I beg to move that a sum not exceeding £425,890 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in the course of payment during the year ending 31st March, 1925, to pay the salaries and expenses of the Revenue Department.
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 6.—REVENUE DEPARTMENT.
There is a very large number of items in this Vote which I had not noticed, and it is quite possible Deputies from the Ministerial benches will be anxious to look after the work of the nation, and see that proper consideration is given to these. I would suggest that, in view of the fact that this Vote does not appear in to-day's Order Paper, though we discuss it, it should not be closed entirely to-day. I want to raise only one point, and it is an important point. It is the action of the Revenue Commissioners, and the method or manner of deducting, or rather obliging the employers to deduct, income tax from their servants.
I was going to suggest, on a point of order, to you that in view of the fact that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has now returned and that this particular Vote that we are now discussing was not down on the Order Paper of the day and that consequently Deputies could not have expected this Vote to come on, that it would be better if someone moved now to report progress on this Vote and take up the Post Office Vote. This arrangement would save entering upon an Estimate that Deputies did not expect to come on to-day.
The Committee can make its own decisions. It decided to take up Vote No. 6, and Deputy Johnson was making a particular point which he should be allowed to make for the information of the Minister. After he has done that, it would be possible to postpone Vote 6, and resume Vote 57, which was postponed.
took the Chair.
Under the Act as it was last year, against wise advice from these Benches and, I think, from the representatives of the commercial interests, the Dáil took the advice of the Government, and gave power to the Revenue Commissioners to serve orders upon employers of labour to deduct arrears of income tax from wages or salaries. There have been a number of orders served upon business houses in the city in respect of arrears of income tax, some of which arrears have accrued since the date of the Treaty, and some of which were pre-Treaty impositions. Now, quite frequently during the course of the discussions, the President, who was then Minister for Finance, gave assurances that where there was any willingness at all shown to pay these arrears, it was not intended to be vindictive, or to be over-stressful or impose too serious an obligation. The idea, in fact, was to allow willing persons to pay on easy terms. But we have had complaints within the last two or three months of orders which meant the deduction of 25 per cent. of the weekly income, and even more than that, thirty-three and one-third per cent. of the weekly income from assistants in business establishments in the city for arrears of income tax. That is taken from their salaries or wages, and, of course, is putting both employers and workmen and workwomen into a very uncomfortable position and imposing a great strain upon both sides of that undertaking. I have a case which has been brought to the notice of the Minister, and through him, to the Revenue Commissioners, of a woman who is earning £4 2s. per week and who is alleged to owe £34 odd, for income tax accruing since 1921. She gave an assurance that she was agreeable to pay when she found that the obligation was upon her. Like many another she did not believe that she was entitled to pay income tax. She was like many others, including, I am sure, many well-known members of the Dáil who sought to evade paying income tax—perhaps successfully. However, in this case there is no question of any conspiracy or determination to refuse to pay. She is typical of many. She is willing to pay, but she wants to be allowed to pay in a manner which will not impose too heavy a burden upon her. But the Commissioners are adamant. She is in receipt of £4 2s. per week, and they say she must pay £1 per week. The employer must deduct £1 per week from her wages. I do say that in the circumstances in which she is living the balance left her brings not only herself into difficulties, but brings her relatives also into difficulties. I have another case where a married man earning £6 a week was called on to pay arrears, and his employers were instructed to deduct £3 per week out of the £6.
The employers intervened and the amount of the deduction was reduced to £2 per week—£2 out of £6. That again I say is an imposition. Where a man is willing to pay and is willing to pay a reasonable sum weekly he ought not to be asked to pay so large an amount as one-third of his salary. In one case when an employer intervened and interviewed the Commissioners and protested against being called upon to make these deductions he was told—so I am informed—that the Commissioners thought £3 a week was ample for a man to live upon, and that they were making no order that would bring the earnings below that amount. But remember shortly afterwards another case came before my informant showing that there had been enforcement of an order which brought down the earnings to £2 16s. a week and even below that. Another person was informed that the Commissioners thought that £2 a week was sufficient for a single young man to live upon and that if they did not reduce his earnings below that by deductions, well, he had nothing to complain of. That is more or less the line that is taken. In every case that I have been informed about the debtors have offered to pay direct, and have stated that they would very much prefer to pay direct. They object very strenuously to having these deductions made by their employers.
