Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 9 Jun 1926

Vol. 16 No. 7

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - VOTE 6 (REVENUE DEPARTMENT).

I move:—

Go ndeontar suim ná raghaidh thar £466,980 chun slánuithe na suime is gá chun íoctha an Mhuirir a thiocfidh chun bheith iníoctha i rith na bliana dar críoch an 31adh lá de Mhárta, 1927, chun Tuarastail agus Costaisí na Roinne Ioncuim.

That a sum not exceeding £466,980 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1927, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Revenue Department.

This Vote is for a much more substantial amount than the Vote for the Department of Finance. Deputies may be aware of some of the duties that are done by various branches of the Revenue Department. I think they may be described as multifarious duties. The Revenue Department does the work of printing stamps; it is beginning to do the work of printing postal orders; it prints the old age pension orders, savings certificates, land bonds, entertainment duty tickets, and all types of security printing.

And it will soon be printing betting tickets.

They are bracing themselves for that. The Department administers the Old Age Pensions Act. I might say that a very substantial amount of the Department's expenses in travelling—about £10,000—is due to the administration of the Old Age Pensions Act. The Department has the duty of restricting or preventing the importation of all sorts of things from obscene literature to the plumage of certain birds and shaving brushes manufactured in Japan, as well as all sorts of various undesirable articles. They also do the work of enforcing the Merchandise (Marks) Act. Where goods are marked, say, in the name of a firm in the Saorstát and are made outside, they have to bear definitely the announcement that they are made elsewhere. The quarantine and health regulations are enforced by the Revenue authorities, and certain duties in connection with alien immigration. They also have to hold inquiries and deal with wreckage, with the registration of ships and fishing boats and the engagement and discharge of seamen. They collect "light" dues, and, in certain cases, harbour dues. In the last few years a great increase of work was cast on the Revenue staff by various Customs duties as a result of tariffs which were imposed.

The Customs and Excise staff has had to be very substantially increased. We were handicapped to some extent in the discharge of Customs duties last year and the year before by the fact that the staff was barely sufficient or was insufficient in numbers, and was moreover a raw staff. There was practically no Customs service here before the setting up of the Saorstát, and the Customs staff which we got over was very small. The new men who were added naturally were not able to discharge the duties as fully or as efficiently as more experienced officers would be, and perhaps a certain number of the complaints we hear of were due to that lack of experience.

We made many investigations from time to time in regard to complaints, and I found on the whole the fact that the public and the importers had not accommodated themselves to the existence of the Customs barrier was more responsible for the delays and difficulties than any failing or rawness on the part of the Customs staff. We have had these new people working for a fair time, and I think there is very little cause of complaint at present. I certainly have had no complaint of any consequence, and no substantial number of complaints have reached me for a very long time. Even with the staff at the highest pitch of efficiency, occasionally there will be something to rouse somebody to utter a complaint.

The Income Tax staff also has been labouring under great difficulties. We had a tremendous mass of arrears of income tax, and a great amount of confusion arising from delay in collection, and from the destruction of documents in many cases. There was a very heavy task on the Revenue staff to collect these arrears. The main mass of the arrears has now been collected, and I think at the end of the present financial year a very small amount of the old arrears will be outstanding. The new arrangement in regard to double income tax will, in the first instance, occasion some increase in the work of the Revenue Department, and will occasion some delays. The mere change over will cause certain problems, and will create certain initial difficulties, but we are satisfied, as a result of the new arrangement, that in a year or so some substantial ease to the Revenue staff will be brought about.

We will then be in the position to set up the nucleus of a proper investigation staff. At present we have the bare minimum of tax inspectors necessary for the work. In fact, we have yet four tax inspectors on loan from the British service. We are in the position that but for those four inspectors there might have to be amalgamation of districts or something that would make the due collection of tax possible. We hope in another year to have a number of young men qualified for the position of inspector of taxes. With the decrease of work that will result when the new double income tax arrangement materialises we will be able to appoint a certain number of inspectors to the work of investigation. Perhaps I cannot indicate exactly the lines we will take, but they will at any rate deal with cases which at present have to be passed over without the sort of scrutiny we would like. Our belief is that if there were sufficient tax inspectors, and if there was anybody who could be put on the work of investigation, we would collect the sum of a quarter of a million or perhaps £35,000 more than we are collecting without any increase in rates.

The Minister could not tell us how to get on that list.

