be infringing motor tax law, to bring the vehicle to an appointed weighbridge not more than five miles distant and there have its unladen weight checked Even if the vehicle is lightly laden, the Guard may make such a requirement. This provision is necessary to meet a case where a driver could claim the vehicle was laden even if it contained a sack or two of goods that could easily be removed and later replaced on it; at present a vehicle must be completely unladen before it can be required to be weighed for motor tax purposes.

Again, under existing law, a Guard can require a vehicle to be weighed for tax purposes only if it also infringes road traffic law on weights of vehicles. The weighbridge must be not more that two miles distant, and it must be a Road Traffic Act weighbridge, of which there are only about one per county. Section 4 of the Bill enables local authorities to "appoint" for motor tax purposes a number of weigh-bridges in or adjacent to their functional area, and this should get over the shortage of official Road Traffic Act weighbridges without putting local authorities to the expense of providing more.

Subsection (2) of Section 3 of the Bill will enable a local authority to call in a vehicle for reweighing after it has been taxed. A general power to do so is given in subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) of the subsection. A local authority would use this power where they had reason to believe that a vehicle had been altered during the licensing period or where for some other good reason they felt the weight should be checked.

Subparagraph (ii) gives power to a local authority to call in a vehicle for weighing in the specific condition in which it was observed in use on a particular occasion. This could be used where a Guard had seen a vehicle used with additions not included in the unladen weight for tax purposes, but could not have it reweighed at the time for any one of the number of reasons, for example, there was no appointed weighbridge near enough, the vehicle was laden, and so on. I may state that local authorities had a certain power already in regulations made under the Roads Act, 1920, to call in a vehicle for reweighing. In view of the necessary extension of this power, it is considered desirable to put the whole matter in the Bill rather than in regulations.

Certain conditions are attached to the power to call in a vehicle for reweighing. Under subsection (6) of Section 3, at least seven days' notice must be given to the registered owner of the vehicle. Subsection (5) requires that where a reweighing is required of a vehicle in a specific condition observed in use, notice must be given either at the time it was observed or within 14 days. This is to ensure that the vehicle owner will be warned near enough to the occasion his vehicle was observed to warrant his remembering what "additions" were used with it.

Under Section 4, fees for the reweighing of vehicles will be met by the local authority, not by the vehicle owner. Local authorities' expenses will ultimately be met from the Road Fund.

The provisions regarding enforcement have been drafted to ensure that vehicle owners are given fair treatment. As a corollary, it is necessary to ensure that prosecutions are not made impossible through technical pleas, and certain provisions regarding onus of proof have been inserted. Nobody likes these, but they are inevitable at times and there are plenty of precedents for them in cases like this, where the facts concerned would be within the knowledge of the vehicle owner, would be in his interest to prove, and would be practically impossible for the State to prove or else involve undue expense. The provisions I mention are in subsection (5) of Section 2 and subsection (8) of Section 3.

A maximum penalty of £50 is provided in subsection (7) of Section 3 for failure to bring in a vehicle for reweighing. The existing penalty under the Road Traffic Act is £10, a figure which bears no relation to present day money values and rates of motor taxation.

Section 5 provides that the definition of unladen weight operates as from 1st January, 1960, in accordance with the Financial Resolution. The other provisions will come into force on the passing of the Bill.

Mr. Norton

May I ask the Minister one question? It may be somewhat extraneous to this Bill but my recollection of the previous legislation is that power was taken to increase the unladen weight to a maximum of 7 cwts. to overcome any question of apparent hardship. Could the Minister say has that been availed of to any great extent and has it met the main burden of complaint? If he could tell the House, it would be helpful in discussing this Bill and it also might lead to a shorter discussion.

Mr. Blaney

In reply to that query, the provision regarding the 7 additional cwts. has been brought into being by the Minister for Transport and Power, that 7 cwts. to be added to the weights in regard to all licensed hauliers' plates.

Over and above that, of course, as was then stated, the hardship clause still remains which can be operated and if necessary will be operated by the Minister for Transport and Power in giving further weight additions, where hardship would have been proved.

Mr. Norton

At this stage, in the middle of February, these complaints ought to have arisen and been resolved or organised by now. Has this additional power to increase the weights resulted in the deletion of the complaints or are there many still on hands and unresolved?

Mr. Blaney

Subject to correction, I think the figure of all queries raised, in relation to this matter, to date only slightly exceeds 70 out of all the hundreds of cases that could have arisen. Whether or not they are all resolved as yet, I do not know. The volume of queries raised is an indication that the 7 cwts. addition has, to a large degree, met the cases.

Mr. Norton

In other words, the addition of 7 cwts. has brought happiness to the complainants?

Mr. Blaney

Let us say that, in the vast majority of cases, it seems to have been adequate to meet any change that might have taken place under this.

Mr. Norton

And the hardship clause is still there?

Mr. O'Donnell

The Minister has given reasons why this Bill is necessary. He tells us it is due to varied and varying decisions of district justices but that he has not had an opportunity of testing these decisions by way of a case taken to the High Court. He also tells us that owing to a changing in the mode of transport on the roads this Bill is necessary.

Did we ever ask ourselves why there has been a changing in the mode of transport? Is it not because of the deliberate action of the present Government in closing down the railways? The railways have been closed down and we must find an alternate transport. The alternate transport is the heavy lorries which the Minister wishes to tax to the extent of £100,000. That is the sole reason for the introduction of this Bill and it is one of the natural consequences of the closing of our railways, particularly our branch railways.

I cannot understand why a decision of the High Court was never sought to confirm the decision of one or other of the district justices. From the moment one requests a district justice to state a case until the case is actually heard, it generally takes two to three months at the very outside. I cannot understand why we did not ask the High Court or the Supreme Court to give an interpretation of the law as it stood without legislation. Is it not evident that the Minister and the Government are anxious to collect £100,000 more and that is the only reason why this Bill is being introduced?

Furthermore, this Bill is being introduced for the purpose of putting the small haulier and private lorry-owners off the road by increasing taxation. Take, for instance, a lorry-owner who has a lorry for his own use for farm produce or for bringing home his turf and who must pay an excess £8 per annum tax on the lorry. That will drive him off the road.

There are a few vehicles which are being used which are worrying me very much. The first is the ambulance or break-down van used by garage proprietors. It is a vehicle which is stripped down and has generally a crane attached to it for towing purposes or for lifting portion of the vehicle on to the chassis of the body of the ambulance.

Supposing a very heavy lorry is involved in a crash and an ambulance has to take it to a garage. It has to tow it or partially place it on it. How are we to determine the unladen weight of the ambulance? Perhaps the Minister might look into it between now and the Committee Stage. I cannot understand how they will determine the unladen weight of that vehicle.

Take the common steam-roller which we are all accustomed to see on our roads. Tax is payable by the local authority into the road fund on it. When a steam-roller moves from one locality to another it has attached thereto the living accomodation of the driver and the flagman. It has also attached thereto generally the crusher and the tar boilers. Are we to find the unladen weight of all these vehicles in order to assess the tax payable on the roller? If we are not, why are steamrollers put in a different classification to that of vehicles used by others?