I say that it is not an obligation upon the Commissioners to use that method of collecting these debts, and they ought, where possible, to make the collection directly and not through the employers. But if they must use the employers as their debt collectors they ought, at least, be as lenient as a County Court Judge or a magistrate would be to a person who is owing money to a money lender or usurer. They ought not make it hard for the debtor to live upon the remainder of his earnings. I say that this method of collection in the case of married men and in the case of women where you are reducing their spending capacity and reducing the amount that is available to carry on the households, and to maintain themselves in the way in which they have been maintained, is doing an injury to the people concerned and also to the administration. You may be getting a larger sum in, week by week, but you are not making it easier for the future, and you are not adding to the annual income by that means at all.
And I would strongly press upon the Minister who is responsible for the activities of the Revenue Department, notwithstanding the fact that the Commissioners have certain judicial powers, that this kind of pressure ought not to continue, that there ought to be much more discrimination and much easier terms offered to the people who are willing to pay their arrears, than are being allowed to them at the present time. I can quite understand the line that Ministers may take on the advice of the Commissioners. They will talk about conspiracy to defraud, and they will talk about a determination not to pay if people can avoid it, and so on, and so on. But the cases that I am referring to are cases where the people had declared their willingness to pay, and where, in spite of that declaration, the Commissioners are using the very harsh methods of collecting their debts. If the Ministry are anxious for an agitation on this question they will continue to be as harsh as they are; and an agitation on this question may not add to the case with which income tax debts will be recovered. I am certain that proper consideration has not been given to this matter, at least not the consideration that would be required from anybody but a debt collector.
My first comment on this matter really will be that, when we come to discuss the Estimates, I think it is necessary, in discussing them fully, that what I might call a certain amount of ragging should take place between the Ministry and the members of the Dáil. In that respect I would rather protest against the burden being placed on the President. Personally I feel a disinclination to rag the President, if I may put it in that way; and secondly, I do not think it is suitable for the Dáil or the President to be placed in that position. I should have no hesitation in going for the Minister of Industry and Commerce, but the President, as occupying the place of the Minister for Finance, is in quite a different position. As regards this question that Deputy Johnson has raised in reference to the collection of income tax, we on these benches are free to criticise very fully the development that has taken place, because at the time when the matter was being discussed we protested against the employers being put in the position of collecting the income tax from their employees.
It is a very false position to be placed in. In these cases it very very often happens, and indeed it generally happens that there is a dispute whether the amount is due or not. And to make the employers arbitrators compulsorily in these matters, so that they must deduct from the pay of the employee, whether he is right or whether he is wrong, in any contention he may put forward, is not, as we pointed out it would not be, acting in a manner calculated to carry on the operations of trade in a harmonious way. I think the sum of money most difficult to get out of any man is a sum of money which he thought he had successfully evaded paying. And in these cases of accumulated income tax, surely it is the income tax authorities themselves who are to blame in having allowed an accumulation such as must have taken place in the case that Deputy Johnson referred to where a woman had to pay £1 a week to pay off an accumulation of £34. And to saddle the employer with the effects of their own mal-administration, or the weaknesses of their system in a case of that sort, seems to me to be a very grave hardship.
I do not know how far those applications extend and I do not like to refer in a personal way in this Dáil to anything that comes under my notice. However, within the last couple of days a matter did come under my notice and I only mention it as an illustration. It is not in the nature of the case about which Deputy Johnson tells us. It is the case of an employee in connection with the business with which I am identified. He is in receipt of a very big salary, a fair salary. He evidently had paid his income tax. But the firm get a demand from the income tax authorities to deduct—what? To deduct a sum of 6s. And, as I understand, this 6s. is a matter in dispute between the person assessed and the Inland Revenue Commissioners. At any rate, the right to demand the money is there. Deputy Johnson brought forward some large things. I bring forward this which is a petty thing. Six shillings is nothing to this man to whom I refer, but he is disputing that it is due by him. And why should the employers in that case be brought into the matter at all? The principle of the whole thing is wrong. It is not now as it was a year ago when the Government found it necessary to invoke extraneous aids for the carrying out of collections. That situation has passed I hope. Under these circumstances the continuation of any such measures as these is not in the interests of harmony; and I do not think this is a proper and a right method for the authorities to use in connection with taxation.
