DÁIL IN COMMITTEE. - STATISTICAL TAX ON POSTAL PARCELS. – Dáil Éireann (4th Dáil) – Wednesday, 22 Oct 1924

DÁIL IN COMMITTEE. - STATISTICAL TAX ON POSTAL PARCELS.

Major COOPER

I move:—

That the charge of 6d. collected on all postal parcels originating outside an Saorstát should not have been imposed without consultation with the Dáil.

I do so on definite constitutional grounds. This is a tax, a very farreaching tax, and one of great importance to a great many sections of the community. It is not a tax that affects one class or one interest alone. It is a tax that affects people widely, and therefore the representatives of the people should have been consulted before it was imposed. Among the classes that are affected by this tax are students and scientific people who get books, specimens, and so on, from abroad. They now find that they have to pay 6d. on every parcel. I may quote, to verify my words, from a magazine which is not a political organ at all, the Dublin Magazine. It dealt with this at some length. I will not quote it at full length, but I will read the conclusion: “So far as the imposition upon books is concerned this tax is iniquitous. It is an outrage and ought to be removed immediately. The taxing of the acquisition of knowledge is not the way to produce an educated and a cultured State, and this tax upon knowledge should be abolished forthwith.” I want to call the particular attention of the Dáil to this: “Perhaps the Secretary of the Post Office will take action in the matter.” That is what it is coming to; when taxes are put on by administrative action, the people not only ignore the Dáil but they ignore Ministers, and expect the Civil Service to impose and remove taxes on their own initiative. That is the result of taking this action. But, of course, students are a comparatively small and uninfluential class in the community.

This tax has also been resented and has been much opposed by the business community, particularly that section who have an export trade, and I need hardly remind the Dáil that our greatest need at the present time is to build up our export trade in order to correct the unfavourable trade balance against us. I have a letter from a firm in my constituency, seventy-five per cent. of whose trade is export. They are employing labour and giving work, and they find that this tax is a very severe impediment to their industry, and that the concessions that have been made in response to the trade outcry do not meet it in the smallest degree. "The nature of our goods (which are stockings) is such that they are made up in small parcels, and so a considerable number of them are sent by parcel post, are returned from shopkeepers in England also by parcel post. Also we receive a considerable quantity of our raw material, such as yarns, dyes, etc., by parcel post. The Post Office regulations giving only fourteen days for the return of goods is impossible; many of our customers are in California and New Zealand, and it is manifestly impossible for goods to be returned from these places in fourteen days." That is one instance, and it is not the only instance. I could quote other cases if necessary, in which this tax has been felt as onerous and arduous by trade. But over and above the imposition on trade there is the claim of the ordinary citizen. I do not underrate the claims of business, and I do not want to exaggerate them; but there is hardly a household in this country which has not some member in the United States, the Six Counties or Great Britain, and every parcel that is received from these exiles has now to bear this tax, and what is more, they do not know that this tax has to be paid. If you go into a Post Office in England or in the United States with a parcel you are sending to Ireland, you do not see any notice about this Delivery Tax of 6d. The result will be that as the Christmas season is coming on, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs will have more taxes to collect than he will know how to collect; that every family will get parcels, presents for the children and things of that kind, sent by exiled aunts and uncles, and on every one of these parcels the 6d. tax will have to be paid. I humbly submit, sir, that that is not to the advantage or to the benefit of the State, and that the soundest maxim of taxation is that taxes should be levied as unostentatiously as possible, and as seldom as possible, and that the continual putting on of small taxes of this kind is intensely irritating, intensely annoying, and calculated to make those people who are in a position to go out of the country make up their minds to do so.

Whatever the reason for the tax may be, I could understand a case being made, and I have no doubt the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs will make a case for it, but whether we approve of the tax or disapprove of it, surely everybody must agree that the imposition of any tax of this kind should have the widest possible publicity, should be made known to the world by discussion and debate in the Dáil, so that people would have an opportunity of putting their views forward. It should not merely be imposed by administrative action, and not very obvious administrative action. I have been in a good many post offices recently and I have never seen any notices about this tax. I do not know whether there are any; I do not know whether it merely appeared in the Post Office Journal or whether it only appeared in the Press. The first I knew of the tax was when I had to pay it, and I humbly suggest that the more people know what they have to pay, the more people know what are the exemptions—there is an exemption, I believe, with regard to Book Post; that was made known to the public by one line at the bottom of a long communication in the newspapers—the more people know, then the less troublesome it is. But to do a thing merely as a piece of office routine, with no explanation or communication to the general public at all, is the very worst way.