Take, for instance, the circus proprietor. When he moves from one site to another he links up all his vehicles, sometimes four or five. We are all accustomed to see them going along the roadway. To determine the tax and unladen weight of the towing vehicle, have we to do it in the case of all the others? If it has not to be done in the case of the county council, why must it be done in the case of the circus proprietor?

Take a building contractor. He has a number of mobile machines in operation in the building business. If he is moving them from one site to another, he takes them in tow. Have we to find the unladen weight of all these vehicles in order to assess the tax on the towing vehicle? The Minister should look into it. It will be very serious now.

I am speaking from a purely local point of view. This Bill will hit very many lorry-owners on the Western seaboard where turf is produced. As we all know, road merchandise licencers are not necessary for the haulage of turf. Purveyors of turf save the turf and then hawk it around the country for sale. If they pay an additional £8 for the creels which they will attach to their lorries they will pass that on to the consumer by increasing the price to the poor man who has to depend on turf as his main source of fuel.

There has grown up on the Western seaboard a new industry, the fishmeat industry. For the haulage of the raw material for fish meal, the fish offal, it is necessary now to get a metal container or a metal body on the vehicle. These metal bodies are very expensive. They are very heavy. They will add to the unladen weight of the vehicle. Most of the people who use these lorries have to attach turf creels to them later on when transporting turf. That will put up the tax on such vehicles from £10 to £16 per vehicle per year, which is a considerable amount. Take the case of a farmer who has a truck for ordinary farm work, which be may use once a month to bring his cattle to the market, to the mart or to the fair. If he attaches a creel to it for that purpose, even if he has to use it only once a year, he has to pay the additional tax, which is a minimum of £8 per year. That is not fair.

I can understand it in the case of big concerns such as C.I.E. but one should think of the small truck owner. Owners of trucks who work for local authorities throughout the country have had to attach self-tipping machinery to their vehicles. That machinery is labour-saving, but unfortunately it is also very heavy. Now it will be taken into account in assessing the unladen weight of the vehicle. Grants are being given at present to local authorities from State funds for the repair of roads. A considerable part of these grants is going in the transport of materials. In Deputy McQuillan's county, they have protested strongly against the transport of road materials over long distances. If we add to the tax on the vehicle, naturally we increase the cost of transport. More of the money from the Road Fund will be switched to transport costs and taken out of the pocket of the ordinary labourer on the roads.

This Bill will put off the roads many more private lorries and will drive people to employ C.I.E. vehicles. At the moment C.I.E. have a monopoly of transport on our roads—a monopoly which is very costly for the users of these vehicles. There is no doubt whatever that if one were to seek an estimate from C.I.E. and all estimate from a private haulier, there would be a difference of anything between 12 per cent. and 25 per cent. If we put these small lorries off the road by increased taxation, we shall increase the C.I.E. monopoly and thereby do considerable damage to the economy of the State as a whole.

The Minister referred to Section 3, under which a member of the Garda Síochána may, withing certain limits, demand the weighing of a vehicle. In my own constituency, we have but three public weigh-bridges. We certainly have not one within a radius of five miles of any point of West Donegal. Will a trap be set for these lorry owners by waiting until they are found within a radius of five miles of some weigh-bridge and then compelling them to weigh these vehicles? One can imagine what would happen on such occasions. I think if a vehicle is weighed at the beginning of the year, when it is being taxed, that it should suffice and that there should be an onus cast on the owner of the vehicle at that time to sign a declaration that he will use no heavier container or trailer than is attached to it at the time of weighing. If he contravenes that later, he may be prosecuted. But it is very unfair that a member of the Garda Síochána should have the right, merely on demand or on giving of notice, to request the owner of a vehicle to come in and have it weighed.

From the point of view of the Road Fund, this may be desirable; but are we in a position at the moment to stand extra taxation of £100,000? I think it was the former Taoiseach who stated here quite recently that we have reached the limit of taxation. In my opinion, we have reached the limit of taxation. Down the country at present the greatest amount of transport on roads is transport used by local authorities. If we increase the tax or duty payable on these vehicles, that will be passed on by way of additional taxation to the ratepayer. I do not think there will be any benefit to the country other than increased taxation, and for that reason I certainly oppose this Bill.

Mr. Norton

This Bill is a corollary of the Financial Resolution which we passed before the Dáil adjourned in December last. We supported the Financial Resolution then, and, as this Bill merely implements the purpose of that Resolution, we support this Bill too. If there is one thing clear in this whole discussion, it is that the law must be made clear beyond any doubt whatever. Various decisions have been given as to what constitutes the unladen weight of a lorry. It is because of that indecision that, so far as the law is concerned, it has been necessary to clarify the position. Deputy O'Donnell suggested there should be a case stated from the district court to some higher court and that the law should be unravelled at that level, although he stated it might be necessary to take it even still higher to ascertain what the supreme interpretation of the law was.

To a large extent, that is really a misuse of the courts. It is not the business of the courts to make the law. This Parliament was elected to make laws for the government of the people. The courts were never elected to look after the laws of the people.

Mr. O'Donnell

To interpret.

Mr. Norton

The simple function of the courts is to interpret the laws we make. If there is any doubt, we should remake the law and make it perfectly clear so that everybody will understand it. If there are people anxious to get a more favourable interpretation of the law than is administratively possible, they may go to the courts and seek that interpretation. It is the function of Parliament all the time to state what the law is, to make the law and to amend it to bring about any necessary clarification. Parliament ought not to part with that function and permit the courts to exercise anything else but an interpretation of the law.

If there is confusion, indecision or doubt as to what the law is, quite frankly, I think it would be as good— it certainly would be a more democratic process—to go back to the people's Parliament and say: "There is some doubt about this law. It is a man-made law and anything done by human hands or minds is liable to all the frailties of human hand and mind, but we shall remake it as perfectly as we can." That is what I understand this Parliament is doing at this moment. It is because I support the right of Parliament to make laws, remake laws or alter laws that I am supporting this Bill—in order that the people themselves, acting through Parliament, will interpret the law for their own benefit and guidance. I believe that in the long run that is the more democratic process.

I understand the reason for the Financial Resolution was not to impose additional taxation on people but to get people to pay the legitimate taxes which would have been imposed on the owners of vehicles if the law, as the State understood it, had been administered. It is because the law was being implemented in a way other than the way the Legislature intended that there was a danger of losing a very substantial sum of money. The Financial Resolution, plus this Bill, is intended to stop that haemorrhage. Bear in mind that the money so collected in future with the clarification of the law will go into the Road Fund and will be used for the purpose of making roads and making these roads better for the people who will use them for their lorries in future.

I have got one complaint in this whole matter and I think it is a legitimate complaint based on sound economics. It is that we have a very large road mileage to be looked after, with a very sparse population and the job of maintaing the roads is imposing a very heavy burden on all our people. The fact of the matter is that we have too many miles of road for the number of people living in the country. You can pass by roads in the country every day of the week and you would not see a car. If you happened to get a puncture, you might wait for an hour and not see a person passing. Our roads are not sufficiently used for the simple reason that there is not enough traffic in the country to use them, because there are not enough people in the country.

