Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 24 Oct 1924

Vol. 9 No. 3

PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS. - STATISTICAL TAX.

Debate resumed on motion by Major Bryan Cooper: "That the charge of sixpence collected on all postal parcels originating outside An Saorstát should not have been imposed without consultation with the Dáil."

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I beg to move the following amendment:—

To insert after the word "that" the words "the Dáil disapproves of," and after the word "Saorstát" to insert the words "and is of opinion that this charge."

The intention of this amendment is to give the Dáil an opportunity of saying that it disapproves of the act of the Postmaster-General in placing a sixpenny charge on all parcels coming into the Saorstát, and that it also disapproves of the act of the Postmaster-General in bringing this charge into force without first giving an opportunity to the Dáil to discuss it. At the time the Minister for Finance introduced his Budget and introduced the 6d. statistical tax, he made a statement that it would be necessary in future to change the postal arrangements so as to have the postal system brought into line with the system of getting goods in by other channels. On that occasion I took exception to the tax, but I got very little support. I think that I was supported only by one Deputy. Outside the House there was not a word of protest from the business interests of the country. Now we find, when the tax has been enforced and when it is begining to affect the business interests, these interests are becoming very noisy and we are hearing objections all over the place. It would have been much better if these people at that time got into touch with me or with others interested in the matter, and showed that they objected to this tax.

I maintain that the tax is really a protective tariff, and if it has to be brought into force the proper means of doing so would not be by warrant of the Post Office but by introducing it, with other protective tariffs, at the time the Budget was introduced. The reasons for this have not been given in the House at this stage, but have been given by the Postmaster-General in other parts of the country. I do not agree that these reasons are satisfactory, and that the benefits which he says will accrue to the country will actually accrue. He says that the cost of getting parcels into the country is excessive, and that the Irish Post Office is paying for a portion of the delivery of these parcels. If that is so, the remedy is not the remedy that is being taken, but some arrangement should be made with the British Postmaster-General to see that the rate of charges should be increased. He says that it would have the effect of encouraging distributors to open establishments in this country and to get their goods in in large quantities and distribute them by the postal system of the Saorstát. If that is the case I say that he is doing exactly what we have been fighting against for a considerable time, and he is trying to increase rather than decrease the number of distributors in this country. There has been much talk about the high cost of living being due to the large number of distributors, middlemen, and I think there is general agreement with that; but apparently the intention of the Postmaster-General is to increase still further the number of people handling goods and to see that the people handling goods between the consumer and the producer will have a profit. If the Postmaster-General is aiming at that he may achieve his end, and he will succeed in increasing the cost of living. If we are to be placed in the position of being able to carry on our business as it should be carried on, if we are to be enabled to compete with other countries, and not have our labour charges higher than those in other countries, one of the first things to which we have to devote attention is to reduce the cost of living and not to bolster up the number of distributors who would be connected with the trade in this country by opening establishments here. It seems to me that there are real difficulties which will prevent such trade being established in this country. Most of the articles brought in here through the parcel post are not manufactured in this country. They are imported from England, and the Irish importers dealing in small quantities of goods will have to pay a higher price for them and will have to get them direct from the people who send them in by parcel post. They will therefore have to add on their profits, thereby increasing the cost of the goods to the consumer and increasing the cost of living generally.

Another point about this is the fact that it will affect the traffic in small parcels which takes place at Christmas. The Postmaster-General knows well that a large quantity of small parcels containing articles of small intrinsic value pass as momentoes of affection and friendship at Christmas time. People who receive these parcels will be subject to this vexations and annoying tax. No matter how small the value of the article sent them is worth they will have to pay the statistical tax. The Postmaster-General maintains that it is in the interest of the business men of this country to have this tax in force. We have a statement in the daily papers to-day which shows that by far the greater majority of business people are in opposition to it, and that they feel the advantages which they gain by it do not in any sense of the word counterbalance the disadvantages. I have here a cutting from one of the daily papers to-day containing some information with regard to voting papers which were issued by the Dublin Mercantile Association. I will read three of the questions which the Association sent out to their members by means of their trade paper, the Dublin Mercantile Gazette. In an edition of this paper a ballot paper was printed asking members to vote on three questions. The first question asked was, “Do you find that the 6d. parcel post delivery tax has helped your trade?” The answer to that in the case of 20 firms was “Yes.” In the case of 520 firms the answer was “No.” So that we have 520 mercantile firms who are receiving the Dublin Mercantile Gazette answering that they do not think the 6d. parcel post has helped their trade as against the 20 who think it has.

Mr. JOHNSON

How long is it since the new charge began?

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I suppose it would be about September.

Major COOPER

The 1st of September.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

The second question is, "Do you expect that it will?" The answer in the case of 34 firms was "Yes"; and in the case of 511 the answer was "No." That is 511, as against 34, think it will not benefit their trade in the future. The third question was, "Would you prefer parcel post rates in force prior to August 31st, 1924, to the new rates with the 6d. tax added?" The answer was "Yes" by 470 firms, as against 57 who said "No." A vote of that kind indicates that they do not want it, that they consider that it is of no benefit to the community. That is the answer of one section of the people affected by this. I believe the consumers will have to pay more for their goods because of the additional 6d. tax, and because of the additional profit that will be made if there are more distributors throughout the country.

The only advantage to be gained is the advantage to the Post Office and to the State in having the charge which they make for their parcels brought up to a paying basis. In view of that I consider that this worrying and annoying tax has not been justified, and not only that, but that the method of imposition of the tax without giving the Dáil the opportunity of voicing the views of the people they represent has not been fair and is not justified in the circumstances.

Mr. COLE

I have great pleasure in seconding the amendment. Of all the iniquitous taxes that have been imposed by the Dáil I think there is none to equal this. As regards taxation, I think it is practically the last straw which the public can bear. It would take a considerable lot to convince me that the Minister imagines that this tax is in any way going to help the State. Supposing he does imagine such a probability I would like to know what comparison he would make between the cost and the profit to the trader, and I would like to know if he has taken into consideration in coming to the conclusion there what comparison he would make between the profit and the worry, trouble, anxiety and expense which the unfortunate trader who has to pay this tax and who is already over-victimised by the Customs has to undergo. Some traders tell me that it takes weeks and weeks to get goods through the Monaghan Custom House at present, and what would it be if the Customs officials have to go through every package for the purpose of classification into the 6d. parcels? What staff would the Post Office require to do this work? I know the case of a lady living about six miles out of the town who bought some fish during the last month and she had to pay a double tax on it. She made enquiries and she was told the reason for it was that there was a certain quantity of flat-fish and so many herrings and so she had to pay two 6d's. I wonder does Deputy Johnson realise when he welcomes this tax that if a trader, say a grocer, got in a certain class of goods comprising 50 or 60 different articles.