I am not disputing the power of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to impose this tax. He has it. Undoubtedly he has legal power to impose a delivery charge of 6d. on every parcel. He has that power under old British Acts. He has equally legal power to raise the postage on letters to a shilling a letter, or even to £1 a letter. But will it be contended that he would be wise to exercise that legal power while the Dáil is in existence, without coming to the Dáil and getting its opinion? I humbly suggest that it would not. It is excellent to have a giant's strength, but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant. The powers of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs are very large, necessarily very large, but he would be wise, I think, if he exercised them subject to the advice, the guidance, and the help of the Dáil.

I believe he gave his reasons for imposing this tax to the Cork Chamber of Commerce. I do not wish to depreciate the Cork Chamber of Commerce; they are an important body, and as they are an important section of his constituents, the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has a responsibilty to them. It is not a ministerial responsibility, but is the responsibility of a Deputy which each and every one of us has. His Ministerial responsibility is especially strong because he is an External Minister. It is to this Dáil, and to this Dáil alone, and his reasons for imposing this tax should have been made clear to this Dáil in the first place, and we should not be a second string to the Cork Chamber of Commerce.

I leave the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. I am sure that he considers he was justified in what he did. But he could not have done what he did without the sanction of the Minister for Finance, and I am going to suggest, and more than suggest, that the Minister for Finance, in giving his sanction to the action of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, disregarded an undertaking given in the course of a debate in the Dáil. On the 15th of May of this year I moved an amendment with regard to the Statistical Tax, exempting parcels sent by book post or parcel post, and I explained, in moving it, that though the Minister might say that the amendment was redundant, I wanted to secure that he would have to go to the Dáil for authority before imposing it. The Minister for Finance then said:—

I may explain, when I said that something must be done in regard to the parcels post, that it will be done in an entirely different way. It will be done by an order made by the Postmaster-General and consented to by the Minister for Finance, fixing the postal delivery charge, but there is no intention whatever to alter the arrangement with regard to Customs and postal traffic. There is no intention to require the Customs entry for parcels sent by post. The matter will be done in an entirely different way.

I then asked him: "Will the Order be laid on the Table of the Dáil? Will it be open to have a discussion on it?" The Minister, in reply, said:—

Yes, it will be open to the Dáil to discuss it. It is part of the ordinary commercial arrangement of the Post Office. The Postmaster-General is carrying on a trade in connection with these charges.

I then said: "Is that an undertaking that the Dáil will be given an opportunity of discussing it," because I was not quite satisfied even with that. The Minister said: "I will undertake that," and I withdrew the amendment in consequence of that undertaking. I did not press it to a division. I wanted to have the opinion of the Dáil on this point, and in consequence of that undertaking I withdrew it.

How has that undertaking been fulfilled? I asked if the order would be laid on the table; the Minister did not answer, but I think he intended me to understand that it would. The order has been laid on the table. It was not there when I went to look for it on Monday. It was laid on the table of the Dáil to-day, long after I had put down this motion. It was issued on the 1st September and laid on the table of the Dáil on the 22nd October. I do not think that is a fair way of treating the Dáil, that Ministers should keep these orders up their sleeves and just dump them down, not on the first day the Dáil meets, but a week after.

I might have raised this matter as matter of urgent importance last Wednesday, but I did not want to interfere in the Boundary Debate. If I had I should have no facts to go on. I know now the terms of the order. I had time to read it twenty minutes before the Dáil sat. I do not know how many other Deputies saw the terms of that order. It is possible, I do not say it is probable, that the Minister will ride off and say he gave no specific undertaking that it should be discussed before it was put into force. He did not, but in these things in a give-and-take debate, there must be a certain amount of latitude allowed. He gave the impression that we should have an effective discussion, and on the strength of that impression I withdrew my amendment. I am not bringing forward this motion in any spirit of hostility to the Minister. I am bringing it forward mainly to assert the rights of the Dáil and also to establish the principle that the pledges of Ministers should be honoured in the spirit as well as in the letter. Unless we, who sit in opposition to the Government, can have that feeling—and we have had that feeling, and I think other Deputies will bear me out, especially towards the Minister of Finance—Ministers will find it very much more difficult to get the business of the House carried on, because we shall be forced to scrutinise every jot and tittle of every word of every undertaking. That would not be to the advantage of the Government or the Dáil as a whole.

I have not brought this forward, as I have said, in any hostile spirit to the Government. I realise that in present conditions a change of Government would be a disastrous and almost a ruinous thing to the State, but I felt bound to assert at the earliest possible moment the principle of the supremacy of the Dáil in all matters of taxation. I beg to move the motion.

Professor THRIFT

I formally second the motion, reserving my right to speak later on.