Mr. O'Donnell

They have all left.

Mr. Norton

They are too many roads; they are too long and too expensive; and they all have to be maintained and it is their maintenance that is costing everybody a very substaintial sum of money. The greatest damage to the roads is done by the big heavy lorries, the six and eight wheelers of ten, 12 and 16 tons. One has only to travel the roads being used by these lorries to see the extent of the damage they do. If they get off a main road at all, the evidence that they have been on secondary roads can be seen, once they use those secondary roads a couple of times. It is legitimate that those who use big lorries—all imported—should be made pay a fair share of the road taxation. There is no answer to that. Certainly the unfortunate who has only a bicycle to depend on should not be compelled under an over-all system of taxation to pay for the heavy cost involved in the maintenance of roads and he does pay it in one form or another. A fellow living in a labourer's cottage pays his rates on that cottage. A substaintial portion of his rates goes for the upkeep of roads.

In my view, the very heavy lorry is doing enormous damage to the roads. it is taking traffic away from C.I.E. and it is making us spend money on the maintenance of roads which are damaged excessively, in my view, by the use of these very heavy vehicles. I do not think, therefore, having regard to what we spend on roads and the damage which the heavy lorries do on the roads, that there are any grounds for complaint by, and not much justification for sympathy with, the owner of the very large vehicle, an imported commodity, which does so much damage to the roads and so much consequent damage to a national undertaking like our publicly owned railway system.

Deputy O'Donnell made the point that the increase in the unladen weight will cause hardship to these people. Quite frankly, I do not accept that. There have been two previous increases in the unladen weight of road vehicles —that is my recollection—which everybody got. That was done to satisfy a demand that the unladen weight should be increased and these people asked for the unalden weight to be increased in the full knowledge that once it was increased, they would have to pay a higher rate of taxation. I make this offer to anybody: if you announce to-morrow that you will increase the unladen weight of every vehicle by another 20 cwt. you will not find a single person in his sane senses who will not gladly avail of the extra 20 cwt. on his unladen weight, even though he will have to pay an extra rate in respect of the taxation of his lorry. Lorry owners have accepted the view that once you concede a demand for an addition to the unladen weight, you have to pay the extra rate of taxation associated with the increase in unladen weight. As I said, the best evidence of their interest and their keenness is to announce to-morrow that you are willing to increase the unladen weight by another one ton.

Mr. O'Donnell

That is under the Transport Act?

Mr. Norton

Yes.

Mr. O'Donnell

That is a different thing.

Mr. Norton

But unladen weight has to be increased under the Transport Act. It is the only Act under which you increase it. There is nothing more you could do to gladden the hearts of the lorry owners to-morrow than to say you will increase their unladen weight by another ton and they would cheerfully pay the extra taxation. If they are to get their unladen weight increased by 7 cwts. they would hope to pay because 7 cwts. represent an improvement in their carrying capacity——

Mr. O'Donnell

Oh, no, it does not. That is merely for the additional attachment being put on.

Mr. Norton

No; everybody will get it, whether he puts it on or not. Am I right in that?

Mr. Blaney

Yes.

Mr. O'Donnell

No.

Mr. Norton

Everybody will get it. If, however, he puts it on, he will be valued in future for extra weight. Not only does everybody get it but the hardship clause in the 1944 Road Transport Act will be used to give him an addition of the 7 cwts. so as to iron out that inequality. So far as the ordinary merchandise lorry, the man who has a plate, is concerned, there are about 1,000 of those in the whole country. Most of them are relatively small vehicles and they are not a problem with C.I.E. C.I.E. have never been worried about what one might call the plated transport haulier. He does not make any serious in-roads on C.I.E. C.I.E. will tell you that the licensed haulier is not a problem nor a menace. What C.I.E. is concerned about is the large private firm which has its lorries constantly on the road carrying a whole lot of merchandise of a substantial character in value and volume which they think could be handled by the railways.

So far as the licensed haulier is concerned, I should like to see him treated sympathetically and even generously so far as this additional 7 cwt., plus whatever weight may be added to deal with cases of special hardship, is concerned. There are only 1,000 of them in the country and it would be an easy matter to deal with them. They are no menace to C.I.E. and in the main, they do not do much damage to the roads because they are all in the small lorry category.

Whatever way this Bill operates in its interpretation, we should at all events make sure that we shall recognise the merits and special circumstances of anybody who might appear to be unfairly or unreasonably dealt with. Taking power to increase the unladen weight, as was done in the Financial Resolution and which is being implemented here, plus the assurance that the hardship clause in the existing Transport Act will be used to meet cases of hardship, should meet the case. I do not think it will really make any impact on the Road Fund and I do not think we shall make any impact on the economics of C.I.E. By treating licensed hauliers fairly, we can make sure the law is observed and observed without imposing hardship on that section of the community which I think is the one which has been reasonably safeguarded in the changes we are making.

Mr. Moloney

Most members of the House, I think, accept that this measure is somewhat necessary. We had a great deal of discussion when the Financial Resolution was introduced and that discussion covered largely the ground that should be gone over now. Many points of view have been put forward in regard to this matter and the time that has elapsed since the Financial Resolution was introduced has helped to some extent to allay certain fears expressed then. We were all quite clear then about the purpose of the Financial Resolution. I agree with the previous speaker that when there is any doubt about the law it should, as far as possible, come back to this House to be discussed and if necessary to be clarified. The suggestion about having cases stated to the High Court where it is a question of interpretation might be desirable but the more effective way, and certainly the way that appeals most to the plain people, is to have this House amend the law. When we have done what is possible to produce good legislation and when experience shows afterwards that it does not give the results expected I think the people would expect the House to go back and rectify any faults for which it was responsible.

At the outset it would help, to some extent, if we were prepared to admit that for a number of years the methods of weighing commercial vehicles came on the road and we uniform. Local licensing authorities, by and large, had not the same arrangements for assessing the actual weights nor for interpreting certain doubts that might arise. That had been the situation almost since commercial vehicles name on the road and we should be careful when we are trying to correct long standing practice to try to do so without creating too many drastic changes.

It might be asked: how can there be ill-effects when the former practice is not correct? According to an old saying if people get a bad habit of doing something for a long time, and if you sent out to correct it overnight by introducting a rather stringent set of rules, there may be difficulty. People operating trucks have adapted themselves to the type of truck most suitable for their purposes, from capacity and taxation points of view, and you interfere now very drastically with the economy of truck owners who will be affected by this measure.

The main purpose of this Bill, it is said, is to more or less penalise a number of small truck-owners, get them off the road and give the traffic to C.I.E. The previous speaker dealt very ably with that and I do not think people will accept Deputy O'Donnell's point of view. We know C.I.E. are not worried about competition from small truck-operators. Experience has shown, in fact, in recent years that when licensed hauliers offered to sell their plates to C.I.E., C.I.E. were not interested. C.I.E. does not consider that licensed hauliers' operations, in the main, affect C.I.E. operations and they are quite content to allow these hauliers to carry on as they have been doing.