No, but I hope it will be a more distinguished honour in the future than it has been in the past. I think also that the position in regard to Customs is that whatever tariffs may be imposed in the future are not likely to necessitate an increase in the Customs staff, such as previous tariffs did. We have now brought our staff up to very considerable numbers, and in respect of some of the tariffed articles the value of imports will fall off—we hope they will fall off very substantially. I do not anticipate that any tariff changes we have to make will necessitate an increase in the Customs staff. Some small increase might be required if tariffs were imposed on articles of which a substantial volume was imported, but no increase compared with the increase when the first tariff was imposed will be necessary.

There will not be any tariff.

Do not be too sure either way.

I travel almost weekly through districts in which tariffs are enforced, and while I must confess that our efforts in the first instance were very crude, I must pay this compliment to the Commissioners: that their men now are at least equal to the men on the other side. Within a period of twelve months they have brought up their services to the highest pitch of excellence. There is, however, something that I would like to say to the Commissioners through the Minister. It is a very serious subject which affects my constituency and probably many others. It is on the question of income tax. From 1919 on, when neither law nor order existed in this country and when certain formulas were adopted, no income tax was charged or could possibly be charged. I frankly think that the Commissioners are right in pressing that the incidence of income tax should be spread more largely than it was previously. I think they are right, but I consider that this must not be done in a stringent way. Very few rural traders paid income tax in any shape or form under the old régime. I always thought that was an unfair incidence of the taxation. Our Commissioners are taking that up in a strenuous way, and while I do not complain of the equity of their proceeding, I ask the Commissioners to exercise some discretion in pressing these matters.

I move:—"To reduce sub-head C by £2,000."

This is a comparatively small amendment and it will not be necessary for me to occupy the time of the Dáil for any length of time in speaking to it. It is to reduce the allowance for removal expenses from £3,000 to £1,000. I do so for two reasons. One is that I want to urge the Minister to establish a definite scale applicable throughout the whole Civil Service for removal expenses, just as is done in the case of subsistence allowance. In this case the amount for removal expenses to the Revenue Commissioners seems to be out of all proportion to that spent by the Gárda. I am glad the Minister for Justice is here to be complimented. There are upwards of 7,000 men in the Gárda. Their removal expenses amount to £3,500 a year, or 10/- a head. There are slightly over 2,100 Revenue officials on the Vote and their removal expenses have been estimated at £3,000 or, roughly speaking, £1 8s. per head. I do not know if there is any particular reason why the transfers of Revenue officials should be more frequent than the transfers of the Gárda. I do not think it is an unfair comparison to make. If it is possible to remove the Gárda for that average amount it ought to be possible to do it for the same figure both in the Revenue Department and throughout the Civil Service generally. Of course, there are some branches of the Civil Service where there are no removal expenses, that I could discover. I do not think that there are removal expenses granted to officers of the Prisons Board and there do not seem to be any removal expenses in the case of the Army. Where removal expenses are allowed they ought to be on a more definite scale and they ought not to be more generous in one department than in another.

My second point is that I want the Minister to diminish the number of these removals as much as possible, because at present they are not conducive to the smooth working or efficiency of the service. I am one of those people who are hopelessly unable to deal with their own income tax matters. I have to employ an agent. I am told—I have no reason to doubt the fact—that the whole settlement of my claim is being delayed by the fact that there have been two or three transfers of officers whose duty it was to deal with the case. Just as one officer is beginning to be conversant with it he is transferred somewhere else and the new officer has to take it up de novo. It is a difficult claim, and when there are easier claims to be done he may be inclined to postpone it. These removals are an inconvenience not only to the public but to the Minister. Therefore, I urge this amendment on the ground that it will check these removals which do not appear to be necessary, and it will compel the Minister to keep his officials in the same place where they are accustomed to the work.

Frankly, I must oppose this amendment. I think it is unfair that a Deputy should use information that is not accurate, and should refer to the conduct of the business of an administrative body like the Commissioners. If the Deputy brings forward a case here—

I gave my own case.

I am going to answer that case. If the Deputy, instead of employing that idiotic agent, had approached me I should have been glad to have assisted him——

The Deputy, I think, is out of order.

I oppose the amendment.

I think Deputy Cooper has chosen the proper sub-head to deal with this question. We all recognise that income tax is an iniquitous tax. Its removal would be very satisfactory. There has been a considerable improvement in detail in the work of the Income Tax Commissioners and they are straightening out the problems that confronted them. I appreciate what the Minister said when he indicated that he was marching towards such a standard of organisation as would enable him to collect £250,000. I presume that will be from people who are to be brought into the net, and that some relief will be forthcoming to the people already in the net. I asked the Minister for assistance as to getting within the charmed circle but he did not respond. Thinking of the Minister's betting tax, I thought I might ask him to give me a tip. It will be a relief to the community, as a whole, when matters reach such a stage that we will be able to find out who is paying income tax and who is not.