Mr. BLYTHE

I feel, in a sense, a certain apology is due to Deputy Bryan Cooper, though I at the same time do not think I could have done any differently from what I did. As Deputy Cooper says, the form of undertaking given by me in the Dáil was not sufficiently explicit. I intended that the Order should be laid on the Table of the Dáil before it came into operation. Having given that and before anything was done, I fell ill and was away. People in the Post Office and elsewhere who were dealing with it had before them only what appeared in the Official Report with regard to my undertaking, and they do not appear to have regarded the undertaking as one that there should be a discussion on in the Dáil before the charges came into operation; consequently, knowing that I was in favour of this charge, they proceeded with the business of putting it into operation. I arrived home only a couple of days before the charge was made. Notice had been given to the public that the charge would be made; instructions had been sent out to make the charge. I could at that point have refused to sign the warrant, but the confusion would have been very great indeed. At the very best, I think the collection would have been made for a day or two, but then it would have stopped. Then there would have been the question of making refunds to those who had paid. In all the circumstances, although I fully intended that the Order should be laid on the Table of the Dáil before it came into operation, I decided the best thing to do was to sign the warrant, and I signed it.

I would like to correct Deputy Cooper on one point. He says he withdrew his amendment on the strength of what I said. He did undoubtedly, but as a matter of fact, I was very much tempted to accept it. Whether it was passed, rejected, or withdrawn made no difference whatever. The passing of that amendment would not have in any way affected the imposition of this charge, so that was one of the factors I took into consideration in deciding whether or not in the circumstances, I would sign the warrant. There is another point about it—that the Dáil has in some ways a better opportunity for considering the matter now than it would have had before it came into operation. It is one of the peculiar circumstances of the times that people who are affected by various charges seem only to wake up to the results of them when the charge has actually come into operation.

In regard to the sixpenny statistical tax which led to this particular delivery charge, there was no opposition at all until the tax was levied. Then people woke up. I suggest to Deputy Cooper he has really a much better atmosphere now for putting forward any opposition he has to this charge than before anybody objected to it.

Major COOPER

I opposed it all along.

Mr. BLYTHE

It seems to me on the merits of the case, leaving that particular matter out of consideration, that there is nothing to be said against this delivery fee. We know that the Post Office is run at a loss. We know that the parcels post side of it is run at a loss. They are delivering in this country something like two million more parcels than are sent to Great Britain from this country. We receive from the British Post Office for the excess only half their nett postal charge. The delivering of parcels, especially in this country, is more costly than the collection. We had not under that arrangement got anything like the charges imposed on us by the influx of these parcels.

It simply means that, to an extent, the delivery of those parcels from Great Britain is a subsidised service. Until this particular arrangement was made our postal charges for each step in the scale were 3d. higher than those of the British. Every person here had to pay 3d. more than in Great Britain. That was a very undesirable state of affairs, and it is a good thing that we have been able to turn the scale in the other way. There is no reference at all to the advantages which accrue to the public under this particular warrant. Everyone who had to post a parcel here was able to post it 3d. more cheaply than before the change came into effect. There are two streams of small consignments into the country—that which comes by the parcel post and that which comes by boats and railways. When we had the 6d. statistical tax on goods brought by ordinary carriers, it was necessary that this charge should be made. To impose a 6d. tax and not to put a charge like this on postal parcels, would have meant a necessary increase in postal carriage, and loss would ensue. Besides, it would put off further the possibility of reducing charges to people in the country. There are, I believe, likely to be as good results from this charge as from the 6d. statistical tax. I think employment in connection with distribution is given in England which might be very well given here with no loss to the community. That was our whole desire in dealing with the matter—to bring employment here that is being given to people in Great Britain. I think this particular charge will effect it.

In regard to any details of the warrant, representations can always be made and can be considered. There might be no objections, for instance, to increasing the 14 days allowed for the return of goods exported. That is a matter that should be considered, but as to the main warrant itself, I think it is thoroughly justified. It was necessary, having regard to what the Dáil did—and the main principle was approved by the Dáil when it voted in favour of the 6d. statistical tax. There is no doubt, as Deputy Cooper says, of the power of the Post Office to impose the charges without consultation with the Dáil in advance. There is a question as to whether it is desirable or not to exercise that power. It is probable that where big charges are contemplated it would be wise to come to the Dáil in advance, but in minor matters there seems to be no necessity for that, and even since the Treaty there have been warrants issued which were only presented to the Dáil in the way prescribed by the Act. There was a change made in October, 1922, when there was a reduction on the rates of postage of printed books. There was another warrant on the 3rd April of this year, imposing a delivery fee on all parcels coming into the country from the United States of America. So that in the imposition of this charge there was a precedent, and the fact has also to be borne in mind that in view of the fact that a discussion of the 6d. tax took place, this is not the same as if the charge, came like a bolt from the blue. It was really ruled in principle when the 6d. tax was passed. I have to say, personally, that I regret the misunderstanding which arose in connection with my undertaking to Deputy Cooper. If it had not been for my illness and absence, the warrant would have been laid before the House before it came into operation. In the circumstances that I found existing when I came back, I found I had no alternative but to sign it.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