Such hauliers will be affected by this Bill in so far as certain receptacles or attachments to their trucks will now come under notice and will result in having the taxation rates increased and the unladen weight of the particular vehicle must be increased accordingly. This constitutes a separate problem for the hauliers who must have their plates adjusted for the increased weights. The Minister has explained that provision has been made by another Minister in that connection and that the increase of 7 cwt. has been offered and that it seems to meet the situation in the case of the majority of licensed hauliers.

We should not confuse the position regarding licensed hauliers so far as increased weight is concerned with what is really specified in this Bill. Another speaker said that the smaller type of vehicles were most likely to be affected by the provisions of the Bill. I do not agree with that, except to a small extent. I think the vehicles mostly affected are those of larger carrying capacity such as are used by merchant firms and industrial concerns carrying large loads over long distances.

One particular case comes to mind which I would like to refer to the Minister because the Bill will create hardship there which, in my opinion, will have far-reaching effects. It is the case of creameries, co-operative and dairy disposal creameries. They haul large quantities of milk from central points to chocolate crumb or cheese factories in the south of Ireland, using their own trucks which are of a heavy type and fitted with large tanks. This Bill is of vital importance to these creameries because the price paid by the purchasers, whether chocolate crumb or cheese manufacturers, is cut very fine. In order to compete in that business the creameries some years ago had to fit a larger type of tanks on their trucks in order to keep down costs by increasing the total quantity of milk carried. Those tanks in the past were not weighed in as part of the unladen weight. There was ambiguity about the matter and it was accepted that the receptacles need not be included. The owners did not weigh in those receptacles and I think it could be said that they acted in perfectly good faith. There is no doubt about their position under the new legislation.

Under the Financial Resolution which has already taken effect and particularly under the Bill they will be obliged to weigh these containers or receptacles because they are on the truck all the time. They cannot be lifted off and left at their destination until the following day, week or month. They have to be emptied, in some cases pumped out, and returned on the truck the same day so that they will be available to bring another load on the following day.

One creamery company which has this type of receptacle fitted on the truck has told me that the additional taxation per truck would be from £60 to £80 per annum. That is a very large sum of money when spread over the quantity of milk carried. Now these creameries do not operate the trucks fitted with the receptacles the whole year round. They are fitted on the trucks during the period of milk production, for about half the year. Then the receptacle is removed and the truck is used, possibly, for the transport of butter, cheese or other solid products manufactured during the peak season and, in winter, for the delivery of fertilisers to the creamery suppliers. It can be said, therefore, that the receptacle is used for approximately half the year. Yet it appears to me that under the Bill the truck owner will be obliged to pay taxation on the gross weight including the receptacle for the whole year. I want the Minister to look into that point.

Subsection (1) of Section 3 deals with the power of a member of the Garda Síochána to require a vehicle to be weighed. I submit that great care should be exercised in giving that power to any officer of the State. It is a power which could be used without due care and to irritate and annoy people who have to operate trucks. Admittedly, the section contains some protection in so far as the weighing of a partly-laden or lightlyladen truck is concerned. Nevertheless, the power provided in this section is a little too wide. Take it that a Garda does not like the operator of a truck or has a bee in his bonnet. He can order the owner of the truck, particularly an unladen truck, to go to the nearest appointed weighbridge for the purpose of having it weighed or, alternatively, if the truck is laden, to go there within a certain number of days.

People who operate trucks will tell you that the weight of a truck may vary from month to month, according to climatic conditions. Truck assemblers manage to bring the unladen weight close to a particular unladen weight. It is a matter that they are at their wits' end to regulate because of the different standards of unladen weight laid down. It may be only a matter of pounds. When the truck is new it is quite possible to bring it within the permitted weight but the truck may get heavy in use, some of the material used in the truck may hold water. Experience has shown that when the truck is reweighed within 12 months, in nine cases out of ten it goes over the permitted weight and comes into the next category, which involves higher taxation.

It would be a very bad thing if the taxation officers or the Garda Síochána were to irritate people in that connection by being over-suspicious. The Minister should try to correct the rather awkward position in which we find ourselves on this point, as quietly as possible and with the least irritation to truck owners.

Mr. O'Donnell

Shut our eyes to the breaking of the law?

Mr. Moloney

There is a suggestion here about the acquisition of weigh-bridges. I am rather glad that that matter is being dealt with at last. The weighing facilities that existed heretofore were not very satisfactory. In order to have a truck weighed within the requirements of the local taxation office it was necessary that an officer from the office or a member of the Garda Síochána should witness the weighing. The truck owner had to make special arrangements to have one of these people present. I suppose it is a matter that can be dealt with by regulation but I suggest that the Minister might bring in an amendment on the next Stage of the Bill fixing certain hours, a period of, say, four or five hours of the day, for the purposes of weighing operations so that the truck owner would not have to search for a taxation officer or a member of the Garda. There should be some liaison between the taxation officer and the truck owner, so that arrangements could be made that these people would be available when required, or that a certificate from a public weigh-bridge, which is certified, would be acceptable in the circumstances.

The question of C.I.E. was raised and it was stated that this Bill would favour C.I.E. I assume that C.I.E., being a semi-State body—one could almost say a State body—have conformed to the general principles of the law in a more rigid manner than private operators have done in the past. If that is so, this Bill will have very little effect on C.I.E. because C.I.E. are already paying their due share of taxation for trucks. If that is not so, and if they have been in the same boat as the private commercial operators, they are equally affected. Does not this legislation then impose on C.I.E. the same burden as it imposes on the private operators?

One feature that I am sure will be regarded by all sides of the House as satisfactory is that any money collected—a sum of £50,000 to £100,000 has been mentioned—will go into the Road Fund and has to come back by way of grants to the local authorities for the purpose of maintaining the roads. If it transpires that the very heavy operators of trucks are the worst offenders in connection with the situation the Minister is attempting to correct, they will make the greater contribution to the total additional taxation that is collected. That would go to show that the liability is placed correctly by this legislation. There is no doubt that the heavy trucks that are being operated are doing very great damage to the roads. One has only to travel close behind those heavy trucks, when fully laden, to appreciate the damage they do to the very foundations of the road. I do not know whether it would be appropriate or not on this legislation but, if it were, I would go so far as to suggest to the Minister that the time has long since arrived when a maximum load should be specified.

Not alone should the unladen weight and carrying capacity be defined but the maximum load should, as far as possible, be controlled. Any attempts to keep our roads in a proper state of repair will be futile if eventually we did not do that. The additional taxation which is being visualised in this measure will, when it goes into the Road Fund, eventually come back, as it has come back, and so we can have no complaint.

In conclusion I would suggest to the Minister that he might look into the point I made at the beginning with regard to trucks which are casually employed in a particular operation which would necessitate the carrying of a tank or container and the owner of which would be adversely affected. There might be some way of easing that situation.