I am afraid the Deputy is going outside the terms of Deputy Cooper's amendment.

I thought that I would save the House the trouble of listening to me on other occasions if I were allowed to make the few remarks I have to make on this sub-head, which is fairly comprehensive. As to Deputy Cooper's amendment, I originally interpreted it as referring to the removal of income tax altogether. I find I was wrong. It only refers to the removal of members of the staff from place to place. I fear I will have to oppose Deputy Cooper's amendment on that account. When we find an income tax collector or inspector unpopular, I think we would all like to have him removed and, in addition, we would be glad to pay his expenses.

Would the Minister explain sub-head D—Poundage to distributors of stamps?

Might I suggest that we dispose of my amendment first?

I do not think it would be possible to provide for removals at a lesser cost than is shown here. I do not know, at the moment, how removals are effected in the Gárda Síochána or what distance the members have to go. In regard to Revenue officials, fairly regular and frequent changes are necessary. We do not want to make changes any more frequently than is absolutely necessary. I do not know how the difficulty Deputy Cooper referred to arose. We are extremely short of staff. We have had officials on loan from Great Britain and, from time to time, they have gone back. We have not been anxious to put a British official out in a district and, as we were carrying on under difficulties, various changes may have taken place. In general, it is desirable to remove an income tax inspector once in three years. Deputies will realise that an income tax inspector cannot do his work efficiently if he has too many friends or too many enemies in a district. He has a very invidious sort of task and a very difficult task to discharge. Except for the exceptional man, if an inspector is a long time in a district, it becomes impossible for him to do his duty with full efficiency. Apart from any question of promotion, changes are necessary. In an income tax district it is by results that you know the efficiency of an inspector. If the yield of tax in a particular district falls, you try another man at it.

You begin to realise then that he is becoming popular.

Mere inspections will not sufficiently test the efficiency of a man. From every point of view, it is necessary to change men round. That argument applies with greatest force to inspectors of taxes, but it applies to other Revenue officials to a certain degree. The task of law-enforcing is difficult, and personal problems arise. A man who, because of over-strictness, becomes very unpopular, may cease to be efficient in his district because of the difficulties that will be put up against him. You see examples of that in the case of preventive officers in the Customs. It is necessary, then, to change by way of promotion. Districts are graded, and if a man is due for promotion he goes up to a district of higher grade. It may be necessary also to change a man for the purpose of giving him experience—that is, by way of training. If a man is in a district where there is one type of work you must, after an interval, remove him to another district, where he will be dealing with another type of work. For example, if an Excise officer were stationed in a district where there was no distillery, he would be removed, after an interval, to a district in which there was a distillery in order that he might gain experience.

The expenses of removing a single man are not considerable, but in the case of a married man they are considerable. It is not entirely a question of scale. You can fix limits and all that sort of thing, but, in the case of a married man, you must transport a reasonable amount of furniture, if he is the owner of it, and you must transport himself and his family. You will find in a case like that that £50 or £60 will not be an excessive sum. If you have regard to the number of officers in the service, if you remember that we are just getting the service established, that the officers are getting into their stride and that a number of removals are due, I do not think you can contend that the sum set down here is excessive. As a matter of fact, we are anxious to keep the amount down. The opinion of the Revenue Commissioners is that if they made all the removals that it would be desirable to make, the sum set down here would not be sufficient. It is only by cutting down and postponing removals that this sum covers the item. Another reason for postponing removals is the housing difficulty. Certain removals would be very desirable, in the opinion of the Commissioners, but they find it necessary to postpone them owing to the difficulty of finding house accommodation for officers transferred.

I must express my obligations to Deputy O'Doherty. I was not surprised or shocked when he said he was going to vote against this amendment. I have been in the Dáil for three years. I do not know how many amendments I moved in that time, but I do not think I ever remember Deputy O'Doherty to have supported one of them. For the kindly offer of his services, I desire to thank him. I would thank him more wholeheartedly if he had offered them gratuitously, but as he has only offered me 50 per cent. I shall have to state how I stand. My agent, instead of being an old man, is only half Deputy O'Doherty's age. He happens to be a qualified chartered accountant, and I think I should prefer a qualified expert to an unqualified amateur, however great the good-will of the latter may be.