Mr. BLYTHE

On a point of order, the Deputy is not dealing with the parcels post at all.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy must confine himself to postal parcels on which a 6d. tax is imposed.

Mr. COLE

In any case there is a tax to this effect imposed. As I have said, our traders are almost knocked out of business because of it. One trader told me a short time ago that the cost on his small shop at present is £200 a year more than in pre-war times.

Mr. JOHNSON

Does he get all his goods in by parcels post?

Mr. COLE

He gets a quantity of them. Anyhow, because of the tax the cost of keeping his place has gone up considerably. I wonder does the Minister realise that the business establishments along the border line cannot compete with similar establishments across the border, and at the same time pay their way. If the Minister were endeavouring to assist traders beyond the border he could not do it in a better or more efficient way than by imposing such a tax. Take the case of a chemist, with whose business I am more familiar. In the town of Clones, in the county which the Minister represents, take the case of an individual who goes to a doctor and gets a prescription. He then goes to the local chemist and the chemist tells him that there is one item in the prescription which he has not got, and which he will have to procure from London, and he charges him 3/- for the prescription. The following week the same man happens to be in the market town of Newtownbutler, and he gets the same prescription made up, and the Northern chemist tells him the same story about the item in the prescription which has to be procured. He charges him 2/- for the prescription.

The patient naturally concludes that the chemist in the Free State, in addition to securing his ordinary profit, which is 99 per cent., puts on an additional 33? per cent., whereas in reality the chemist has no more profit than his friend in the Northern part, because it costs him 7d. to get in the article and 2d. extra. That is only one of the many things that happen up there every day. The patient naturally comes to the conclusion that he will leave the trader in the Free State and deal as much as he can with the trader in the North. That is only one of many instances of unfair taxation which the people have to bear compared with their Northern friends, who sometimes live only a mile or two distant.

I understood that all along the Government were out against profiteering and out to reduce the cost of living; but I have come to the conclusion that it is otherwise. The consumer will probably have to pay 1s. for an article that a trader procures at 7d. As one Deputy has pointed out, the Minister is giving further assistance to the middleman who can buy articles in large quantities, and is meantime crippling the small merchant. I say, without fear of contradiction, that the small merchants in the border counties who pay a considerable amount towards the support of this State in taxation, cannot much longer keep going unless taxes are reduced. They find it difficult to make ends meet at the present time, between the high taxes and the cost of goods, not to speak of our own authorities preventing non-taxable goods from going out, except through the abominable system of smuggling. Quite a number of traders are practically facing bankruptcy, and I would advise the Minister to reconsider this matter and remove the disabilities from which the people suffer.

MINISTER for POSTS and TELEGRAPHS (Mr. Walsh)

It appears to me that at least some Deputies are under the impression that in introducing this delivery charge on parcels I, by some strategy or another, evaded the obvious duty of informing the Dáil. I wish at once to correct that impression. In the ordinary way, it is true, a Post Office occasionally varies its charges—I mean minor charges. Those charges are so numerous that it has never been found possible or desirable to bring them forward before the legislature. In the case of our predecessors in the administration of the Post Office, they never found it desirable to bring those charges before their legislature, the matter being so minor in character. But in the case of maximum charges, charges which may reasonably be termed policy charges, those were in every instance submitted for approval or rejection. I hope I have been careful enough to follow that example in the present instance, and if Deputies will refer to col. 4992 of the Dáil Debates they will find there a statement as follows:—

"We have decided, subject to the final approval of the Minister for Finance—and I think we may take it that his approval will be forthcoming —to reduce the parcel post rate to the English level, and to impose a charge of sixpence for examination and delivery of imported parcels."

I do not quote the entire statement.

Major COOPER

Will the Minister give us the date on which that statement was made?

Mr. WALSH

The 21st July. Now, this is the normal line taken when informing the Dáil that certain rectifications in postal charges were about to be made. It is not humanly possible, as far as I know, to give a more clarified notice. That is clear and definite and unambiguous. I told the Dáil that we had considered certain matters in respect to charges, that we had come to certain conclusions, that we had represented these conclusions for ratification for the Minister for Finance, and on the assumption that this ratification would be approved we intended to proceed. I submit if the Dáil had any grievance with the imposition of this delivery fee that certainly was the time to put forward that grievance. It is the normal manner in which to make such representations, and I do not remember any very serious opposition then being raised. In all discussions which have taken place inside and outside the Dáil, the thing that bears most forcibly upon my mind is the fact that nobody has come down to bedrock and said that we are not justified in collecting the normal delivery cost on those imported parcels.

I suppose the Dáil is already aware of the fact—I expect it is—that we import something like 3,000,000 parcels annually. We export one-third of that number. For the surplus of imports we receive, on an average, 3d. per parcel. I wonder does anybody here contend that the Post Office can deliver parcels at 3d. I never heard anybody say that we can, or even suggest that we can; we, ourselves, know very well that we cannot. We know very well that at least three threepences would scarcely cover the expenses incurred by this delivery. Now we have come to the conclusion that we have hitherto lost on an average 6d. per parcel on two million parcels. In other words, we have continued, without the approval of the people, to collect out of Irish revenue the sum of 6d. and we have handed it over as a subsidy to English exporters.

Major COOPER

Would the Minister repeat the figures, as I did not quite catch them? What is the total amount?

Mr. WALSH

Two million parcels.

Major COOPER

Would the Minister say how much money is involved?