Mr. Coogan

I cannot understand what the last speaker was trying to. get at. He first praised the Bill and then criticised it. I put it to the Minister that this measure is aimed at the private haulier, especially in the West. We have seen the private haulier being squeezed out in the beet campaign in Galway. It is like the eradication of T.B. They are trying to eradicate the Private haulier. It is a measure to push him off the roads.

I want to raise one particular point —the question of unladen weight. The unladen weight, whether it be of container, creel or box, varies from month to month. At one period, particularly in the turf season, creels are used. Then the lorry may be used to draw gravel for the County Council and the box is used and the creel may be used again for the drawing of kelp or seaweed. I think the Minister should try to strike a happy medium between the weight of the heaviest addition, which may be the creel, and the box. I am not in favour of this measure because I believe it is another step in the process of pushing the private haulier off the roads and the Minister should not add further to the numbers leaving our shores every week, particularly from western areas.

Sir Anthony Esmonde

This Bill appears to me to have a threefold purpose. One is to counteract a decision given by the courts. Legislation is being introduced to annul that decision. The second is the primary object, that of raising a sum approximating to £100,000 which is another imposition of taxation. The third reason would appear to be the giving of a further monopoly to the Semi-State body—Córas Iompair Éireann.

If the Minister is going to raise £100,000 it is our view that that money should go to the Road Fund to be used for the purpose of improving the roads and that it should be added to the road grant and so on. In the first instance, that £100,000 should be applied to every county in Ireland. This Bill is bound to pass, as any measure introduced by the present Government with its large majority, is bound to pass and I should like to hear from the Minister, if there is an increase of £100,000 in the Road Fund, whether that sum is to be equitably distributed over all the counties in Ireland. There are certain grants out of the Road Fund that are transferable to different counties at the pleasure of the Minister. I should like him to tell the House that this additional money will be equitably distributed.

With regard to the Court decision, it seems to me that a better way to approach the situation, if the Minister was dissatisfied with the Court decision, was to appeal against that decision. It would have been the best way to test the decision. If the decision were reversed it would not have been necessary to introduce the Financial Resolution or this measure.

The Minister must know that he is imposing a hardship and that there are many private hauliers barely carrying on at the moment who will not now be able to carry on and will be pushed off the road. He must know that practically every business firm has its own lorry and it is useless to say that if a firm has not got its own lorry it can rely on public transport. If any firm had to rely on public transport it could not get a lorry for an indefinite period from the semi-State monopoly.

This measure means that those people who carry goods such as beet and corn in the harvesting season will have to pay a substantial extra charge. They will have to recover that extra charge from somebody else and it only means that for those who manage to survive, and all lorry owners will not manage to survive, the only way to recover it is to get it back from some other source and that source is the consuming public. This is just an extra means of taxation, a means of getting another £100,000 from the community in general.

There is one section in the Bill that I do not like and that is the enforcement section. In that section, as far as I can understand it, it is possible, if a lorry is passing along a street fully loaded, that a Garda can come along and insist that the lorry be driven up to a radius of five miles to be weighed. The section also states that the driver will be requested to unload the lorry if it can be done without undue inconvenience. I should like the Minister to clarify that part of the section. Take a lorry passing through a country town loaded with beet or turf or some other commodity and a Guard desires to have it weighed. If a Guard suspects that a lorry is not fully taxed he can ask the driver to take him five miles to the nearest weighbridge and to unload the lorry. There is the question of undue inconvenience.

It is very hard to interpret this Bill; it surely needs some clarification. Is it undue inconvenience, when a man is working perhaps night and day—these Bills are drafted by people who do not work night and day—perhaps in the rush season, the grain season and the beet season, to ask him to drive five miles, perhaps in a short day in the winter months, and to unload the lorry, which will take a considerable time, and to weigh it to satisfy the whim of the Guard? If this provision becomes law the Guard will only be doing his duty but he will be imposing an unnecessary burden on certain members of the community. However, he is imposing it not only on the lorry driver in the beet season—I refer to the beet season because this applies particularly to it—but on many farmers as well.

When a farmer wants to send his beet away, particularly if he is a small farmer, he has to arrange with a neighbour or have extra labour standing by to load the beet. The lorry driver will communicate with him and say he will collect the beet on such-and-such a day at such-and-such an hour. If the lorry driver is held up by a Guard, taken three or four miles away to unload his lorry, have it weighed and reloaded, how much time will be wasted and what will happen to the other people waiting for the lorry to come? Their whole system of disposing of the beet will be upset and all their arrangements will go awry just because of a stupid piece of legislation like this.

In the enforcement Act there is a section which allows a period of seven days in which to deal with the request for the weighing of a lorry. Is that not sufficient if the Minister wants to get legislation through this House to ensure he will get the last shilling from the lorry owner and the last penny sought in taxation under this Bill? Is that not sufficient legislation without inserting a special clause as well?

I should like the Minister to explain what motivated him in making these provisions. Does he suspect that there are droves of lorries all over the country being driven about on which the correct tax is not being paid? Incidentally the tax payable is considerable. On a form I have here I notice that for a lorry over nine tons the tax is £50 a ton extra tax.

I believe this legislation is designed to put the private haulier off the road and to allow a semi-State body to operate in the main. This will impose hardship in many ways. As Deputy O'Donnell said, a reduction in rates has taken place. Probably the Government had to accept the views of the commission dealing with this question. They would have to accept the advice of C.I.E. as to whether they would restrict the services which, as a statutory body, they would be entitled to do. However, there must be areas where the private hauliers has to a large extent carried on his own business and where—I could give instances in my own constituency—there is no public transport whatsoever. If these people are to be put off the road hardship will be imposed on the public; not only that but extra charges will also be imposed on the public.

When you are dealing with a body such as C.I.E. whose financial circumstances do not really bear thinking about, if they get a monopoly—I am not suggesting they will get a monopoly throughout the country but suppose they get a specialised monopoly in certain areas—can they not charge what they like? Fianna Fáil Deputies from rural areas know of many isolated areas not only in the west but in the more populous parts of Leinster as well, where, under these new provisions, there will be a bad service and a slow service by C.I.E. Apart from charging what they like, I assume they will have to pay the tax charges the same as anybody else and they must meet those charges by putting them back on the public.

I would ask the Minister to consider carefully what I have said about the enforcement section. I do not think it is right that the busy agricultural community—this refers not only to the agricultural community, although in the main it does, but also to the industrial community—should be at the beck and call of the Garda as will happen if this legislation is passed, when there are already safeguards to enforce the law. There is a local official who can ask the lorry to be brought in and weighed. He has the courts at his disposal, as he should have in a democratic State, to enforce that.

Why are these special provisions being imposed on the Irish people? In every Bill that comes to this House we seem to be giving away the liberty of the subject which is sacred in everything. The relevant sections in this Bill should be removed because there is no justification for them. The only justification I can see for this Bill is a concealed means of getting extra taxation to the tune of £100,000 from the Irish people.