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I still think that the maintenance of an exact rule as to the removal of income tax inspectors every three years may cause a good deal of inconvenience, where these inspectors have uncompleted cases on hands. It is not as if we were dealing with a time when everything is normal, as from year to year. We are dealing with cases in which there are considerable arrears. Owing to the burning of income tax offices and the disappearance of records, whole cases have to be reconstituted. If a case comes, in the course of operations, before three different officers, it is bound to be troublesome and expensive to the claimant. Perhaps I expressed myself badly in the remarks I made. The point I referred to just now is the point I wished to make. The Minister has given very substantial reasons for the course adopted and I will deprive Deputy O'Doherty of the pleasure of voting against my amendment by asking the leave of the Committee to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

As regards the question put by Deputy Johnson as to poundage to a distributor of stamps, that is a case where stamps are actually sold for the Revenue Commissioners by the Secretary of the Dublin Stock Exchange. He is paid at a certain rate. The scale, which I shall mention, contemplates greater payments than will be necessary. If he sold up to £24,000 worth of stamps he would be entitled to £180. On the excess, up to £35,000, he would be allowed 15/- per £100 worth. On the excess over £35,000 worth and up to £75,000 worth, he would be paid at the rate of 10/- per £100 worth, and on any excess over £75,000 worth he is paid 5/- per cent.

Is this a personal act of the distributor, or has he to employ a staff for the purpose? Stock Exchange operations only occupy a few hours per day. This Estimate contemplates payment of £500 for distribution of stamps which, I assume from the Minister's statement, is the work of one person. Unless the person concerned has some responsibility as to the amount of the stamps and so on, the sum does not seem to me to be justified in its present form.

It is a very old arrangement and it covers the entire expenses. Salaries would have to be paid and there probably would be other expenses in connection with the distribution of these stamps for Stock Exchange operations if a payment were not made on this basis. I doubt whether any saving could be effected by a change. I do not say that it should not be examined, but it is an old-standing arrangement which has been in operation for a very considerable time.

I draw attention to the fact that we have a Director of Stamping and a Deputy Director of Stamping. Presumably their work is in connection with preparing the stamps. But we have also appointed a stockbroker, so that we are gradually gathering together a department, one way or another. It occurred to me that the distribution of these stamps might be done under the direction of the official responsible for the Stock Exchange operations of the Government. I ask the Minister to consider whether this is the most economical and efficient method of carrying out this work?

I will examine that, but I might say that the appointment of a stockbroker was made because the Stock Exchange refused to pass a rule which we asked them to pass allowing a stockbroker to do Government work at half rate, but they passed a rule allowing a stockbroker to do Government work on a salary. We were able to save substantially by paying a stockbroker a salary rather than paying him the ordinary rate of commission.

I think that this is the first time that the House has been informed of this matter. I might say that at the time it was instituted I queried it, because I thought, without any inside knowledge, that it was retrograde so far as the Stock Exchange was concerned. I certainly did not know that the Stock Exchange had refused to do anything in the matter of meeting the Government. With reference to sub-head K, perhaps the Minister would give an explanation as to what the small service of £1,000 in connection with the maintenance of boats is for: "Construction, purchase and maintenance of vessels, boats and other conveyances." A thousand pounds will not go very far in the construction and maintenance of any number of boats.

A steam launch is maintained at Cobh for the purpose of the Customs in meeting boats. At other places there are rowing boats, though the tendency has been this last year or so not to maintain rowing boats at all, but simply to hire them as the occasion may require. In Dublin at any rate, the actual maintenance of rowing boats has been done away with, and instead, when it is necessary for the Customs to have a boat, they simply hire one.

It is rather hard to understand this item. Round our coasts there are a number of islands. How do the Revenue people get to and from these islands? Again, it is, I think, customary at the ports to board vessels coming in. My questions are more for information than with any desire to increase the £1,000 which would, of course, be out of order, but I cannot exactly fit in the sum of £1,000 under the heading and also in relation to the duties that are carried out by Customs officials.

This has nothing to do with access to islands for Revenue purposes. It is simply to board steamers or boats when they are coming in. There was a steam launch at Cobh for the purpose, and at Dublin and Waterford there have been rowing boats. The tendency now is simply to hire. The question of the launch at Cobh is also one that has been under consideration. The expenses of maintenance and of overhauling the boilers are very considerable.

What would happen if the Revenue authorities had to chase smugglers? Is there any provision at all around the coasts for that?

I suppose that that would be travelling expenses.

Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 6.30 and resumed at 7.15,An LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE in the Chair.
Top
Share