I move:

(1) That in this Resolution—"the Act of 1935" means the Finance Act, 1935 (No. 28 of 1935); "the Act of 1968" means the Finance Act, 1968 (No. 33 of 1968).

(2) That the duty of customs imposed by section 1 of the Finance (Customs Duties) (No. 4) Act, 1931 (No. 43 of 1931), as amended by subsequent enactments, shall, in respect of mineral hydrocarbon light oil chargeable with that duty, be charged, levied and paid as on and from the 8th day of May, 1969, at the rate of 4s. 2.82d. the gallon in lieu of the rate specified in section 20 (2) of the Act of 1968.

(3) That the duty of excise imposed by section 1 of the Finance (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1935 (No. 7 of 1935), as amended by subsequent enactments, shall, in respect of mineral hydrocarbon light oil chargeable with that duty which is sent out, on or for sale or otherwise, from the premises of the manufacturer thereof on or after the 8th day of May, 1969, or is used by such manufacturer on or after that date for any purpose other than the manufacture or production of mineral hydrocarbon oil, be charged, levied and paid at the rate of 4s. 1.82d. the gallon in lieu of the rate specified in section 20 (3) of the Act of 1968.

(4) That the duty of customs imposed by section 21 of the Act of 1935 shall, in respect of hydrocarbon oil chargeable with that duty, be charged, levied and paid as on and from the 8th day of May, 1969, at the rate of 3s. 7.57d. the gallon in lieu of the rate specified in section 20 (4) of the Act of 1968.

(5) That as on and from the 8th day of May, 1969, the rate of any rebate allowed under section 21 (2) of the Act of 1935 shall—

(a) in respect of hydrocarbon oil on which such rebate is allowable and on which the duty of customs mentioned in paragraph (4) of this Resolution was paid at the rate of 3s. 7.57d. the gallon, be 3s. 7.57d. the gallon, and

(b) in respect of hydrocarbon oil on which such rebate is allowable and on which the duty of customs mentioned in paragraph (4) of this Resolution was, by virtue of paragraph 6 of the Imposition of Duties (No. 84) (Hydrocarbon Oils) (Customs Duties) Order, 1959 (S.I. No. 219 of 1959), paid at the rate of 3s. 6.57d. the gallon, be 3s. 6.57d. the gallon,

in lieu of the rate allowable immediately before the 8th day of May, 1969, by virtue of section 20 (5) of the Act of 1968.

(6) That the duty of excise imposed by section 21 of the Act of 1935 shall, in respect of hydrocarbon oil chargeable with that duty which is sent out, on or for sale or otherwise, from the premises of the manufacturer thereof on or after the 8th day of May, 1969, or is used by such manufacturer on or after that date for any purpose other than the manufacture or production of hydrocarbon oil, be charged, levied and paid at the rate of 3s. 6.57d. the gallon in lieu of the rate specified in section 20 (6) of the Act of 1968.

(7) That as on and from the 8th day of May, 1969, the rate of any rebate allowed under section 21 (4) of the Act of 1935, in respect of hydrocarbon oil on which such rebate is allowable and on which the excise duty mentioned in paragraph (6) of this Resolution was paid at the rate of 3s. 6.57d. the gallon, shall be 3s. 6.57d. the gallon in lieu of the rate allowable immediately before the 8th day of May, 1969, by virtue of section 20 (7) of the Act of 1968.

(8) That as on and from the 8th day of May, 1969, the rate of any repayment allowed under section 10 (8) of the Finance Act, 1957 (No. 20 of 1957), in respect of hydrocarbon oil on which such repayment is allowable and on which either—

(a) the excise duty mentioned in paragraph (6) of this Resolution was paid at the rate of 3s. 6.57d. the gallon, or

(b) the customs duty mentioned in paragraph (4) of this Resolution was paid at the rate of 3s. 6.57d. the gallon or 3s. 7.57d the gallon.

shall be 1s. 11d. the gallon in lieu of the rate allowable immediately before the 8th day of May, 1969.

