I move:—

That the Dáil agree with the Committee in Resolution No. 4.

This Resolution raises the customs duty charged on hydrocarbon oil—fuel oil—from 10d. to 1/3 per gallon.

This, I take it, is a tax on industry and transport. Therefore it is a tax calculated to raise the cost of living here, and it is being imposed at a time when the policy of the Government is not to raise the cost of living. That being so, it is a tax for the purpose, really, of reducing the standard of living, as it is making the cost of transport dearer for the people, and in that way taking from them money which they could spend on other necessaries. It is particularly hard on people in the large urban centres where the transport item cannot be eliminated by the great majority of the workers. Being a tax on industry, this will undoubtedly raise the prices of commodities.

I should like to appeal to the Minister to reconsider this tax. I think we all appreciate the transport problems which have arisen as a result of the serious shortage of fuel, and of course this hydrocarbon oil comes under that heading. It will seriously raise the cost of delivering and distributing goods, not only from the point of view of goods that are produced in the country, but imported goods as well. To my mind, it will be particularly severe on agriculture, because in those days everything that is produced on the land as well as all the raw material necessary for agricultural production is delivered by lorry. In recent years the farmer has altogether got out of the habit of delivering his produce or taking delivery of what he requires by horse-drawn vehicle, and to-day he is in the position that he has not the horses to do it. As well as that, the roads are not made to carry that type of traffic. Our modern roads are dangerous for horse-drawn transport, so the Minister will appreciate that all deliveries to and from the farm are made by motor transport. I think this is a particularly severe tax at the present time, when so many transport problems already exist. It is a very severe tax, not only on trade and industry generally, but on agriculture as well. When he is replying, I should like the Minister to tell us whether the exemption of fuel for agricultural purposes will still be continued.

The Deputy is speaking on the next Resolution.

I am not. The next Resolution deals with petrol?

Yes.

Well, I am not talking about petrol.

The Deputy is talking about the rebate for agricultural tractors?

Yes.

That comes under the next Resolution.

Kerosene and vaporising oil?

It comes under the next Resolution, and the rebate is continuing.

What is dealt with here? Is this crude oil?

Those are the heavy oils.

Heavy crude oil? I want to know what it is.

Read the Resolution.

You say it is heavy oils. Is it heavy crude oil?

What is crude oil?

Does the Minister know what crude oil is?

I do know something about it.

I think he knows very little about it.

I am not an encyclopaedia like the Deputy.

I do not claim to be an encyclopaedia. I am looking for information.

I think I answered the Deputy's question.

Is it or is it not crude oil? Would the Minister give me a categorical reply to that question?

Yes.

Will the Minister, in addition to answering Deputy Hughes's point, be a little more enlightening than he has been up to the present——

I will try.

I hope the trial will be a success. I might appeal to his non-encyclopaedic knowledge to give a little more enlightenment to the House. I will not make any jokes about crude oil——

Lubricating oil.

He has a fair amount of it. It is his outstanding characteristic I should say—quite a useful characteristic at times, perhaps. Will he tell us exactly what is the amount he expects this year and in the normal year from this particular tax, as distinct from No. 5? He has already given us, I understand, the two together, but as far as I know—I may be wrong—he has not given us the separate contribution that he expects from each of those taxes. But it is to another aspect of the matter that I should like him to direct attention. There is in this Budget already quite a number of taxes which I fear will have the effect of damaging certain industries. I think his excess profits tax, that knotty problem which he put to various business people and industrialists, will have that effect, and it may be a serious effect. He is here putting a tax on one of the essentials—at the present moment particularly—for transport. Whether it is crude oil, heavy crude oil, or heavy oil, that is what he is doing. There is only one way in which that can be met. It will not be met by the philanthropy of the people who are using this oil. It will be passed on, if it can be passed on, to the consumer, or else it will interfere with the particular business. One or other of those two things must follow, or possibly a combination of the two of them.

We have here the extraordinary spectacle of a Government going out of its way, by a portion of its policy and at considerable expense to the consumer, to help industry, and then introducing a Budget which is bound to have the opposite effect on a number of those industries, industries which may find it difficult at the moment to carry on, and in some instances may find the incidence of this Budget too heavy for them to bear. In the present state of the organisation of business in this country, if you do put a tax on transport then you are undoubtedly increasing the cost of all the articles which are transported. Whatever line you take up on the question of the cost of living, you are undoubtedly sending it up, and I think the Minister will acknowledge that, apart altogether from any effort on the part of the Government, the tendency is for the cost of living to go upwards.

Here is a case in which the private car is not affected. I doubt if it is very much affected, even in the next Resolution, as a result of the whole oil and petrol supplies position. The amount of petrol given to private owners is very limited and that is, therefore, a matter which can be left out of account. You are therefore taxing nothing that is a luxury, but you are taxing what has, I think, in the last couple of years, become a necessity to a certain extent or, if it has not become a necessity, it has certain reactions on the ordinary necessaries of life. You might as well put it on necessaries of life as to impose it on this particular trade. It is indirectly a tax on the necessaries of life because, through it, you tax things more important than the oil itself, namely, the goods transported.

As the Minister has shown a certain readiness to reconsider some of the taxes he imposes, perhaps he might do the same in this instance. Is it really worth while to put on this particular tax, considering the damage it may do indirectly? It is just an additional burden put on to the price of a number of things that are already soaring too highly.

Like some of the other taxes, this one has been objected to from many sources. It will, of course, as Deputy O'Sullivan has said, be paid by the consumer. I think the same thing could be said of any tax that has been put on in recent years. Any tax, whether it be income-tax, surtax, or corporation profits tax, tends to increase the cost of living to some extent. Some taxes, perhaps, do that more than others, but all of them are passed on to the consumer. The consumer pays eventually. Even in the case of income-tax it affects life and affects the cost of living in a variety of ways. That is true of the particular tax we are discussing.

As to the definition of it, I may inform the Deputy that the duty includes such oils as crude mineral oil, fuel oil, Diesel oil, gas oil, paraffin oil and turpentine. In view of the provision for a rebate, the duty is chargeable in reality only on oil for propelling motor vehicles other than agricultural tractors. The amount we expect to get out of this duty this year is £24,000, and in a full year £27,000.

Do you expect £223,000 or £300,000 out of the next one?

From the next one we expect £350,000 additional—that is, the duty on hydrocarbon light oil.

That means you expect £375,000 out of the two?

Yes.