Mr. Rooney

It is calculated that the effect of this Bill will be increased motor taxation to the extent of £100,000. When we consider who is going to bear that burden and examine the statistics we find that this extra taxation will be paid by private vehicle owners, farmers and traders. In Rush alone it is calculated that these extra taxes will cost between £1,000 and £1,500 extra to the market gardeners and farmers of that area. As you know, the lorries are sold by traders with a standard type of body, not one that is useful for carrying certain types of goods. You have, for instance, the example of the farmer who purchases a truck and may require that truck to carry livestock once in the week to the cattle market. They are obliged to prepare creels to carry the livestock, and this extra tax in the new scheme will impose on them the necessity to pay for this extra burden. Many trucks which were being taxed at £64, as a result of this arrangement whereby they use gear on the truck to carry a certain type of load, are now being taxed up to £80.

We remember, some years ago, before the Fianna Fáil Government changed the system of road taxation, agricultural lorries were taxed at a flat rate of £25. Farmers and others engaged in agricultural production are still inquiring: "When will we get back to paying a flat rate?" Their vehicles are not constantly on the roads. They are not used for commercial purposes; they are used purely for the transport of their goods, in a convenient way, from one place to another. It is not, if you like, a commercial enterprise. The farmers have the same tax to pay as any other man with a lorry of the same size whom it does not pay to be put off the road, and whom it pays to be on the road as often as possible, every moment of the day, covering the largest possible mileage.

There is the example of the haulier's truck which may do four times the mileage of the farmer's truck. They both pay the same tax and obviously, the haulier's truck will do much more damage—more than four times the amount of damage—to the road than the farmer's truck, which will probably go out with a load and return empty, whereas a man engaged in a commercial enterprise who will have to do four times the mileage must ensure that his lorry will be loaded to the maximum, and that it will be loaded at all possible times, in order to make it a paying proposition.

The same thing arises in connection with traders and shopkeepers who use vans and light trucks for the convenience of their business. It is not convenient for them to organise their business in such a way that it will be possible for the semi-State transport system to provide the necessary service to transport their goods. That is why the semi-State transport system cannot be availed of to a great extent by farmers and shopkeepers. The business to be done by that vehicle must be organised to such an extent that they cannot avail of the service to the best advantage. As I have mentioned, this Bill will affect the mileage of traders and farmers and not those engaged in commercial enterprise, particularly the road-breakers, the 15-ton vehicles which travel night and day doing considerable damage to the roads.

Everybody knows the quality of our roads, and everybody knows that there is a limit to the weight which they are capable of bearing. When it comes to crossing a bridge, the weight of a vehicle which may cross that bridge is determined. There is a notice on the bridge saying that a vehicle over such-and-such a weight must not be allowed to pass over the bridge, because, if it is, the bridge will be damaged, or smashed, or broken. These heavy vehicles can go where they like on our roads which are not capable of taking the very heavy vehicles which are being used. They are driven at the highest possible speed and they are doing the greatest possible damage. Some effort should be made to restrict the weight of vehicles which can be used on certain types of roads, because the weight of the vehicle will, in turn, damage the roads in relation to the weight and the speed at which it travels.

I feel that this extra burden is not justified when we consider that the extra gear to be used on these lorries is used only periodically by farmers in particular—perhaps once in a week for a market, or at harvest time, for the purpose of carrying turf or bringing in the harvest. They are not habitually used; yet we find these farmers and traders paying exactly the same tax, even though they are doing only one quarter of the mileage of other vehicles used for commercial enterprise.

There is one final point I want to put to the Minister. I may have misread the Bill, but I do not see how the question of the weight can be disputed. If a vehicle is stopped in very wet muddy weather, it is possible that it will be over the weight. When it is weighed—the weight is decided on the weighbridge—will the owner get an opportunity of cleaning the mud off the vehicle, drying it and getting it weighed again, when it might be found that, in fact, the actual weight of the vehicle without this extra burden from the wet that soaks into the timber of the vehicle, in addition to the mud was less. It has been found that it makes a considerable difference in weight if a vehicle is clean and dry, compared with a vehicle that has been working in wet weather and is laden with mud and, as I say, has absorbed the dampness of the weather, and perhaps of heavy rainfall through which it passed.

I hope the Minister will reconsider this matter. I feel that he is making an attack on one section of the community for the benefit of another. He is attacking the owners of private vehicles, and the only advantage it will bring will be to force them off the roads, and force them to avail of the limited services which can be provided for them by the State transport system. In the long run, it will result in higher prices to the consumers. I hope the Minister in future will give long consideration to a change because, on this occasion, the owners of these lorries and vans had no opportunity to make alternative arrangements. They were notified, approximately early in December, that their tax was to be increased. They had no opportunity to change over to a lighter vehicle, or to alter their business arrangements in order to avoid this extra burden. Instead, they had to continue with the vehicles they were using, get them weighed, and they were then required to pay the extra tax.

I hope the Minister will consider those two points: the weight of vehicles being used on the roads which are not fit to carry them and on the other hand, a flat rate for vehicles engaged in agriculture, which have such a small mileage, compared with other vehicles on which a similar tax is being paid.

Mr. Blaney

A number of items were raised by various Deputies which are common to their various arguments. I should like at the outset to say that we have not designed this legislation with a view to imposing increased taxation. We have not designed it in order to get, as has been said repeatedly here to-day, an extra £100,000 in road tax during the coming year. We have brought in this legislation to ensure that we do not lose upwards of £100,000 out of our road tax moneys, as we see them at present. We have availed them of the opportunity, in so doing, to make any of the small changes necessary to ensure uniformity in the application of the law, which, regardless of what that law may effect, is a very desirable thing. If we are to have a law enforced at all, which is not capable of being uniformly enforced, then it falls into disfavour and disuse, and there is complete disregard for the law and for those who are enforcing it.

Deputy O'Donnell raised a number of detail points and mentioned the questions of the break down truck, ambulance, hearse or whatever you like to call it. These vehicles are, in the ordinary course of things, used under the garage trade plates but if taxed they would not be rated as goods vehicles but as vehicles containing machines at the rate of £1 per h.p.

Mr. O'Donnell

That is fair enough.

Mr. Blaney

They are not really creating any problems as a result of this Bill at the moment. Road rollers, which have been mentioned, are exempt from duty specifically under the previous Act of 1952. We do not propose to do anything there——

Mr. O'Donnell

As long as they are clarified.

Mr. Blaney

In regard to vehicles towing trailers, the tax is actually paid on the hauling vehicle although it is true to say that an extra tax is payable on the hauling vehicle in respect of the towed vehicle that it proposes to haul but the actual trailer itself is not subject to these taxed weighings as outlined in the Bill.

Deputy O'Donnell also mentioned the difficulties in regard to weighing vehicles and the scarcity of public weigh-bridges. While it is true to say that public weigh-bridges by and large in many parts of the country are scarce, nevertheless, there will be, as a result of the terms of this Bill, more weigh-bridges available for the purpose of weighings than there were in the past when only a specific weighbridge in the counties could be used. In general, there is only one such weigh-bridge in each rural local authority area at any rate. There does not appear, on examination, to be any other method of administration that would seem to me reasonable and sensible taking into consideration the circumstances in so far as the availability of weigh-bridges and weighing vehicles are concerned.