I am not, I hope, going to rag the President, but I am concerned with a certain constitutional principle, and that is that the Estimates should be fully and fairly discussed. We were told in the Governor-General's speech that the Estimates would be laid before us, and would require our careful consideration. I do not know if it is claimed that they have got it. One of the main duties we were sent here to perform was to criticise the Estimates, and I am going to do it. With regard to this point of the employer being liable for the employee, it is a point I was directly interested in for a long time, because I hold that it is not the place of the employer to interpret the relations between the employee and somebody else, and that the employer should be compelled to collect money due by his employees. When the Insurance Act was introduced I asked my servants if they wished me to stop money from their wages to pay for the stamps. They said no, that they got all the advantages of the insurance, pay during illness and such matters, and so I refused to do it. I was prosecuted, and I was finally fined 6d., and as I got a testimonial from the Bench saying that I was a model employer, I thought it was cheap at the price. I hope Deputy Hewat will assert the principle in the same way, and refuse to deduct the 6s., be prosecuted, be fined 6d., or possibly more, or go to jail. That is the only way you can fight these things, these encroachments on what ought to be a private sphere. I was rather surprised to find that Deputy Johnson rather deprecates State interference between employers and employees.
A DEPUTY
You do not know Deputy Johnson.
I despair of ever knowing Deputy Johnson. He becomes a more insoluble mystery every day. I do hope that the President, with that sympathy which he has, will look into this matter also, and urge the Revenue Commissioners to be less drastic in their dealings in cases like this, and to avoid as far as possible bringing the employer into a matter which only concerns the employee.
I can very well understand the complaint of Deputy Hewat, but really I am nonplussed at the attitude of Deputy Johnson. He has in this Dáil advocated the development of a civic idea amongst the people on all occasions, and if there is anything which would tend to the development of the civic idea it is the fact that a man has to put his hand down in his pocket and contribute towards the expenses of the State. That is one of the best means of education. When we on those benches resisted the imposition of the 5/- income tax, and when our friends on the Labour benches said: "We do not mind how high the income tax is," then how can we have sympathy for the grievance, which really is no grievance, when a man is only asked to pay an imposition which we collectively placed on him? There is nothing which will tend more towards the development of the civic sense than compelling each man to contribute his proper share towards the expense of the State, and if by means of this machinery which I voted for, and stand by now, the Revenue Commissioners can collect the money due by the workers I wish them success.
With regard to this question of the inculcation and promotion of the civic spirit to which Deputy Wilson refers, I would like to make an addition, quite briefly, to the particular case mentioned by Deputy Hewat. I am not mentioning that case, but a case of the same kind brought to my notice two or three weeks ago. It was the case of a man who was in receipt of a good salary, and a dispute had arisen between this man and the Revenue Commissioners. I saw the whole correspondence, and I think the matter was really one for the courts, and I think it is quite likely that in the courts the man would be able to justify his case that the small amount in dispute was not owing by him. But what happened? He invited the Revenue Commissioners to take the matter into the courts. He said that there was a question of principle at stake, and if he was wrong he would like the general principle asserted, and he would pay, and then the matter would be decided. Nothing of the kind was done. What happened was that the Revenue Commissioners decided to jump their claim by calling on his employers to pay and deduct it from him; in other words, they took the matter out of the courts leaving on him the onus of proof, and left him over a matter of a few shillings to take the matter into the courts and disputing their action. It was quite a bona fide case. The interpretation I have placed on this particular matter so far as the law is concerned is one interpretation, and the Revenue Commissioners on the other hand have placed another interpretation. Both interpretations cannot be true, and I contend that when a dispute arises between a citizen and a servant of the State as to the interpretation of one of the laws of the realm that the proper place to have that dispute decided is in the law courts, and not that one of the two parties should jump the claim in a small matter, and get the employers to pay and deduct it from his next month's cheque. That is not fair, it is not candid, and it is not showing that proper respect for the decision of the courts that one would expect from the officers of the State.