At the time the Minister introduced measures imposing this tax on ordinary parcels coming through other streams besides the Post Office, I opposed it very strongly and for the same reason I oppose this. I am not satisfied that the reasons given by the Minister are satisfactory. There was a considerable trade with England on many articles which cannot be produced in this country, and by imposing this tax the Minister has added one further item to the increase in the cost of living. He has made things dearer. I do not think it will result in increased trade. The only result I can see that is possible is that some distributing agency might be established in Ireland, and by getting the goods across in large parcels and advertising them the same employment might be given here as is given in England. If that is taken up by enterprising firms, it is all to the good.

Mr. DAVIN

What about the Six Counties?

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I was dealing with it from the point of view of England. The greater number come from England. The result is that this tax is a protection to the Irish distributor, and at the same time has the effect of increasing the cost of living. A portion of the parcel postage only is given to the Free State. From England we only get half. It seems to me it may be possible, by an arrangement with the English Postmaster-General, slightly to increase this in order to pay the actual expenses of the parcel post in this country. I am not satisfied that the thing is going to result in anything except to do what the different form of taxation put on by the Minister in his Budget does. It is a protective tax to protect the men in this country who are not enterprising enough to get those goods and distribute them themselves in the open market.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Deputy Heffernan referred to this as a protective tax. I think a good deal of the difficulty in regard to this is that it is intended as a protective tax. The justification the Minister has given argues in that direction. He defined it as creating a further amount of employment here. The effects of this tax are effects usually claimed under Protection. It is not regarded as an increased rate in respect of postal packages, which, I suggest, is what the Minister means when he says it is justifiable to issue it as a warrant. It is really not an increased postal rate, but in effect something which is intended to be like a definite tax. As a tax, it therefore should have been brought before this Dáil, before it was put into effect, for the definite sanction of the Dáil. The Minister for Finance refers to the benefits that the imposts will bring about. Whether they will or will not bring about those benefits is not a matter which it would be appropriate to discuss under this motion. What is proper to discuss under this motion is, that if his claims are correct, and if these benefits will be conferred, then it should be done frankly in the form of taxation, and not in the form of an impost that is partly taxation, and partly an increased charge on postal rates. As a charge on postal rates, the amount of damage it is doing is quite disproportionate to any benefit it might bring about.

I have, for example, a book which I received this morning. The book was received from an English publisher by an Irish bookseller. The price of the book is 2/6. That is a case where application was not made for the tax to the English publisher but to the Irish bookseller. The book was published by an English publisher—it might have been published by an American publisher—and it cost 6d. extra—in fact, a 20 per cent. ad valorem duty on reading matter. That is the effect of this particular imposition. At the moment, I am not greatly urging that that form of duty is a bad form of duty, intended to nurture the distributive trade in Ireland. It should be done by some other method than this. It should be done by definitely bringing that specific proposal to the Dáil in order that the Dáil might consider every aspect of it and definitely give its sanction. It should not be done out of hand by the fiat of the Minister. I think much of the case that the Minister for Finance has argued very reasonably, very justly, and fairly, is an argument not to justify the manner of the imposition of the tax. In a very large degree he has admitted the substance of the motion standing in Deputy Cooper's name. His argument tends towards an entirely different thing—that is to justify this form of what Deputy Heffernan justly, I think, describes as a protective duty.

As protective duties are to be considered, they raise an entirely different subject of discussion. This is neither a postal rate nor is it a protective duty, but it is doing a considerable amount of harm to the community, and that harm is not commensurate with any benefits that will be conferred. The Minister may say that is a subject of question, but I think subjects of question ought to be brought before the Dáil in order that the pros and cons could be fully entered into. Changes of this kind should only be introduced after the Dáil has considered the merits or demerits and should not be made by fiat of the Minister.