Mr. WALSH

Something in the nature of £50,000. It is a very serious thing for a service losing something in the nature of half a million of money, to lightly hand over as a subsidy to English exporters the sum of £50,000. I wonder if any Deputy would approach his constituents and secure their approval for an expenditure of that kind? Now, I am not very seriously concerned with the opinions crystallised in this Press report to-day. I have met large traders here and, strange to relate, they have expressed their approval of this introduction. It would appear that when approached by the officials of the Mercantile Association they expressed a different view. I am rather inclined to think for the moment that they have not made up their minds on the subject, and they are prepared to agree pretty well with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs one day, and the officials of the Mercantile Association, who take the opposite view, the next day.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

Might I explain that the officials of the Mercantile Association expressed no opinion. They only submitted an open voting paper.

Mr. WALSH

If the Deputy will take his mind back a little he will find that the officials of the different Mercantile Associations—Chambers of Commerce and others—expressed their very definite views and gave a very definite lead. They have merely sought in this instance to get support for that. I submit they have prejudiced the situation; but to suggest that after a month's experiment it is possible to say whether this delivery fee is likely to increase or decrease trade here is, in my view at any rate, an impossibility. I think the most that could be said for the action of the Chambers of Commerce and other Mercantile Associations is that they are rather hasty in their desire to support a step which was taken without due consideration. Time, and time only, will prove whether or not this delivery fee is a barrier to trade. At any rate we have to consider the situation from a different aspect. On the average we have been losing 6d. per parcel in handling these English parcels, and nobody has yet told us that we are entitled to put our hands into the taxpayers' pockets here and take their money in order to subsidise English wholesalers as against Irish competition, because that is what it all means. There is more to be considered, however.

We are all very well aware that this onslaught of English goods is not helpful to home industry. This is apart altogether from the strictly Post Office view point. We are all very well aware that this onslaught, this medium kind of cheap transport of English goods is not helpful to home industry. We are equally well aware that many of these industries are at present in a parlous condition and it is the duty of those responsible for the conduct of the Nation's business to see what can be done to stimulate these industries.

Now certainly one of the ways is not to subsidise English industries. That is the wrong direction. We are also aware that there is a great number of people in this country who, for some reason or another,—and, certainly the reason is not in all cases that the English goods are cheaper—make it a point to get their goods from the other side. I wonder do they consider that this is fair to the shopkeepers and wholesalers here? Do they consider that those people have to pay rates and taxes and that they give employment to our people? Do they consider that they all have to make a living? At any rate we feel that we are not justified in facilitating the destruction of our own wholesalers. Deputy Heffernan referred to these intermediaries as a kind of evil that could well be dispensed with. I am sure that were we to continue the policy of subsidising their competitors it is only a matter of time when every shopkeeper in this country, in the logical order of things, should put up his shutters. I wonder would the Deputies here desire that? I wonder does Deputy Heffernan desire it? Does he think that diverting traffic to the wholesalers or retailers in London is improving the situation? Does he forget that the wholesalers and retailers here also deal direct with the manufacturer, or does he believe that they are merely second-hand dealers buying from London wholesalers? I do not know that we should have any particular desire to exterminate the intermediate dealer here. He has come. He is regarded as a necessity. We, at any rate, regard him as a necessity in the provision of rates and taxes and employment, and if there is anything in the way of a State subsidy going, it certainly ought not to be diverted to his opponent. There is no question of increasing the Post Office staff in dealing with this delivery charge. It has involved comparatively little extra labour, and presents no material difficulties to the Service.

Some Deputies emphasise the unfairness of its application to the book trade. In any departure of this kind, you are certain to involve a great many lines of business in inconvenience; but I doubt if any big departure has ever been made without similar difficulty arising. We realise it would be all the better if the book trade could be made an exception, but we find in practice, that it cannot be. The book trade is fairly well catered for. I see no necessity to make further exceptions in its favour. It really comes down to this:—On the assumption that the insistence of the Government that this shortage in the cost of doing the work of the people should be made good, and on the assumption that it is an inconvenience, are we justified in taking people's money and handing it over to that section which thinks fit to use the post as a medium of getting their goods? We know very well that the bulk of the goods coming through here—and it is well known to every-body—could be equally well, and I understand, equally cheaply, secured at home. Why should a man who secures these goods at home be compelled to contribute to his neighbour who may not be over-patriotic and gets his goods from the other side? Why should I be compelled, for instance, to put my hand in my pocket and take out 6d. to pay for a parcel brought from the other side to my neighbour? I secure my goods in Dublin. They may, perhaps, cost me more, but I do not admit they do. I make my living in this country and I spend my money here, and I set an example necessary for the life of the country and for its trade and employment. I help a man whose wife and family are, perhaps, hungry to get employment and a living. I do not send my money out of the country, and why should I be compelled to put my hand in my pocket and say to my neighbour: "I will help you to strangle my country?" Why should I be compelled to do that? I take myself in this case as the ordinary man.

We have very great respect for the views of the Chambers of Commerce and of Mercantile Associations, but they are not the whole Irish community; they are merely the handlers of imported goods for the most part. I do not suppose they would deny that; they are the channel through which the goods come in for the common people. But the common people pay. The importers do not lose this 6d., and, therefore, I am not prepared to pay more respect to their views than to the views of the ordinary citizens. We do not represent the Mercantile Associations, but we do represent the whole community. I hold the community will not agree now or at any other time to take the money of this nation and hand it over to merchants on the other side of the channel for the purpose of facilitating them in their trade here. If they want trade here let them pay for it. We want no profit by their trade. We do not desire to prevent their trade in any respect. All we say is: "If you want to trade here, pay for it." That is an argument which has not been met, and unless it is met I am not prepared to consider any departure whatever from this proposal.

Major COOPER

The latter part of the Minister's speech reminds me of a speech I read some time ago by a Deputy who has not yet taken his seat in this Dáil. He said when he wanted to know what the Irish people thought he looked into his own heart. When the Minister wants to know what the whole Irish community thinks, even though their views are otherwise unexpressed, he looks into his own mind. He ignores the Chambers of Commerce, and those actually engaged in trade and industry, and looking into his own mind he sees what the whole Irish community thinks, how unfair it is that they should pay, at one moment he said £50,000, and he said £500,000 at another moment, for the loss on delivery of parcels. But after all his is essentially an unjust Ministry. I have to pay as much for a letter which I send from a place eight miles from the City of Dublin as Deputy Cole has to pay for one which he sends from Cavan to the City of Dublin, or as the Minister for Fisheries has to pay for sending a letter from the town of Tralee to the City of Dublin. That is absolutely unjust and inequitable.