There is another aspect of this matter which I think would require attention. There seems to be a considerable amount of confusion between the local tax collectors and the arrangements they make and the Revenue Commissioners at headquarters in Dublin. An instance has been brought to my notice in which a person who had certain arrears to pay made arrangements for the payment with the local tax collector, by certain monthly instalments. One or two instalments were paid, and he was willing to continue payment of the others, when suddenly he found his employer had got orders to have the balance of the debt collected, and it was so collected. The local tax collector said that he knew nothing about that arrangement. There seems to be a want of co-operation between the local and the headquarters staffs in these matters, and it causes a good deal of confusion and irritation. I am sorry Deputy Wilson is not here. He misunderstood completely the position that we take in this matter, and that Deputy Johnson took up. Deputy Johnson certainly did not advocate the non-payment of income tax. If there was any quarter of the Dáil from which we might expect sympathy in the matter of arrears, I thought it would be from the Farmers' representatives, who spent a considerable time last year talking of the consideration which people who owed arrears ought to get.
What sympathy did we get from the Labour Party?
Mr. O'CONNELL
Just what we get from the Farmers' Party now.
We gave you our votes.
Can the President say if there are civil servants on loan from the British service in this Department? If so, how many; if their services are to be retained, and if not, when they are to be sent back?
I cannot answer that question right off. It is more than probable that one of the Commissioners is on loan. I do not know if he is going back. I cannot say whether there are any others in the same position. I do know that it is my desire that he should remain. As to the general question, we gave the undertaking that Deputy Johnson has mentioned that no undue hardship would be inflicted in the collection of arrears of income tax, either from employees or employers. It would be better if cases like the one he has mentioned had been brought to the Minister's attention. To make an announcement in the Dáil that we are going to give every facility to persons who owe income tax would not have put us in the position that we are in at present, of having made a very considerable collection of income tax last year. I am rather puzzled about the case the Deputy mentioned. I think he said the person had £4 2s. a week and that the arrears amounted to £34. In that case there must have been over five years' income tax due. Certainly over four years'. That would mean that since the Saorstát was established, no income tax has been paid by that person. That is a different matter to owing arrears. It is unreasonable that people at any rate should not have paid since the Saorstát was established, even if they were to ask for some accommodation in connection with the payment of arrears. £34 arrears on a salary of £205 would work out at £6 5s. per year income tax.
It must be remembered that wages and earnings vary, particularly in that case. That is her present salary. I do not know what salary her income tax was assessed upon. It may be more, or it may be less.
In any case, if it were twice that, for a couple of years I am afraid it means that we got very little income tax from that person since the Saorstát was set up. While admitting that we should give as much facility as is possible, it certainly would be most unwise that I should make a statement here that both employees and employers were to have arrears of income tax spread out over a long period. We certainly would never get in the arrears if that statement were made.
I have approached the Revenue Commissioners in a few cases. In some of these cases the facts reported to me by them present a very different complexion to the facts presented by the individuals against whom the claims were made. I do know of one outrage which they committed. A gentleman who held a very important position in the State and who is now, I think, on our pension list, was leaving the country with a debt behind him to the Commissioners of something like £150. They collected it most unceremoniously as he was getting on to the boat. He had to give a cheque for the amount, which was guaranteed by the bank. He was allowed to proceed after that and caught his boat. I am sure we will be denounced in some foreign country for the outrage committed upon him. There are other cases like that.