Mr. HEWAT

I think it is unfortunate that the Minister, when replying to Deputy Cooper, should have to apologise for the non-carrying out of an undertaking that was given. Of course, the Minister has explained frankly that it was due to causes over which he had no control. I think the Departments concerned in this matter ought at least to have seen that steps were taken to honour the undertaking that was given at the time by the Minister of Finance. However, that is as far as I think I could go in favour of the motion. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs seems to have the power to impose this tax. Apart from the question of his power to impose a tax—or a charge rather—you have a situation which would be entirely illogical if the Parcels Post was free to take parcels which, under the Finance Act, were able to come through other sources without the charge of 6d. I have no hesitation in saying, as I said when the Budget was going through, that I considered that that charge of 6d. that was proposed to be imposed was oppressive and irritating to the public, and I think non-effective. Those of us who were opposed to the 6d. tax—and I think a good many of us got no public recognition for it—said that it was only when the tax came to be imposed that the public would wake up to the inconvenience and annoyance that would be created when it was passed in the Budget. I take it that it would not be proper at the present time to enter into the basis of this charge. It is obvious that the application of the 6d. statistical tax in any form by the Post Office is broadening the charge, in so far as the public have in the past, or are at present using the Post Office as a medium for sending small parcels. I think that the education the public are getting in this matter will be a valuable asset when the Minister for Finance comes along to perpetuate that charge, which, in my opinion, is an unwholesome charge, and is not going to do very much in the direction forecasted when the charge was put on.

POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. J.J. Walsh)

I thought I would have heard some arguments against the imposition of the tax, other than on technical grounds. I think, however, the latter has been the line pursued, and the other grounds were ignored for the obvious reason that there is no argument against this imposition. That fact has been made evident to Deputies.

Mr. JOHNSON

The Minister is replying on the technical side, and as I think one or two Deputies want to raise some matters, it would be inadvisable for him to continue now, as in that case there would be no responsible Minister to reply. I think Deputy Thrift was rising, and I had also some questions to put.

Professor THRIFT

I should like to say, personally, that I accept the Minister's explanation as to the procedure that has been adopted with reference to the imposition of this charge. I would like to get some information, and I can get it best by again referring to the statistical tax of 6d. I think I am right in saying that when the Dáil agreed to this statistical tax it was under the impression that it was to be a 6d. tax on parcels, and not on every item contained in the parcel. I think that was very explicitly brought out. I believe I am right in saying that the 6d. tax was on the parcel and not on every item in the invoice. The point I want to raise is: does a similar rule apply to this 6d. tax or 6d. charge on a postal packet? Personally, I do not think I would like to say any more about the procedure adopted as the Minister for Finance has definitely stated it is his intention to put this matter before the Dáil.

Mr. JOHNSON

I am inclined to ask the Dáil to agree to an amendment to this motion, if it be acceptable. I think the opportunities for handing in amendments were not very great, and I want to put the position of one who approves of the 6d. tax, but disapproves of the manner of imposing the 6d. charge made for postal delivery on external parcels, as I shall call them. The position taken up by Deputy Cooper in the motion, I would support, because I think, notwithstanding the powers of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, it is very desirable when making any major change in the working of the Post Office that the proposal should come before the Dáil before such a matter is finally decided. On that ground I approve of the terms of the motion—that the charge should not have been imposed without consultation with the Dáil. If the motion is pressed to a division and passed in its present form, the course of the discussion would lead one to believe that the voting for the motion would mean disapproval of the charge, but I am not prepared to support that.

Major COOPER

I do not think the terms of the motion do that at all.

Mr. JOHNSON

I agree to the terms of the motion, but the course of the discussion suggests that that would be the intention.

Major COOPER

No; I would not tack on that.

Mr. JOHNSON

Then the Deputy would be agreeable to amend his motion, perhaps in the form which I would like; that is to say "While approving of the charge of 6d. collected on all postal parcels originating outside Saorstát Eireann, the Dáil considers it should not be imposed without consultation with it."

Major COOPER

No.

Mr. JOHNSON

I am going to ask An Leas-Cheann Comhairle if he will accept that amendment, subject to the leave of the House, and if so, I will speak in favour of it. I think the motion was only circulated yesterday or to-day, and opportunity for handing in amendments has been limited. I, therefore, ask that this amendment be taken now.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Why not put it without prejudice to the merits or demerits of this particular tax?

Mr. JOHNSON

If my motion is passed, Deputy Figgis can put that forward as another amendment. These are the terms of the amendment I wish to move: "While approving of the charge of 6d. collected on all postal parcels originating outside Saorstát Eireann, the Dáil considers that it should not have been imposed without consultation with it." I think the case made, even by the Minister, justifies the imposition of the charge on parcels coming into the country. There are undoubtedly grievances, but I think most of them have arisen from the fact that the matter has not been very well advertised and that senders in England, and recipients in Ireland have not understood the responsibility of sending parcels to this country. I think that will remedy itself in a very short time. There may be other grievances, but I think those grievances can be remedied by some slight modification and exception from the general rule underlying this charge for delivery.