As for the loss on parcels, no doubt a person who only receives a parcel will be aggrieved to have to pay, but he is no more aggrieved than I am at having to pay 2d. on a letter for eight miles, while for the same amount a letter can be sent from the farthest part of Tirconaill to Dublin. His Ministry is essentially an unjust one, because he cannot possibly make every charge he levies equitable. As regards the question of the Irish wholesaler, for whom the Minister speaks with such sympathy, I do not know whether he has enquired into the matter, but if he has he will find there are certain ranges of commerce in which the number of articles required is so enormous that no Irish wholesaler can afford to sink the capital necessary to enable him to stock every branch and quality that may be required. Take the case Deputy Cole spoke of—drugs. That trade covers an enormous range of things that deteriorate very much when kept for any length of time.

No Irish wholesaler could afford to stock every kind and sort of drug on the chance that it might be required. For articles of this kind, London is not merely the wholesale mart of the British Isles, but of a very large portion of the civilised world. Buyers go to London, not merely from Great Britain and the Saorstát, but from all over the world. Therefore, it is possible for the wholesaler in London to keep a much greater range and variety of drugs than the wholesaler in Dublin could afford to do. You can never succeed in changing that, but what you may do is to cast a burden on the Dublin wholesaler of writing and getting these drugs in a hurry—and drugs are usually required in a hurry—and of paying the tax upon them. That is the situation the Minister's policy creates, and it is not surprising that the Dublin wholesaler protests against it.

I now come to the case of the Irish manufacturer, to which I referred briefly on Wednesday. There is in my constituency a factory which manufactures stockings. It competes outside the Saorstát with stockings manufactured in Nottingham and Leicester—and competes successfully on the whole. These stockings are manufactured on machines made in the British Isles. The machines are composed of an enormous number of component parts, needles and other parts, the technical names of which I cannot recall at the moment. The needles and other parts are constantly breaking, and, of course, when they break they have to be replaced in a hurry. They have to be replaced by parts made in the British Isles, because there is no firm in the Saorstát making stocking machines. Consequently they have to be replaced by parcels' post, and for every needle, for want of which the machine may be thrown out of action and a man out of employment, the proprietor has to pay an extra 6d., though the intrinsic cost of the needle may be little more than that. That is a practical instance I desire to give. I would be glad if the Minister would come with me to see the factory, and study the matter for himself. I repeat that that is a practical instance of how this tax is hitting industry, and a practical instance of why it should not have been imposed without more consideration and more deliberation.

The Minister referred to a statement he made on 21st July last. I never imputed any bad faith to the Minister when I moved this resolution. I said he was acting within his powers, as he had a right to do. I did not attack his good faith, but only his judgment. Now he comes here and says he made this statement on the 21st July. I ask Deputies to carry their minds back to the 21st July. On that date we were on the final stages of a very trying session, sitting every evening until 10.30, and utterly unable to comprehend all the aspects of any statement that was put before us. There was no opportunity of moving an amendment and no opportunity of definitely challenging this issue. I cannot accept the mere mention of a speech on the 21st July, two days before we rose at the end of the session, as sufficient justification for taking a step of this magnitude, a step which is not only a measure of taxation, but a measure of protective policy, because that is how the Minister has justified it to the Dáil.

There are three points on which I wanted to get information. On one I have made a discovery. I wanted to know what was the loss on the old system. The Minister says it was £50,000. The next thing I want to know is: what is the cost of collection of this charge? The Minister suggested to us that it was trivial. I find that rather hard to believe. All over the country there are postmen going out every day collecting varying sums of 6d., 2/6 and perhaps 5/-. They collect these sums and hand them in at the Post Office. Does not that, I ask, involve a considerable amount of accountancy, and will not the accountancy involve a great deal of auditing? Looking at that from the point of view of an ordinary business proposition, it seems to me that the constant collection of small sums of money is not a really economical method of doing business. I would like, if possible, to know before the debate closes, what this tax is supposed to bring in: what is the estimated yield of it? Is it going to be £50,000 a year, or is it going to be half of that sum? That is the kind of information we ought to have had before the charge was imposed at all.

There were some references made by the Minister for Finance the other night to the fact—and I think the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs referred to it to-day—that as a result of this charge reductions have been made in parcel post rates. Deputy Heffernan quoted figures as to the number of people who would prefer to have the old parcels' post rates and no 6d. delivery charge. These, mind you, are for the most part Dublin firms, firms who, if there was anything in the Minister's expressed policy, would benefit by the tax. They say they do not want it. As a matter of fact, any firm which is doing a reciprocal business across the Channel, sending parcels back and receiving them, sending goods out and receiving empties, or even a private individual who gets books from a library across the Channel because the books he requires cannot be procured in the Saorstát, loses 3d. on every parcel. He saves, approximately, 3d. under the new parcels' rate, but he has to pay 6d. under the new delivery charge rate. The Minister can hardly expect us to be grateful for a concession that costs us 3d. on every parcel. I would suggest, if the Minister wishes to realise his desire of saving money on the parcels' post, that he might consider some alternative as regards the method of delivery. The Minister for Finance the other night said that parcels cost far more to deliver than to collect. Of course they do. If I have a parcel to send away I take it to the Post Office myself, but if there is a parcel to be delivered to me it is brought to my house by the postman. Would it not be possible, I ask, in the case of the delivery of parcels, to have a notification sent by the Post Office when the postman is delivering the morning letters to the effect that there was a parcel in the Post Office to be called for. People could then call for their parcels, if by doing so it would be possible to reduce the delivery rates. I believe that on the whole such a system as that would be welcomed by the public. I merely throw out that suggestion to the Minister because I do not want to be unhelpful. I realise the Minister's desire to reduce the present high cost of his Department, and I feel that the suggestion I have made might be a step in the right direction.