The fact is that the Revenue Commissioners got in between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000 in arrears last year. There is no more unpopular person in the State than the income tax collector. I know a man whose pacifist proclivities are not less than Deputy Johnson's. When the income tax collector came to him, this pacifist looked at the window and asked: "Did anybody see you coming up?" He was a very big man, and, naturally, the unfortunate collector beat a hasty retreat. I do not know whether he has collected his income tax yet or not. That is the reception that the income tax collector gets as a rule. We have not accommodated ourselves to bearing income tax with the cold calmness of people who have had a Government that they liked in power. I would much prefer, when cases of hardship are brought to the notice of Deputies, that they would communicate with the Minister or with me. I would undertake to have an examination of such cases. I got an undertaking from the Commissioners, before I put the new section in last year's Finance Act, that there would be no unreasonable demands made upon either employers or employees who owed arrears.
Are the Commissioners to be the judges of what is reasonable?
The Commissioners are to be the judges. In my experience they have not been unreasonable in any case I brought before them. I might probably exclude one, but in most of the cases I have brought under their notice they have been reasonable. Deputy Hewat made a good point when he said that this is legislation that should be reserved for particular periods. I think that the period when income tax will be popular in this country has not yet been reached. There are people—there are our own supporters—officers of the Army, employees of Dáil Eireann——
Judges.
I have not come across any cases of judges. These people, above all others in the State, think they ought to be excluded from paying their share of income tax, and have repeatedly remonstrated with me. They stated that they got their salaries from the former Dáil free of income tax, and that they should now be free from it. I think I have put the Dáil in possession of information to show that I could not say we are going to spread out these arrears over a long period. If I did that, the work of the income tax collectors would be made impossible. But if there are cases reported to them which Deputies think are unjust and unfair, and in which some more accommodation should be afforded by the Commissioners, I will undertake to bring these cases before the Commissioners.
Apart from a particular case, if a case should arise where there is a genuine difference as to interpretation, and the Revenue Commissioners are invited to dispute the matter in a court of law, and get a decision, will the President give an assurance that they will not jump their claim by coming down on the person through the employer?
I am afraid that case involves a question of law. I should not be asked to give a decision on it. If the Deputy gives me particulars I will see whether it is open to the Commissioners to do that or not. Although the case mentioned by Deputy Hewat is a hardship, I am not so sure that I could say the Revenue Commissioners could do anything else. The 6s. was either a balance or an amount in dispute. If it was not in dispute I do not know whether the Revenue Commissioners would be entitled to take it to court instead of going to the employer. In connection with the assessment of income tax I think there is a period when it is open to an individual to appeal to other Commissioners rather than to the Revenue Commissioners.
May I remind the President that it is in his hands to make income tax very much more popular.
I would like to call attention to one or two matters that come under this Vote. It is questionable if a very considerable amount of dutiable commodities have not been dumped on our shores for the past six or eight months. One hears whisperings in the country that brandies, tobaccos, and other dutiable goods are being dumped. I cannot say for certain if that is so. Perhaps the Minister has reports from the Revenue inspectors. I do not think our coast is being protected. It cannot be asserted that one vessel is able to protect the whole coast line. All the other boats are laid up at Haulbowline for a considerable period. There is a general feeling that at an early date the Government should procure a number of boats in order to protect the coast line.
That matter has been under consideration for some time. I intended to have an interview between the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Defence, and myself, but as I happen, at the moment, to occupy the three positions——
I suppose one will form a quorum.
I hope when the Minister for Finance returns, and when the Minister for Defence is appointed, that it will be possible to have a conference.
I desire to point out that a serious loss to the revenue arises from the fact that the putting of a twopenny stamp on receipts has become more or less obsolete. I was shown three receipts this morning for amounts over £2 on which there were no stamps. The habit is probably due to the fact that people were not encouraged to stamp receipts for some years. It is a matter, however, that the Revenue authorities should take into consideration. Those who issue receipts should be told that it is an offence if a twopenny stamp is not placed on them. The person who showed me the receipts did not know it was an offence to take them for amounts over £2 without a stamp.