If it is true—and we must accept the statement—that the number of parcels that come to the country as compared with those going out of the country is very greatly in excess and the cost to the postal service is exorbitant, then we should not be asked to pay for the convenience of the exporters of British commodities who are advertising in Irish papers, persuading the Irish public to send their orders to British establishments in competition with those very estimable firms represented on the Chamber of Commerce, of which our esteemed colleagues are such great ornaments. I think there is very good reason for preventing, if possible, the development of this postal order trade from England into Ireland, and I think that this method is probably the most effective method. But in addition to that, apart from the merits or demerits of that trade, the senders ought to bear the cost of delivery in this country; or if not the senders, then the recipients of these particular parcels rather than the general tax payers.

I think here is a case where the public service should not be asked to bear a general charge for the sake of particular interests, because it is quite clearly inviting the citizens of this country to do their trade with firms outside the country in competition with those within it. On that ground only, which you may say is protective, I approve of the imposition of this charge. I think, however, that there might well be some discrimination in the matter of books and printed paper. The question I want to ask the Minister in his reply is, how far it is within the competence of the sender of a book to evade the necessity for paying this tax within the limits of the present postal arrangements? Does the tax fall on books sent as printed documents? The Minister says "no." Then I take it if books and papers are sent as printed documents they will not be liable to the 6d. charge.

Mr. J.J. WALSH

Up to 2 lbs.

Mr. JOHNSON

If we get a book of over 2 lbs. is it possible it is worth the extra 6d.? If you get two or three copies of certain voluminous Sunday papers, they may be over 2 lbs. and they may be liable to tax. It depends on the paper, of course. It may be said to be a tax on knowledge. If the senders would remove the advertisement pages, it would come within the limits of weight, and we would have the value of the knowledge without the enticement to the public to send orders across the water, so that all parties would be served by a recognition of the rules and regulations the Department have made.

I think the case made against the tax, because it is a tax on knowledge, fails very much in view of what the Minister has conveyed to us, that if parcels of books and papers are definitely accepted as printed matter and are not 2 lbs. in weight, they will not be liable to this charge. I agree with Deputy Cooper that all the information regarding this charge should be made as widely known as possible. I am afraid that that is one of the defects of the Government as a whole. Perhaps the Minister for Finance is responsible. He seems to insist on Departments hiding their lights under bushels, and he will not let them give information to the public about anything connected with the business of the Government—with the Ministry of Posts and Telegraphs, the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, or the Ministry of Education. You cannot get information without seeking it in holes and corners, instead of having published as widely as possible all the good things which the Government has done, and even some of the bad things. At least let us know what they are doing.

I suggest this is one of the points that the Ministry ought to make public in a much wider, more definite, and clearer way than they have done. I think the Dáil should not pass the motion in its present form, because it will be taken to be a condemnation of the action of the Ministry in imposing this charge. The arguments that have been adduced in favour of it have been mainly on the merits of the charge, and I would ask the Dáil to agree with the amendment, formally approving of the charge, but disapproving of the imposition of such a charge without consulting the Dáil. I beg to move that amendment.

Mr. NAGLE

I second.

Major COOPER

I very often wondered who it was wrote in the newspapers all the answers to correspondents, in which one gifted person is able to advise all sorts of people of different sorts and categories on their most intimate affairs. I know now it is Deputy Johnson. He knows more about everybody's business than the representatives of that business themselves. A little while ago on the Liquor Bill he was expounding his knowledge of fairs, even more than the farmers. Now he knows far more about trade, and how to promote trade in the Saorstát, than the unfortunate people engaged in it. I have received a letter from one of the largest wholesalers in Dublin in which he writes: "It will be noticed in the Government Statement (which reads more like an apologia), published on 17th September as to why this tax was imposed, one of their main reasons appears to be to curtail, and if possible stop individuals from shopping outside the Free State by post. Now, it is inconceivable that any individual requiring a certain article which cannot be bought in this country, and which they require, is going to do without it for the sake of six pence, or take a substitute which is really not what he or she may require.

Furthermore, it is admitted that the average prices in our trade are lower in England than here, and that in addition in a shopping centre such as London a far greater variety can be seen than in Dublin, or any other centre in the Free State. Therefore, it is natural that many people will prefer to continue to get their goods where they can get a very much larger selection, and frequently at a cheaper price, even if they have to pay a further six pence."

A P.S. is added "Since writing the above we have been charged 2/- on four bales of hosiery from Donegal, i.e., from Free State Territory, merely because they had to reach Dublin via the Great Northern Railway."

Mr. JOHNSON

This is not a hosiery tax.