As regards this charge, it has been justified to us as a tax, as a measure of policy and not merely as a method of redressing an unfavourable postal balance. As a tax it violates every canon of political economy. The essentials of a tax are that it should, as far as possible, be imperceptible, that it should be collected without being felt. The Minister for Finance apparently does not agree with that. But that is the idea. I do not say that the Minister for Finance achieves that, but it should be collected either on something that the consumer does not know he is paying on, or at any rate it should be collected at comparatively infrequent intervals. A tax that you feel every day and every time that you get a parcel—perhaps once a week or once a month—a tax that is constantly coming on you unexpectedly and makes you put your hand in your pocket for 6d., is one of the most inconvenient and annoying forms of taxation that can possibly be imposed. People should have some regard to psychology in these matters, even when responsible for taxation. I question whether income tax would be felt so severely if it were not for the forms that people have to fill up. The more you annoy the taxpayer, the more irksome the tax is, the more it is felt. The tax, for instance, on tobacco is very little felt, because the taxpayer pays without knowing it. I assert that this tax makes for discontent amongst a very large section of the community and that it is therefore an evil and a wrong one. It is also the greatest barrier that has been created in recent years against unity in Ireland.

Every trader in Northern Ireland who is accustomed to getting goods by post from Great Britain will feel that it is an obstacle to his coming into the Saorstát. I do not wish at the present time to emphasise that point, but it is a point that should not be overlooked. There is a limit to which taxation can be carried. There is a danger that alone comes from the abstract point of view, taking up the detached point of view of the financial official, that taxation on an overwhelming scale may be imposed with disastrous results. As I look into the future I seem to see a graveyard in which there are two headstones. On one is engraved the words: "Irish commerce, Killed by Taxation," and side by side with that is another bearing the words "The Cosgrave Government, Ditto, Ditto, Ditto."

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I rise to support the amendment moved by Deputy Heffernan but not for the reasons that govern his own particular decision. Deputy Heffernan's mind is definitely against what has been put forward as an essential argument in favour of this particular impost, whether it be considered as a charge by the Post Office or whether it be defended as a tax. That is to say, he is against anything that is definitely protective. I am not against anything that is definitely protective. I do not like the word "Protection" as a fiscal description, but I do say that any form of tax that is adopted should be adopted with a view to giving the greatest possible amount of protective benefits to this country that is consonant with its revenue-yielding properties. I am not opposed to that, but I am particularly opposed to this duty, and therefore I am supporting the amendment, because I think it has failed to do the very thing it set out to do, and that it has brought more injury than it has conferred benefit. Deputy Cooper referred to the principles of what are good and bad taxation. There is surely one principle of good taxation, that it should define for itself exactly what it wants to achieve, and that it should go directly to the achievement of that purpose. This tax is not doing anything of the sort. It is intended to do certain things; it is intended to confer a benefit on the Irish distributor and wholesaler. Does it achieve that intention? When Deputy Heffernan referred to this paper that has been circulated on behalf of the Mercantile Association, what did the Minister for Posts say in response? He said that "the people in the Mercantile Association"—I am now quoting his words—"were not the whole Irish community." Agreed that they are not the whole Irish community, but they are that section of the community that the tax was intended to benefit, and the very people whose benefit was sought are the very people who now say that they do not believe any benefit is to be conferred on them by this tax. That is the chief merit and the outstanding value of this circular. I am not saying—I do not think that it would be true to say, and I imagine that nobody is suggesting in this circular—that this tax is not giving a certain amount of benefit. Of course it is giving a certain amount of benefit; I am not disputing that for a moment, but I suggest that the tax has done as much harm as benefit and that it is not discriminating enough in its purpose.

The case of books has been mentioned. It was argued here the other night. I know that the majority of publishers, whether in Ireland or in England, when sending out books, prefer to send them out by the ordinary parcel post. The majority of the books sent out in that way are handled by parcel post, and out of a hundred parcels of books which have been received in Dublin this morning I venture to say that 98 or 99 are received by parcel post and not by book post. I gave the case the other day of books I received on that day, costing two and sixpence, with sixpence added. As I said, that charge was not very considerable, but what does it amount to? It amounts to twenty per cent. ad valorem duty on an article that was not intended to be taxed, because there was no publisher publishing that particular type of book in the Free State. Take the case that was mentioned by Deputy Cole to-day. Was it intended that that particular article should be taxed? Was it intended that any person manufacturing or distributing that article here would be benefited by that article being taxed? Not a bit of it. One could run down the whole range. It would be very interesting to have set out the entire range of articles sent by parcel post—the Minister for Posts could very easily do it—all the different articles passing through the parcel post and declared, within one week, and I make this proviso, without seeing the list, that seventy-five per cent. of those articles are articles that are not manufactured—at least well over fifty per cent.—and probably the greater part of them would be articles the equivalent of which are not manufactured in the Free State at all. Therefore, no benefit is conferred on the Irish manufacturer. Therefore, in order to achieve a small benefit amounting to not more than twenty per cent. or twenty-five per cent., 75 or 80 per cent. of harm is done, and I say that any tax that only achieves so small a benefit in relation to so large an inconvenience and damage, must necessarily be a bad form of taxation. A case was given to me of a lady who went into a Dublin shop to order a certain unusual colour of paint that she required. There are unusual colours, I suppose; there are unusual hues, and patterns and forms, but she wanted this particular colour, and the shopkeeper said that he did not stock it; that there were not enough artists in this country to use that particular paint. I really fail to see exactly where the humour is. That particular commodity was not stocked, and the reply was made that it would not be stocked, that when it was wanted, that particular article, not manufactured in Ireland at all, would be got by parcel post from the manufacturer in England, or France, or wherever it was.

Mr. HUGHES

Why?

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Because there was not sufficient demand here to guarantee the stocking of that particular article, and we know that that prevails——

Mr. HUGHES

Apparently, from your information, there has been a demand.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

There was a demand, but the demand was not of sufficient extent or sufficiently large, and we do know, and it is a matter of common knowledge, that there are many articles that are required from time to time by consumers in Dublin that are not stocked by Dublin shops in the ordinary way. Many of these cannot be got in Ireland. Many of them have to be got from British manufacturers, and in every case was it intended that the sixpenny tax should have a protective influence in that respect, because there was nothing whatever to protect? What actually happened is that on what might not amount to more than two or three shillings an ad valorem duty of 6d. was imposed. I suggest that never was the intention either of the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Posts. They never came to the Dáil and so their intentions in the matter cannot be discovered; but it is not the intention of those two Ministers that an ad valorem duty of varying degree should be charged on a large number of commodities that are not manufactured in Ireland in the first place, and in the ordinary normal course of business are not and will not be stocked in Ireland and where, therefore, special application will have to be made to the manufacturer in some other country, and where, therefore, a particular duty will have to be imposed on the receipt of that particular commodity by the person purchasing it in Ireland.