I take it that Deputy Hennessy raised this matter in connection with item (k), for which the contribution is £1,200 against £2,000 last year, showing a reduction of £800. On a former occasion I think Deputy McGoldrick advocated very strongly a reduction of the duties on wines and spirits. His principal argument, I think, was that the enormous duties payable on these commodities were an incentive to poteen-making, and generally to the use of injurious fluids. Looking at the matter in its broad aspect, it would seem to me that the present duties are a very grave risk to the country generally. With our coast-line as it is, does any Deputy think that the ingenuity of the people will not be exercised in connection with the very profitable occupation of bringing in goods without paying duty on them? Anyone who would say that the coast-line can be guarded against such tactics by one obsolete vessel, would be very innocent of the possibilities of human nature. We have not been looking after our own affairs very long, but it seems to me that if the present system is to continue, of having very high duties payable on such goods, you are faced with a very considerable increase in expenditure under this head. The coast line is practically unguarded, and if any man says to me that, in parts of the country the running of spirits and wines cannot be carried on with impunity, he is asking me to believe something that my own experience would not endorse.
Does the Deputy know where a dump is?
If I did know I am not such a fool as to tell my friend, Deputy Alton. I do think seriously that one of two things will happen. The Government will either have to face a very considerable reduction in these taxes—I do not know how they are going to do it—or if they are going to collect these taxes in perpetuity the sooner they get ready to guard the coast line against people who use it to make money on such cargoes the better. Deputy Hennessy says he does not know if this trade is being carried on, as he only heard whisperings. I am sure the longer the present situation continues the more whisperings there will be, and the less the revenue will receive from wines and spirits and other dutiable articles.
Does the Deputy suggest a reduction in taxes on spirits and tobacco?
Yes, as an alternative.
I suggested a reduction on wines and spirits. I think the boats referred to here are those that run out the Customs officers from Dublin. Take the coast, and there is no difficulty in running brandy or wine or spirits all along the coast line of the Free State. I could do it myself if I had the money, and I would rather like the job, but it will not be remedied by putting into commission half a dozen vessels to watch the coast line. The excitement and pleasure would be only added to by putting on half a dozen trawlers, and they are nothing but trawlers. You could run spirits in a thousand places along the coast and get rid of them, even if half a dozen ships were on the seas. If you want to protect the coast properly and if you want to prevent the smuggling which Deputy Hennessy alleges goes on— there is none of it on the West coast because there were one or two men put on their honour that they would not allow any smuggling—you must institute coastguards who will properly protect the coast and prevent any smuggling. That is the only way it can be done. Even at any of the ports in the Saorstát at present where there are Customs officers you could run any of these dutiable goods, because the ship is never boarded until it comes alongside the quay.
I wish to deal with one matter on this Vote and it is more in the interests of the parties who do not reside in our area but who are living in the Six Counties. I have been approached on this question by some of these people and they are not unworthy of being represented here. They have interests here in the Free State and the question of income tax on dividends that are coming to them from establishments in this area is a source of irritation. Income tax is deducted from these dividends when they are issued here and when they reach them and they go to lodge the dividends income tax at the rate of 4/6 in the £ is deducted again in the Northern area, so that they have a very small return from their investments when these two amounts are taken off. When they try to get some refund they find it a matter of considerable difficulty. Two cases have come under my notice recently in connection with the Great Northern Railway investment. I understand that recently the Commissioners have an apportionment made as to how much of the profits of the Great Northern Railway are earned on our side and on the northern side respectively. I understand that the figures are 1/3½ and 3/8½ and they are able to make a refund on that basis. There is some difficulty with the Revenue Commissioners in getting this done and in getting their money refunds the people are often in difficulties. Some of them are parties who cannot afford very well to face these difficulties. They are perhaps widowed women or orphan children who are depending on these dividends and they are in a position, pending refunds, of great hardship. I would wish the President to impress on the Revenue Commissioners to facilitate the forwarding of refunds to these orphans and other parties and to see that these people are not forced to the only alternative, that is, to realise investments in the Free State. They could not continue any such investment in the Saorstát because they could not afford to have all this trouble. They would have to realise these investments here and that would mean that a large number of such investments would have to be realised, thus causing a big depreciation in the stock and consequently it would be detrimental to our establishments in this area.