Major COOPER

I do not know the size of the bale. This refers to it as a postal tax. "One of their main reasons appears to be to curtail, and if possible, to stop individuals from shopping outside the Free State by post." That is the view of a trader against Deputy Johnson's theoretical knowledge. The tax has not been welcomed by the people who are actually engaged in the trade. I think that defies contradiction. With regard to books, I hope that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs when he speaks in reply will tell us more about book post and books being exempt. People are very ignorant about the book post, and what may be sent by book post. I have here the wrapper of a parcel on which is written by one of the Minister's myrmidons, "Contained a letter. Transferred to parcel post. Threepence to pay." That parcel came from the house of a member of the Executive Council. If even a member of the household of an Executive Minister goes wrong and makes me pay threepence who is to blame? What is the meaning of the limitation of 2 lbs. on books? Books of solid worth are the heaviest, and society novels are the lightest. If you want Wells's "Outline of History," that is more than 2 lbs., and if you want a volume of the Cambridge Middle or Mediaeval History, or the Encyclopædia Brittannica, or even one volume of it, that would weigh more than 2 lbs. That seems an unreasonable limitation, provided that the ends are open, and the parcel obviously contains a book. It is the practice in a good many libraries in England, the "Times Book Club," etc., to send out with each book a label for the purpose of return. Would that label count as a letter or not? I hope the Minister will make that clear.

Mr. WALSH

No.

Major COOPER

I do not know how postal officials, when they see a label, will know whether it is a label or a letter, but I hope they will be charitable and give us the benefit of a doubt. I would like to have accepted Deputy Johnson's motion if it was more modified. I would be prepared to modify my own motion so as to make it clear we can only condemn the action of the Minister. As to that, I shall have something to say when concluding the debate. I cannot accept the amendment which expresses approval of this tax. I do not approve of it, and I never have approved of it; therefore I shall have to vote against Deputy Johnson's amendment, even if I have to vote with the Ministers.

Mr. A. BYRNE

The amendment gives me an opportunity of bringing forward a case which I feel sure will have the sympathy of the Dáil. The taxes generally having been favoured by a good many Deputies, I would ask those Deputies whether some exemption should not be made for raw material coming into the country. I have here a consignment docket coming to a firm of brass founders and nickel-platers, and in one cask—I think you might call it a prescription—they had several articles which are required for lacquering goods. To find out whether it was subject to duty or not this cask was opened, and in the cask was found eight or ten separate commodities used for the purpose of making this lacquering article to be used by Dublin workmen for lacquering and to be sent out and sold in competition with English goods that come into the country free from any duty whatsoever.

Mr. JOHNSON

Is it by parcel post?

Mr. A. BYRNE

No; a general tax of 6d., the 6d. tax that has been already referred to. The Minister for Finance himself raised an argument about giving additional work to Irish tradesmen.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

Is this in order? Surely this was not brought by the Post and delivered to him. I submit that this case does not justify the Deputy in going outside the point of the discussion.

Mr. A. BYRNE

The Statistical Tax has been referred to by every Deputy who stood up here, including the Minister for Finance.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

I have asked for a ruling.

Mr. A. BYRNE

Why did not the Deputy ask for it when the Minister was speaking?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

It would be well if the Deputy would confine himself to the amendment before the Dáil at the moment.

Mr. A. BYRNE

Is not this the amendment moved by Deputy Johnson asking us to approve generally of the tax?

Mr. JOHNSON

On posted parcels.

Mr. A. BYRNE

The case I have before me does not deal with posted parcels, but I will come to a case much smaller. I thought I had such a good case here that I would be allowed, in the interest of Irish manufacture, to refer to the injury done by the taxes on raw material. I have a case where a parcel did come in by parcel post. It was a consignment for the same purpose; it was a small parcel to make up some form of lacquering and the tax was charged on it. In a case like that, where raw materials come into the country, they should be free from all taxes, especially when manufactured goods are allowed in free. The articles required by local manufacturers, in order to compete with the makers of the manufactured goods, ought not to be taxed. The case I had in mind was one of great interest, if not to the Dáil or to Deputy O'Sullivan, at least to those dealing with the articles in question, and it would have been of great interest to Irish workers generally. I cannot understand, when a Deputy stands up for a matter of five minutes in order to put forward a case of interest to Irish people, why another Deputy, who has already allowed four others to speak without interruption, should now raise a question.

Professor O'SULLIVAN

It is not my privilege to allow Deputies to speak.

Mr. A. BYRNE

You did not interrupt them. This is no doubt a very nice laughing matter for some Deputies.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Each Deputy is quite within his right in raising a point of order if he thinks that another Deputy is not speaking to the subject under discussion.

Mr. A. BYRNE

But the Deputy raised no point of order when the Minister spoke on this subject. He allowed the Leader of the Opposition and other Deputies to speak on the same matter; but now, when I rise to refer to a matter of interest to Irish workers, it is made the occasion by the Deputy to raise a point of order.