Not one but a few Deputies raised the question of a vehicle hauling road materials. It was mentioned in that regard that agitation is developing in some parts of the country in relation to the normal haul of apples, gravel and so on. I want to say that whether road material, road making materials or what you will, is carried on the vehicle it is still justifiable, whatever the type of road material, that the unladen weight of the vehicle should be brought into line with other vehicles used for different purposes. These vehicles, which may be used from time to time for road materials, are very often used for many other purposes as well, so that the question of any unjust addition in respect of local authorities in this matter does not arise. The determination which we propose, and which exists at the moment, is quite justifiable.

Generally speaking, the attachments mentioned such as dipping gears, the various types of sideboards and so on, were taxable up to the present. In the great majority of cases the tax was legitimately paid on all these attachments. This Bill stems from a desire to bring in the minority who, through ignorance or otherwise, evade their just share of this tax.

I think no one will disagree with me when I say that to treat everybody in the same manner and have all owners paying in respect of their vehicles a fair and equitable amount is only fair, particularly when we have regard to the fact that these people are the road users and that the money derived from their tax goes exclusively into the Road Fund which is in turn exclusively used for the maintenance, repair and improvement of the very roads they are using to the greatest extent.

Deputy Moloney seemed to regard the question of the powers given to Gardaí in this Bill as something that was not just quite right. In the first instance, I should say that Gardaí have similar powers under the Road Traffics Acts as we now have them. Furthermore, and in reply to somebody else who said the Gardaí would possibly pick on a truck owner and operator and pull him in because they did not like him or for some other flimsy reason just to irritate the lorry owner, if we were to regard all our law enforcement in that light and give precedence to that particular aspect of things we really could make out a case that we should not have any laws or Gardaí at all.

The Gardaí do their specific jobs. Their job is not, indeed, always a very happy one but to try to make it appear that the Gardaí generally go out of their way to find fault with road users is very far from being true. From the experience of everybody in this House we know that, generally, the Gardaí are quite reasonable and, far from going out looking for trouble for road users by activities which also make trouble for the Gardaí, if there was any complaint surely it would be in the opposite direction? When we hear of the Gardaí using their powers, the suggestion is rather that they do not use them fully enough in regard to road matters than that they overuse them.

I should also point out to the House that under the Bill it is not just enough for the Gardaí to come along and take in somebody because they do not like him or because they crossed swords with him before. The Garda has got to suspect that the particular operator is committing an offence in regard to the weight or other matter. It is not just enough for him that he does not like the fellow. I do not think the House or the Deputy who raised the matter need have any fears whatever that there will be any undue weight given to that view by any member of the Garda.

The question of trucks used by a creamery was mentioned by several Deputies, including Deputy Moloney. I did not make the case that these trucks would only be used with their heavy containers for possibly three or four months. Let me first of all say that these people comprise one of the groups whose specific problem we have considered in the Department. To make an overall concession to any one such type, regardless of whether their case is better than some of the cases made to us would open the door not only to the carriage of milk but to trucks with containers for oil.

Mr. O'Donnell

Might I interrupt the Minister? Would it be possible to have them weighed separately for that quarter?

Mr. Blaney

That is just what I am about to deal with. No, but on the general question of making it cover not only the carriage of milk but also the carriage of oil, stout and so forth.

What we are considering in the Department, and what we hope will be the result of our full consideration is that when the lorry owner or lorry owners in question, where such an eventuality arises, have only use for a limited period in the year of a heavy container, the lorry owner may tax the truck at the beginning of the year at the lighter weight. When the next quarter comes along, or the commencement of the period in which the heavy container will be required, he can then pay the higher tax but he will have to pay that tax for the entire remainder of the year. In other words, if he had no heavy container for the first quarter, used a heavy container for the second quarter and did not use it for the third and fourth quarters, he would be allowed to tax the vehicle at the lower rate for the first quarter and, at the beginning of the second quarter, at the higher rate, which higher rate he would have to pay for the remaining three quarters of the year.

What we are now considering, and here I cannot give details because this may not happen due to problems in administration, is that if the owner only has a use for a heavy container for only one of the remaining three quarters——

Mr. O'Donnell

This is between now and Committee Stage?

Mr. Blaney

Even by then, it might not be possible to work it out, but what we hope is that we would provide for recoupment for the period in which he did not use the heavy container. In other words, if an owner taxed at the light weight for the first quarter, then put an additional weight on for the second quarter of the year and used it only in that quarter, though he would have to tax the vehicle at the higher rate for the full three quarters, we hope to work out a method whereby we will refund him the extra payment for the last two quarters of the year.

Mr. O'Donnell

That is very fair.

Mr. Blaney

As I say, it may be difficult to get around that administratively and at the moment I am not prepared to give an absolute assurance on the matter.

Mr. Rooney

Supposing this vehicle were sold twice or three times in the year, each new owner has to weigh it, and once it passes through the end of a quarter, would it not be a matter of the same owner weighing it a couple of times?

Mr. Blaney

It would not have to be weighed every time it was sold. That is not necessary. There is no obligation to weigh it each time it changes hands.

Mr. Rooney

They do each time they make out a fresh application from.

Mr. O'Donnell

No.

Mr. Blaney

Then there was a suggestion, also from Deputy Moloney, that the weigh-ins be confined to certain hours and that a provision to that effect be put in the Bill. I think it should be stated right away that it appears from my examination that anything rigid like that should be completely inappropriate in the Bill. The only thing I could add in regard to administrative matters with reference to the various authorities, whether they be the Garda, local authorities, or who they may, is that instructions will be issued on these points that may likely arise that would cause irritation. That will be done in the instructions to local authorities and taxation officers, and even in anything we pass on to the Garda.

There was also the point raised by Deputy Rooney, Deputy Moloney and possibly by Deputy Desmond as well, that maximum loads should be fixed for public roads. The general findings of the experts and the research engineers show that what does the damage is the gross axle load, and there are provisions under the Road Traffic Acts to deal with this aspect of gross axle load. Of course, I think everybody will agree it would be absolutely impossible to fix varying weights for the different roads throughout the country, considering the vast variety of roads which we have to treat with, and it would be absolutely impossible to say that a truck can carry such a weight on one road and, if the owner intends to go off that road, will have to drop part of his load. That just would not be possible.

I might add that during the enactment of the road traffic proposals which we hope to have in the not too distant future the matter of vehicle weights, axles and wheels will be gone into very thoroughly, and possibly some changes that might meet more closely the wishes of the Deputies who raised this point might be decided.

There has been a general sort of cry from a few Deputies that this whole taxation was devised to produce money, in the first instance and, in the second instance, was being brought into operation to force the small haulier out of existence and to push more traffic over to C.I.E. The fact is that in the case of C.I.E., being the largest haulage undertaker in the country, if there is any increased taxation, contained in the Bill now before the House, it will naturally fall upon it to pay the greater proportion of that extra taxation, and no credence whatever can be given to the idea that our avowed intention is to go out of our way to put the small haulier out of existence.