That was not the intention, I suggest. The intention was something else. I recognise the intention, and I would myself favour some form of imposition that would deal specifically with that one intention and achieve it; I would be prepared to support it in the Dáil. The intention, I take it, is this, that where the article is manufactured in Ireland and is stocked by a shopkeeper in Ireland, and can be got from that manufacturer or that shopkeeper at something corresponding to the price that would be paid if it were got by parcel post from England, that that parcel should be purchased by the Irish consumer at the Irish shop or from the Irish manufacturer. That is the intention. That is an admirable intention, but I suggest the tax goes a very great deal further. I do not deny that it might confer some part of the benefit intended, but I also see, and I think the concern that it has created amongst a large number of people goes to prove, that in addition to doing that it is doing a lot of harm; it is proving a considerable amount of irritation, and that is not accompanied by any adequate of benefit. I think it is a bad form of taxation, that it is intended to be protective and is not protective. I remember an argument that was used by the Minister for Agriculture. He was arguing in another debate raised by Deputy Milroy against Protection, and he said that under a protective scale of tariffs the consumer would inevitably pay more. I do not believe that that is a correct statement, but here anyhow is a case where the consumer must pay more. In every case the impost is passed on to the consumer, who pays more, and the people who pass it on are the people who, according to the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Posts, were to be benefited by this tax. The people who belong to the Mercantile Association and the Chambers of Commerce were the people to be benefited, and they are the people who say that they do not like it. Surely, that of itself is a condemnation of that tax.

Mr. BLYTHE

Deputy Heffernan said this particular charge should not have been imposed by warrant, that it should have been imposed in some other way. The law lays down that postal charges shall be imposed by warrant. There is no other way, as the law stands, than the issuing of a warrant for the imposition of the charge.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I did not intend to convey that. I knew it should be imposed by warrant, but I maintain that, as the tax is of such great importance, in addition to the warrant it should be referred to the Dáil, and the Dáil should be given an opportunity of discussing it.

Mr. BLYTHE

The law lays down that the charge should be made by warrant, and that the warrant, as soon as possible after it is made, shall be laid before the Oireachtas. The Oireachtas then has an opportunity of pronouncing upon it. If the Oireachtas denounces any warrant, it must be withdrawn or altered to meet requirements. The practice in Great Britain —and we have taken over the British law—so far as I can discover has been that warrants have not been laid before Parliament any great length of time before they came into operation. In 1915 a very important warrant was issued increasing postal charges, making the first war increase. The warrant was made on the 30th October, and it came into effect on the 1st November.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Would the Minister for Finance permit me to ask a question on that head? Is it not the fact that before that warrant was issued, the particular change was justified in the Finance Act of that year? I think you will find that is the case.

Mr. BLYTHE

I am not aware of that. In any case there are hundreds of other warrants, and the usual thing so far as I can discover is, that if the change is of importance it is notified generally in the Budget statement: for instance, in Great Britain to the House of Commons. Then the warrant is made and laid on the Table, and the House can take action on the warrant either by way of taking no notice and so approving, or of calling for revision or withdrawal of the warrant.

There is no doubt at all that this matter was distinctly in the air. It was mentioned by me, and I regret the misunderstanding that occurred in connection with the undertaking which I gave and which, as I told Deputy Cooper the other day, was not, unfortunately, couched in the explicit language that it should have been. If it had been couched in explicit language the misunderstanding would not occur. But it was mentioned specifically by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, I presume, when his estimates were before the Dáil. It now comes before the Dáil. It is now laid on the Table. The Dáil can take any action on it now in precisely the same way that they could have taken action if the warrant had been laid on the Table before it came into effect. Any action or any line that the Dáil wishes to take is in no way prejudiced by the lapse of a few weeks during which the warrant has been in operation. Indeed anybody who cares to oppose it, can now get ammunition and support from a number of people in the country that he certainly would not have got if the warrant had been laid on the Table before it came into operation, so that I think there is no just cause of complaint in that matter.

Deputy Cole referred to a great number of matters, but I do not think many of them had anything to do with the postal delivery charge. He talked a good deal about Border traders and about traders in Clones. I was speaking to a small trader in Clones, and what he said to me was: "So far as I am concerned the postal delivery charge and the statistical tax are a d—— nuisance, but I think they are good for the country, and I hope they will be continued." It is entirely misleading to refer to this delivery fee as a tax. There is no profit being made in dealing with these parcels even at the increased rate. Nothing more is being exacted from the public than meets the cost. It is entirely wrong to speak about a tariff necessary for performing a service as a tax. It is in no sense a tax. It might be regarded as a tax if although service was given, the amount of the fee was greater than what was necessary to meet the cost. Roughly, the delivery fee will bring in £60,000 a year. The loss caused by the reduction of the charges on parcels in the Saorstát will be about £40,000. The Exchequer gains about £20,000 a year, but there is still a loss on the parcel post business, and the reference to this matter as a tax is simply attempting to prejudice the issue by use of words. I do not think that we can deal with this matter on the terms of the hard cases and the exceptional parcels. Deputy Figgis has referred to the lady who sent for cosmetics.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I could not understand the object of the humour when I was speaking. Now I understand it. I should have said that I was referring to artists' paints, for the painting of a picture.

Mr. BLYTHE

There are very few cosmetics coming in. Seventy-five per cent. of the parcels are soft goods or drapery, as they are called. Those other cases are entirely exceptional. I cannot say—perhaps the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs may say—what percentage of the parcels is the sort of goods that are produced here or that could be stocked here in as large quantities as in London. Ninety-eight per cent. of the parcels are of that description, and all the talk we have refers to 2 per cent. of the parcels of the country. I do not think we can deal with a matter of this kind on the basis of suiting the needs of 2 per cent. of the people who are getting parcels in.