Mr. ALTON

I would like to stress the plea of Deputy Johnson that some concession should be made in regard to books as a vehicle of knowledge. Satisfaction seems to have been expressed that books up to 2 lbs. in weight escape the tax, but it was pointed out that most books are over that weight. There are other vehicles of knowledge besides books. There are certain numbers of specimens sent into this country, and two of my colleagues, two Professors, say that their traffic in specimens has been interfered with by this tax. It seems to be a petty thing to be taxing specimens of physiological and pathological interest. I do not know of any distributing centres in this country that will supply pathological laboratories with the bacteria attaching to leprosy or some other outlandish disease. These specimens are sent, carefully isolated, I hope, into this country, and they are taxed. I would also suggest, as regards books, that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs or the Minister for Finance should take a more liberal view. There are public libraries that get parcels of books which cannot be procured from any distributing centre in the Saorstát. These libraries have to look after their balance sheets, and every little counts. I have had complaints from one or two of them, and the 6d. tax is an annoying one.

Mr. GOOD

I think there is no doubt that a misunderstanding has arisen in connection with this. If my recollection serves me aright, when this tax was proposed in the first instance by the Minister for Finance he told us his object was to reduce the number of customs entries, which were a very considerable source of expenditure in connection with that Department. He hoped by this means to get a larger quantity sent in each parcel and thereby reduce the number of parcels and the number of entries. Now we hear from the Minister this afternoon quite a different story as to the object of this tax. We are told that its object is very largely to develop Irish industry through taxing commodities coming from the other side. If you want to impose tariffs, that is not the channel through which to impose them. It is a most irritating form of tax that is not going to help at all along the lines that the Minister has spoken of in developing industry.

If he separates these taxes in the future on the ground of the incentive that it will give to local industries, I think we can say on behalf of the commercial community that it is an absolute failure, and it will be an absolute failure in achieving that object. I do not want to discuss here the indefinite question as it arises here on this amendment of whether tariffs are desirable or undesirable. We might spend a great deal of time, and have spent a great deal of time, on that subject. I do not think this is the particular occasion or the subject on which to discuss that particular item, but we were informed when the tax was put on by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs that it was very largely to bring into line his Department with the Customs Department, and to prevent those who were anxious to avoid the taxes in the Customs Department from flooding the Parcels Post Department and thereby to obtain uniformity. Well now, has it achieved even the object of uniformity? As I understand the Customs taxes, one of the great objections that has been made to it is that owing to the present classification every item coming under that classification in that parcel must be subject to a separate entry and thereby subject to a separate charge. Nobody will doubt, I think, the accuracy of that statement. Now is the method similar with regard to the Post Office? Is every item there subject to separate entry and subject to a separate charge? I think the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs will tell us "No"—that you pay your 6d. on a parcel coming through the parcels post. It may contain a dozen different items, whereas if the same parcel were to come through the Customs you would have a dozen different charges on it. Where is the uniformity? We are told that the object of putting this parcel post charge on was to obtain uniformity. Where is it? If you are going to pay on a dozen items coming through the Customs you are going to avoid this by going through the Post Office.

Naturally these small parcels will go through the Post Office instead of going through the more expensive way. So that we have not achieved uniformity. In fact we have encouraged the people to do the very thing that the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs were anxious to avoid, that is sending parcels through the parcels post. These parcels were a loss when sent through the post in that way, and owing to the increase in the charges we are making, by sending through the Customs, naturally there has been a flooding in the other Department, that is in the Post Office. So that from whatever point of view we look at this, we must agree, and the Minister for Finance in his heart of hearts must agree that it has been a failure. Now we want to get back to the original object. One does not like in the matter of a new Government like this to take the line of condemning their action without putting up something in the way of constructive criticism. The Minister for Finance will agree, I think, with what I said at the outset, that the object of this irritating and objectionable tax was to reduce the number of Customs entries. It has been an absolute failure in that direction. The way to reduce the number of Customs entries is to reduce the items of classification. It is all very well in a great country like England to do that, but we have to adopt a classification that is in force at the moment in Great Britain. It is all very well in a great country with tremendous industries such as they have in Great Britain to have detailed classification of the kind they have adopted. But where you have only a number of small items, detailed classification of that kind becomes most irritating and most expensive to the Government and most expensive to the trader.

If the Minister would denote some inquiry to that aspect of the question I think that he could considerably reduce the number of customs entries and considerably reduce the amount of vexatious irritation that this tax has caused to the trading community, I think he might, in that way, achieve his object and do away with this tax entirely in the future. I am sure if he can see his way to do this later, he will have saved himself and everybody else a very considerable amount of worry and annoyance, because I know of no tax in recent years, whether imposed by the Government of the Sister Isle, or by our own Government, that has excited the same amount of vexatious worry that this tax has.