I think it was Deputy Rooney who mentioned that the Rush farmers alone would pay £1,000, or £1,500 extra, by virtue of this Bill. If any weight were to be given to that claim, and if we were to base our calculations on it, we would find that it was our hope to get an additional £1,000,000 from all road users throughout the country. In addition to that, he made a complaint in regard to changing the tax for machinery that was only in limited use; that the people in question, the people he has in mind, would not use their machines one-fourth of the mileage or the time that a haulier would use a similar truck, and that a concession should be made in their case. I wonder very much at Deputy Rooney making that suggestion because my recollection—and I think he knows more about this than I do—is that one does not get very much concession from the insurance companies if one does only ten miles with a machine to-day as against another man who does 100 miles. They do not give much satisfaction to that point which the Deputy was making, and well does he know it.

In addition to those points which he raised, Deputy Rooney said that the additions that had to be made to trucks for bringing home turf and the harvest by the farmers in county Dublin were such as to create this £1,000 or £1,500, additional taxation. The usual thing I have seen in bringing home the harvest is that a truck is stripped, rather than that anything is added to it, and I am sure the Dublin farmers are likely to be the same as those elsewhere. If they want to bring home oats or bales of straw, it is not by adding to the truck but by removing fixtures from it that they do it. If one looks at this matter closely, the suggestion of an additional £1,000 or £1,500 falling on the Rush people is completely without foundation, but, if one wants to believe it, then it could be said that we will get an extra £1,000,000 into the Road Fund, and I do not think anybody would seriously give consideration to that viewpoint.

Deputy Esmonde suggested that we were looking for the last shilling by way of taxation, that we were squeezing in this last shilling out of our small hauliers, and then went on to say that a lorry of nine tons weight would yield an extra £50 per ton. It is hard to reconcile his concern for the small man who, allegedly, is being victimised in this matter with the concern he expressed in the same breath for the owner of a truck exceeding nine tons weight. There is a vast difference between that type of lorry owner and the small man from whom the Deputy believes we are wringing his last shilling.

Let me say right away that if these road users have been paying, and the great majority of them were paying, what they were justly liable to pay under the existing road tax code, then there would be no incidence of increase whatsoever. That, in fact, is the case and will be the case in a great many instances. If, on the other hand, some road users were evading or avoiding payment or succeeding, by virtue possibly of the interpretation of their local tax office, in getting away with something under the existing law which their counterparts failed to get away with elsewhere, I think everybody will agree that that situation should be rectified and that regardless of what part of the country the operator may be and the road user may exist or live in, his share of contributions to the Road Fund by way of tax should be equitable and parallel to what his opposite number in any other part of the country is paying. That is something that is being inisisted upon and ensured in the proposals before the House.

I feel that when the full picture emerges, as it is now beginning to emerge, in relation to the proposals contained in this Bill and already put into operation under the Finance Act as from 1st January, the fears expressed here before Christmas and even today will be found to be more or less unfounded and that the big incidence of additional tax that has been suggested here will not in fact arise. The preliminary—it must be appreciated it can only be preliminary —knowledge so far obtained from our tax offices throughout the country indicates what we have been saying all along, namely, that there is no additional impost in general being applied throughout the country: it is bringing uniform charges to everybody for the same service.

It is not a question of adding tax. It is a question of ensuring that the leak from the Road Fund does not become greater and, in turn, that that Road Fund which is entirely given over to the repair, maintenance and improvement of our roads, will not be allowed to lose by virtue of the law as it was coming to be interpreted in the recent past.

I feel the House will be quite satisfied as the year advances and more experience of the terms of this Bill emerges that what we are doing is ensuring that our taxes are equitable, that the Road Fund does not lose as a result of any change in the mind of the courts or anybody else and that, by and large, there will be fair treatment for all our road users in the matter of tax.

Mr. O'Donnell

Deputy Rooney mentioned that while a vehicle is not being used, the insurance may be suspended. He suggested that when a vehicle is not being used, the road tax might be suspended.

Mr. Blaney

I do not think Deputy Rooney had the slightest idea of quoting that to me.

Mr. Dillon

I have personal knowledge of the case of a country merchant with three lorries, who, as a precautionary measure, had them re-weighed consequent on the Financial Resolution and in respect of each lorry found he was liable an extra annual charge of constituting an extra annual charge of £24. That does not make the difference between bankruptcy and solvency but it constitutes a substantial additional burden on the individual. Does the Minister really believe that that pattern will not be reproduced pretty generally throughout the country if his own estimate of increased revenue is in the order of £100,000?

Mr. Blaney

Without any reflection on any person who may find himself in a similar position to that of the merchant quoted by Deputy Dillon, that £8 which may now appear to be an additional charge is one which, we hold, was payable in the past under the law as it then stood and in fact was paid by the great majority of road users operating that type of vehicle. This step is making for uniformity.

Mr. Rooney

I would point out that there is the largest number of vans and lorries in Rush parish as compared with any parish in Ireland.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá66: Níl 24.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Blaney, Neil T.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Kevin.
• Booth, Lionel.
• Brady, Philip A.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breen, Dan.
• Brennan, Joseph.
• Brennan, Paudge.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Calleary, Phelim A.
• Carty, Michael.
• Childers, Erskine.
• Collins, James J.
• Corish, Brendan.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Cotter, Edward.
• Crowley, Honor M.
• Cummins, Patrick J.
• Davern, Mick.
• de Valera, Vivion.
• Doherty, Seán.
• Donegan, Batt.
• Dooley, Patrick.
• Egan, Kieran P.
• Egan, Nicholas.
• Everett, James.
• Fanning, John.
• Faulkner, Padraig.
• Gibbons, James.
• Gilbride, Eugene.
• Gogan, Richard P.
• Haughey, Charles.
• Healy, Augustine A.
• Hillery, Patrick J.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Johnston, Henry M.
• Kenneally, William.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Kitt, Michael F.
• Kyne, Thomas A.
• Lemass, Noel T.
• Loughman, Frank.
• Lynch, Celia.
• MacCarthy, Seán.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maher, Peadar.
• Medlar, Martin.
• Moher, John W.
• Moloney, Daniel J.
• Mooney, Patrick.
• Moran, Michael.
• Murphy, Michael P.
• Norton, William.
• Ó Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Ceallaigh, Seán.
• O'Malley, Donogh.
• O'Toole, James.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Mary B.

Níl

• Belton, Jack.
• Carew, John.
• Coogan, Fintan.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Costello, Declan D.
• Crotty, Patrick J.
• Dillon, James M.
• Esmonde, Sir Anthony C.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Jones, Denis F.
• Lindsay, Patrick.
• Lynch, Thaddeus.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Manley, Timothy.
• O'Donnell, Patrick.
• O'Higgins, Michael J.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Reilly, Patrick.
• Rooney, Eamonn.
• Ryan, Richie.
• Sweetman, Gerard.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Loughman: Níl: Deputies Crotty and Michael O'Higgins.

Question declared carried.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 17th February, 1960.