Deputy Heffernan talks of increasing the number of distributors. It does not matter if the people here have to support the distributors. It is no better for them that the distributors should be in London rather than here. If we bring the distributors here, we get the employment that there is on the other side of the Channel at present, and that is an advantage to the country. I have no doubt there is an enormous quantity of retail trade done in the country, without any advantage to the purchasers. People who advertise in cross-Channel newspapers, with a large circulation, have an advantage over people who do their business only on this side of the water. We know that there are cross-Channel newspapers with a big circulation here, and the result is that there is an enormous parcel post trade done which is of no real benefit to the purchasers. They could do it as well here. It is undesirable also that you should have a big section of your distributing trade done in that way. It interferes with the efficiency of the shops on this side. Deputies may have compared a town at a great distance from a big city with a town close to it. The town close to the big city has inferior arrangements for distribution, and a shop at a distance will be able to serve you much better. If a considerable amount of trade is done with English retailers it reduces the standard of retailing in this country and tends to make the service dearer for those who do not do their trade by parcel post. I think the commercial advantages are all in favour of those who try to change the present system. There is far too great a number of people in the commercial community whose idea of carrying on the work of the Saorstát is that the setting up of it should make no difference. We find great difficulties here, but we have said, and I believe, the reason this country is backward is because the system of government, the laws enforced, and the system of taxation were not designed to suit this country. One of the reasons why the struggle for freedom was made was to enable us to make changes to go ahead. There are too many people who think we should go along in the old rut and that now, having got our freedom, we should not attempt to use it.

That is not my point of view. I think we must in some cases experiment and change, and try to lift the country out of the rut. The sort of mind that exists, thinking there is no good administration or government except in imitating what is done on the other side and continuing the state of affairs that existed here, is entirely wrong.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I should like to ask the Minister if he would publish in any week, haphazardly chosen, a list of articles sent by parcel post in order that we may be able to find out if they are of the sort normally distributed and manufactured in this country, and further, if he would, in addition to that, publish how many of those parcels went to private individuals, and how many went to distributing houses. I ask that last question because ——

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy cannot make a second speech.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

I am explaining why I want the information. The distributing houses have sent across the water and in every case charged the tax.

Mr. BLYTHE

I think there would be difficulty in making such examination. It would mean the opening up of parcels, and delay.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

The items are all declared.

Mr. J.J. WALSH

Necessarily, but I think it would involve the Post Office in heavy expenditure. A mere declaration is not sufficient.

Major COOPER

The Minister for Finance gave us the figures, and surely if they are available we can have access to them.

Mr. BLYTHE

They were an estimate.

Major COOPER

Can we have the estimate?

Mr. WALSH

This matter was gone into very carefully, not to-day or yesterday, but many years ago, and it was found that it would be impossible to give anything like an accurate estimate of the designation of goods passing through the post. We have no data at our disposal to give what, one would consider, would be a satisfactory conclusion.

Mr. DARRELL FIGGIS

Does the Postmaster-General say that it is impossible to get data, by which we could discover if this tax would confer a benefit?

Mr. BLYTHE

The operation of the tax if it gets a little time, will, I think, show that.

Mr. DALY

I agree with the action of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in putting a tax on goods coming into this country in order that those goods, big or small, may be manufactured in this country. I think that is the first right of freedom. If we do not exercise that, there is no use in getting self-government. There is no use in grumbling over unemployment if we are going to find fault with any Department that tries to have goods manufactured in this country that are now brought in from other countries. I agree with the action of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs in this matter.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I want to say a few words.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy cannot make a second speech.

Major COOPER

On a point of order, has not the proposer a right to conclude the debate?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The proposer of a motion has, but the proposer of an amendment has not.

Mr. D'ALTON

I have been listening to this debate with mixed feelings. I have been listening to Deputy Cooper referring to the very important fact that this tax would not help Irish industry. Reference was also made to the stocking industry, where the people interested forgot to get a supply of needles. If they have to send for a needle when it breaks——

Major COOPER

They keep a supply of needles, but to keep a supply of every size and range would involve too much capital.

Mr. D'ALTON

It strikes me that in the case of anyone who has machinery, the important parts of which are breakable, such as needles, the least that person could do would be to take in a supply, so that the factory would be kept going and so that there would not be any break in the work. As to the people who are getting those parcels on which 6d. is charged, I know that it is not to the working people they are going. I know that the "Daily Mail" is coming to this country and that certain people who read it try where they are going to get bargains. I am afraid those parcels are going largely to people who do not employ labour. They are not going to working farmers of the type of Deputy Wilson or others. I think it is quite possible that the Government will soon be asked to subsidise the farmers of the country so that they may carry on their business and live. It will be necessary to subsidise them, and Deputy Heffernan will find that it will be necessary to subsidise those who are not barley growers. It is certainly not for us to charge to Revenue £40,000, £50,000 or £60,000 that the delivery of these parcels involves, so that English manufacturers can get their parcels into Ireland. Why should the produce of English factories be sent to this country, unless those who want them will pay for them? The Post Office cannot deliver those parcels free. The expense has to be met out of revenue. Deputy Heffernan referred to mementoes and tokens that are sent at Christmas time, and that come from outside the country. I can assure Deputy Heffernan that some of the most beautiful and artistic mementoes can at present be manufactured in the West of Ireland and that they are being sent to London, and even to France. As such things can be got at home, there is no necessity at Christmas time to import mementoes from England.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

On a point of explanation, I did not mean that people in Ireland would buy mementoes for the purpose of sending them to friends in Ireland. I referred to mementoes coming from people in England to people in this country.

Mr. D'ALTON

If they come from friends in England, they are certainly worth 6d. I feel it would be more important to make the postal charge on a letter 1½d., even if the revenue had to bear the loss, or even for the Minister for Finance to make income tax the same as it is elsewhere.

Major COOPER

On a point of order, is the Deputy in order?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

He is not in order now.

Mr. D'ALTON

I am suggesting that the time might come when that could be done and that we might get our Northern friends, to whom reference was made, to come in. I think the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is justified in this matter and that we should not be asked to pay specially for the delivery of parcels from across the Channel. To do so would be, practically, subsidising workers across the water, in many instances, to the injury, perhaps, of workers in this country. The cost should certainly not be charged to revenue nor to the taxpayer.