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

I should like to know the total amount of duty on one gallon of petrol including the tax levied directly as well as turnover tax and other incidental taxes? It can no longer be said that only the wealthy use cars and so consume petrol. Most people in modern conditions require cars and workers and farmers now have cars. As mentioned earlier by Deputy Tully, there is no rebate for a worker using his car to go to or return from work. That concession should be made. Let me mention a specific case to illustrate my point. We had the case of a factory which closed down and workers had to purchase a car or mini-bus and travel 26 miles to secure alternative employment. That meant travelling 52 miles daily. I asked the Minister at the time to give some rebate to such workers but nothing was done. Workers who have to use their cars to get to and from work should get a rebate. I am sure the Minister will agree that is reasonable. Could the Minister say what is the actual total tax on a gallon of petrol?

Excise duty is now 4s. 1.8d.—in round figures 4s. 2d.

It was 3s. 11d. and it will now be 4s. 2d.

A full concession is given for any bus carrying workers in the income tax law and the workers that Deputy Murphy spoke about must not know the law.

Will Deputy Lenihan please talk a little sense? Everybody who knows anything about Ireland knows that what happens is that one man takes three or four of his pals to work.

Of course.

They will have to pay the extra twopence per gallon and they will get no concession under income tax law. Deputy Lenihan should learn his income tax law again because that is the law and there is no doubt about it. If anybody drives three or four workers to work, as happens regularly in my constituency and even in Longford/Westmeath, he will have to pay the extra threepence per gallon and there will be no income tax allowance for it.

I think I am entitled, subject to you, Sir, to answer this, because I have been challenged on it. If a firm gets a bus—that is what Deputy Murphy is talking about——

No.

——a mini-bus or any kind of bus, and brings the workers to work, they are fully entitled——

We are not talking about companies; we are talking about individuals.

It costs them nothing.

I thought what the Deputy was talking about in this particular connection was the special exemption for fuel for buses.

That is not what he was talking about.

It does not cost the worker a penny more.

Of course, it does.

No.

They must all walk to work around Athlone.

No.

They are going to pay 50 per cent more on their tax on their car—not road tax but wholesale tax on the car.

Not on a second-hand car.

Deputy T.F. O'Higgins.

The Deputy is making an awful lot of mileage out of nothing.

By kind permission of the Chair. It appears from the table explanatory of the Budget and from the Minister in his speech that this particular Resolution—it is very difficult for Deputies to follow— applies to hydrocarbon oils, which, I assume, cover both petrol and diesel oil.

Some are called mineral hydrocarbon light oils which include petrol. The others are known as hydrocarbon oils (other sorts); that is, mainly diesel oil.

Financial Resolution No. 3 covers what?

Both.

So that in ordinary terms it covers petrol and diesel oil?

I could, perhaps, give a word of explanation which might help. The approach is that both are covered—petrol and diesel. I am using these terms very roughly to cover the two main headings. Petrol and diesel are both covered and then the diesel is exempted for a number of uses and the only use really left in for tax purposes for diesel oil is use for a motor vehicle on the roads. Practically all other uses are excluded.

A motor vehicle carrying a lorry?

Yes.

The coloured diesel, in other words.

Any vehicle on the road using diesel oil—that diesel is liable to duty.

Is it on the coloured diesel that there is a rebate or is it the other way round? I always forget.

What is out of this is diesel oil used by a farmer purely for agricultural purposes?

Yes. That is the coloured one.

What is out? Is bus transport out?

That is specially treated.

And what is in, then, is the ordinary freight traffic?

All petrol is in. Diesel oil used for road vehicles is in, except buses, which benefit from a rebate.

That is general buses as distinct from CIE?

All buses.

Apart from the case made by Deputy Murphy, the effect of this, then, comes to this, that there is in this a tax on distribution and the costs of distribution must obviously be raised. That clearly has some effect —I do not know what effect—on prices at a time when prices have shown an alarming tendency upwards. I note that the estimated yield from this tax is £2 million and it is to be noted that in the Budget the Minister makes an allowance for errors of estimation of £2 million. It is not necessary to go into a major discussion at this stage but, in this year, with a threatening of inflation—whether it has occurred or not you can leave aside—the view is strongly held and has been expressed here in relation to other circumstances on this issue that there should be this year no allowance for errors in estimation. I do not believe there should be.