On the question Deputy Hennessy raised, it is too much to take the coast on credit; we are not taking the Land Border on credit. We have that fairly well staffed, but there is undoubtedly a deal of stuff filtering through to our disadvantage, and a great deal of revenue lost notwithstanding all the energy that the staff can concentrate on the work and the great expense we are at in maintaining this staff. If that is necessary on the land side, I think it will surely be equally necessary on the shore side, but the suggestion of Deputy Hewat would, to a large extent, do away with the necessity of having supervision on these coast lines by the duties being the same. Then there could not be any such inducements, and when they could not get any advantage in this way we would have solved the difficulty and would have little need of supervision on the coast line, land or sea. That would be the right way, and the only way, they could safely guard themselves and so save as much on one side as they would lose on the other. That would imply equal duties. Our duties are excessive on liquors and sugar. Not only does this cause us trouble in this way, but it causes a great many of the difficulties that we have in the labour world and in other directions. I think it is one of the things the Ministry ought to keep before them. It is not exactly what would be advocated by the Temperance Party, but you cannot suit everybody. We do not stand for any policy that would run counter to the encouragement of temperance or to proper living. At the same time, it is necessary to ease the situation in that way, and to feel that people who want these little privileges who have not so many privileges in life, while other people have abundance of privileges, should be considered. I think you should not deprive the ordinary community of having these advantages to a certain extent. That is all I have to say on that question at present. It does not come up just now. I think that the Revenue Commissioners are doing their work fairly well, but they must press very strongly for getting arrangements made whereby this double taxation would be so arranged that the proper refunds can be obtained simply and speedily.
I want to say a word as this question of smuggling has been mentioned, because I am reliably informed that smuggling is going on, not on the coast line but on the Border. It has been brought to my notice on many occasions, and I think that the Revenue Commissioners should take serious notice of it, that a big trade is being done across the Border, especially in sugar, sweets and tobacco, to the detriment of the income of the State, and I think the sooner the Commissioners see that supervision is tightened up the better, because I am thoroughly convinced that we are losing a good deal of revenue by it. A man who gets five cwts. of sugar across the Border gets £5 or £10 for his trouble, and I believe it is done with impunity at various points from Newry to Derry in every place where there is a railway and a town, where sugar and sweets are being brought in, and a good deal of revenue is being lost. I am not finding any fault with the Revenue Commissioners for the way in which they have been carrying out their duties, but I believe they should tighten up that matter and see that better precautions are taken.
Some time ago I spoke to the Minister for Finance with reference to tobacco licences, that is, in the case of shopkeepers who sell tobacco. Very few of them are paying the licence. I also asked him if he would consider the advisability of readjusting the whole business. The huckster pays 5/- a year licence, the very same as the big shopkeeper in Grafton Street or College Green. The licences for the sale of tobacco ought, I think, to be based on the valuation of the shop or premises, but in most cases the licence is not paid at all. The Minister at that time said he would go into the matter, but I do not know if he has any information about it.
There was a question on the subject, I think about a fortnight ago, by Deputy Cooper, who wished to know the number of prosecutions during the last month. I think there were thirteen cases, and I understand there was only one prosecution. I am not aware of the fact that people are not even paying for the licences, but I do know that the Minister for Finance had this matter under consideration some time ago. I cannot say at what stage the consideration of the matter is at present. He had a proposal that Deputy MacCarthy put to him that the licence should be graded on the valuation of the house. I think that at that time it was put to the Minister that even if that were done, and very considerable amounts were paid for certain houses, there would be scarcely any alteration as far as the revenue was concerned; that it would be an advantage to the larger shops, but that there would be no revenue advantage in it, and I think that that was one of the reasons why the matter was not dealt with in the Finance Bill of this year.
Would the Minister point out why there would be no revenue advantage?
By reason of the small number of shops which would pay the higher charge. I think that in the City of Dublin about a hundred shops would pay the higher charge, and quite a number of small ones would probably drop out. You would have to balance the extra income with the loss by reason of the small ones going out of business.
I would imagine that the revenue would benefit very materially, because there is no doubt that the licences are not collected. That was admitted to me by the Minister himself. If you did wipe out these small shops you would not have to look after them, and you would get the licences from a smaller number of shops, and the revenue would be bound to benefit. It is two years since I spoke to the Minister for Finance about the matter, and he is still considering it.
Vote put and agreed to.