Mr. CONNOR HOGAN

Quite recently the Minister for Justice said that there was reason in everything, but somehow I am afraid he overlooked his colleagues on the ministerial benches. It is true that reason is very desirable in legislation but I realise that it is not a need or an essential. Whilst listening to the speeches of the Postmaster-General, the Minister for Finance, and Deputy D'Alton one is only too painfully conscious of the weak and flimsy defence which they put forward for this charge of 6d. The Postmaster-General—I was going to say Deputy Walsh, but perhaps I was only anticipating time—said that the proper time for discussing this tax was on the 21st July. Surely the Minister is blessed with a conveniently short memory. Surely he must have known that the Dáil at that time was working at full pressure, that all the time had been allocated by the Government, and that there was no possibility of referring at extreme length to this tax. What would have been the use of discussing it? The Government had a mute and passive majority behind it, and you had an unenlightened people who did not take sufficient interest in their own concerns. I believe that it was best to wait until the incidence of the tax was felt and until the volume of public condemnation had grown, to attack the measure.

It seems to me that the defence fell under two headings, none of which was in any way substantial and did not carry conviction. I believe that the idea of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is to repair and make good a certain loss on postal packets, and he said that three millions of parcels were coming into the country by post from Great Britain and only one million going out from here and that that entailed a very serious loss of revenue. He says in addition that we had to reduce the postage rate in Ireland by 3d. in order to equalise with Great Britain. I submit that that 3d. goes to the benefit of the people here, to the retail houses having a distributive trade by post, that it goes to their advantage, and that they are benefiting to the extent of another 6d. The Minister's idea seems to be to discourage the use of the parcel post from Great Britain. It is what he would consider an equilibrium, but, taking it from the right point of view, he gets so much for each parcel delivered and he has overhead charges which he cannot reduce. I am not aware that even the presence of a surplus on our side of two million parcels throws extra or undue work on the postal service because the postal service is for the benefit of the community and you cannot reduce it below a certain limit. You cannot deplete the staff. It is not economic to do so. The staff has to be maintained no matter how much or little it has to do.

By some perversion of economic instinct the Minister endeavoured to reduce this traffic. Remember, the Post Office is a cash institution. It is a carrying company, and the cry of carrying companies is that they want more and more traffic, but the Minister says he does not need it. I am not surprised that the Post Office is being run at a loss while we are doing things to irritate the public so that they rather refrain from using the post. The Minister also was inclined to attack the officials of the Chamber of Commerce, suggesting that they did not represent the views of the people in condemning this 6d. tax. He said in effect that they should wait and see how the thing worked. It is quite possible that some Deputy would put up something here in the nature of a strong case for a reduction of wages. I wonder would Deputy Johnson wait until the reductions took place and the effects were visible? Would he wait until this thing was condemned and the results demonstrated? His intuition would at once force him to stand out against it.

Similarly, those officials in the Chamber of Commerce protested, and they acted rightly in protesting against the imposition of this 6d. tax. I hope that the fallacy of saving the Post Office is disposed of. It is the people here, your own citizens, whom you are taxing. The distributing houses in Great Britain do not pay this tax. It is put on here and collected at the threshold of the consumer. The position seems to be that we are like the dog in the fable who was fed with a chop from his own tail; it was not good for the dog and it destroyed the tail. I think I have the word of the Minister for Finance for it, that the goods coming through the parcel post from Great Britain are largely articles of apparel.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

resumed the Chair.

Mr. HOGAN

Does the Minister suggest that a 6d. tax on an article of clothing is a protection to Irish industry? It can be no such thing. For instance, does the Minister for Finance suggest that a tax of 6d. on an overcoat valued at £5, is a protection to Irish industry? I am really ashamed at such an argument being put up. The question was raised of subsidising England. I fail to see that we are subsidising England in this. After all, it is only a readjustment of burdens; it is only taking money from one pocket and putting it into another, or rather, it is taking it out of the pockets of everyone in this matter. Deputy D'Alton wanted to suggest that the Farmers' Party were standing in their own light. No such thing. We want something like fair competition. I do not think the State has a right to put any distributive business here in a favoured position, and to give a monopoly to them of trade and let them charge more or less what they like. That would be preposterous. I feel strongly on this, and I will vote for Deputy Heffernan's amendment.

Amendment put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 13; Níl, 45.

Tá

• Earnán Altún.
• Pádraig F. Baxter.
• John J. Cole.
• Bryan R. Cooper.
• Darrell Figgis.
• John Good.
• P. McKenna.
• Risteárd Mac Liam.
• Mícheál R. O hIfearnáin.
• Domhnall O Mocháin.
• P.K. O hOgáin (Limerick).
• Liam Thrift.
• Connor Hogan.

Níl

• Richard H. Beamish.
• Earnán de Blaghd.
• Séamus Breathnach.
• Próinsias Bulfin.
• Séamus de Búrca.
• Louis J. D'Alton.
• John Daly.
• Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí Dhriscéoil.
• Séamus Eabhróid.
• Desmond Fitzgerald.
• John Hennigan.
• Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
• Séamus Mac Cosgair.
• Tomás Mac Eoin.
• Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
• Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
• Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
• P. McGilligan.
• Seán P. Mac Giobúin.
• Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
• Martin M. Nally.
• Tomás de Nógla.
• J. T. Nolan.
• Peadar O hAodha.
• Criostóir O Broin.
• Seán O Bruadair.
• Próinsias O Cathail.
• Tomás O Conaill.
• Aodh O Cúlacháin.
• Liam O Daimhín. Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
• Séamus N. O Dóláin.
• Eamon O Dubhghaill.
• Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
• Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
• Aindriú O Láimhín.
• Séamus O Leadáin.
• Fionán O Loingsigh.
• Pádraic O Máille.
• Risteárd O Maolchatha.
• Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
• Tadhg P. O Murchadha.
• Pádraig O hOgáin (Galway).
• Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
• P. W. Shaw.

Amendment declared lost.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The main question is adjourned until next Wednesday.

The PRESIDENT

Could it not be disposed of now? I had hoped it could be.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I am afraid it is too late to put the question now. It can be disposed of immediately on next Wednesday.

The Dáil adjourned at 4.3 p.m., until Tuesday, 28th October, at 3 o'clock.