What has that got to do with this Resolution?

There was £4 million allowed last year.

It has nothing to do with this Resolution.

This Resolution comes down to a tax on distribution.

I accept that but it is very marginal.

How marginal is it?

In the context in which the Deputy is speaking, I imagine it could not have any effect on prices as such.

Would I be in order in pointing out that the allowance for over-estimation is made in relation to expenditure, not in relation to revenue?

Go back to old God's time.

Thanks very much. Does the Minister assure us that this will not have any effect——

On the point that Deputy MacEntee has made, then the lower paid workers will get £2 million out of the expenditure?

Surely, you have the message in the Financial Statement about the lower paid worker?

I have not got any explanation. When Deputy Lenihan has ceased giving us bad tax advice, could I ask the Minister for Finance a question?

Yes, certainly.

If the bad advice is finished. I always understood that there was a difference of a penny between the home petrol and imported petrol. It is not a penny here. Is it not slightly different?

No. It is a penny— a flat penny.

Why is the rate of rebate 3s 7.57d as against 4s. 1.82d?

I do not understand.

There is a difference of just under 4/——3s 7.57d—in paragraph (4)——

Is the Deputy referring to the excise duty?

No—the rebate. In paragraph (2) it is 4s. 2.82d. The rebate in paragraph (4) is 3s. 7.57d.

There is no rebate on petrol. Diesel oil is rebated at source.

I am suspicious of this after we were accused once of letting through a Financial Resolution much more complicated than this.

There is nothing complicated about this.

Is this Resolution in exactly the same form as every other Budget Resolution increasing the price of oil?

On this occasion we have the complication of the penny difference between the customs duty and the excise duty since this penny was introduced.

But leaving that aside, it is exactly parallel?

Exactly the same.

This will make no increase in the cost of living?

I cannot see that happening.

Deputy P.J. Lenihan referred to the fact that we had no case to make about the people who are travelling to work because, he said, this 3d. per gallon on petrol would not affect them. What Deputy Lenihan was, in fact, talking about was company buses. We are not talking about company buses. We are talking about the unfortunate people scattered throughout the country who have to travel from early morning, sometimes from as early as 7 o'clock, with three, four, five or six people to a car into Dublin and home again after a hard day's work. These people are to get no remission on their income tax while they will have to pay the extra 3d. per gallon on petrol.

I pay this tribute to the Minister for Finance that when he was Minister for Justice he stopped a racket that had started whereby the gardaí had got instructions from somebody to stop cars and prosecute people for travelling in this way. That racket has not since been started. However, we had expected that the Minister for Finance would do something to make an allowance for these people so that they could claim travelling expenses just as their boss could and just as Deputy Lenihan could if he were travelling from his home to his office in the course of his work.

Let us get this straight for the record.

A man who uses a motor vehicle in the course of his employment, regardless of whether he is a labourer or the manager of the job, gets a tax-free allowance; but the man who uses his car to travel to his place of employment gets no tax-free allowance. This is where the catch comes in and, as I have said, we had expected that the Minister would make some provision for these people, but he has not done so. It is not only the rich who now use cars because the people to whom I am referring would have to stay out of employment if they did not have a car to get to their work. Therefore, this extra imposition being put on them is unfair and it is only right that the Minister should be told that.

If there are five people travelling in a car and assuming that the car does 30 miles to the gallon and the cost of petrol being 6/-after the passing of this Resolution, the increase would amount to only 2½ per day which, in effect, would mean that each person would have to pay only one halfpenny per day extra. What, then, is all the weeping and wailing about?

Deputy MacEntee is not only confusing himself but he is confusing us as well. There are people travelling 40 miles to work and 40 miles back, 80 miles in all and that figure would be multiplied by six for a week. Most of these people have very old cars from which they would only get about 20 miles to the gallon.

It would be cheaper for them to go by bus.

There are no buses in the country. They are not all living in Rathmines.

The Deputy was speaking about five people to a car.

He does not know that there is no bus service.

He does not because he does not go out of the city now.