I would like to say that our agreement to these Resolutions at the present stage is to be taken with reservation, and that we intend to bring forward amendments on the Finance Bill to the Resolutions.
PUBLIC BUSINESS. - FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS REPORT.
The following Resolutions were reported from the Committee on Finance:
1.—(1) That income tax shall be charged for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1928, at the rate of three shillings in the pound.
(2) That super-tax shall be charged for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1928, at the same rates as those at which it was charged for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1927.
(3) That the several statutory and other provisions which were in force during the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1927, in relation to income tax and super-tax shall have effect in relation to the income-tax and super-tax to be charged as aforesaid for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1928.
(4) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).
2.—(1) That in addition to the income tax charged at the rate prescribed for any year there shall be charged, levied and paid for that year in respect of the income of any individual, the total of which from all sources exceeds two thousand pounds, an additional duty of income tax (in this Resolution referred to as sur-tax) at the rate or rates prescribed by the Oireachtas for that year.
(2) That sur-tax shall be due and payable on or before the 1st day of January next after the end of the year of assessment, except that sur-tax or any part or sur-tax included in an assessment which is signed and allowed on or after the said 1st day of January, shall be deemed to be due and payable on the day next after the day on which the assessment is signed and allowed.
(3) That sur-tax shall be charged for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1928, at the following rates:
|
In respect of the first two thousand pounds of the income |
Nil |
|
In respect of the excess over two thousand pounds— For every pound of the first five hundred pounds of the excess |
Ninepence |
|
For every pound of the next five hundred pounds of the excess |
One shilling |
|
For every pound of the next one thousand pounds of the excess |
One shilling and sixpence |
|
For every pound of the next one thousand pounds of the excess |
Two shillings and threepence |
|
For every pound of the next one thousand pounds of the excess |
Three shillings |
|
For every pound of the next two thousand pounds of the excess |
Three shillings and sixpence |
|
For every pound of the next two thousand pounds of the excess |
Four shillings |
|
For every pound of the remainder of the excess |
Four shillings and sixpence |
3.—That sub-section (2) of Section 157 (which relates to the date when income tax is due) of the Income Tax Act, 1918, shall cease to have effect so far as it relates to tax chargeable under Schedule A, other than any tax so chargeable in respect of income which is, or is to be, treated as earned income.
4.—(1) That a customs duty of an amount equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent. of the value of the article shall be charged, levied and paid on all motor cars and component parts and accessories of motor cars imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 26th day of April, 1928.
(2) That in this Resolution the expression "motor cars" includes motor tractors, motor bicycles, and motor tricycles and also includes vehicles designed solely or primarily for traction by or attachment to motor cars, motor tractors, motor bicycles, or motor tricycles.
(3) That the value of any article for the purpose of this Resolution shall be taken to be the price which an importer would give for the article if the article were delivered, freight and insurance paid, in bond at the place of importation, and duty shall be paid on that value as fixed by the Revenue Commissioners.
(4) That if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners that the duty mentioned in this Resolution has been duly paid in respect of any article and that such article has not been used in Saorstát Eireann, a drawback equal to the amount of the duty so paid shall be allowed on such article if it is exported as merchandise.
(5) That Section 6 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1879, shall not apply to articles liable to the duty mentioned in this Resolution and any such article re-imported into Saorstát Eireann after exportation therefrom shall be exempt from such duty if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners either that the article had not been imported previously to exportation or that no drawback of duty was allowed on exportation or that any drawback so allowed has been repaid to the Revenue Commissioners.
Articles which have been imported and exported by way of transit only under bond shall not be deemed to have been imported or exported for the purposes of this paragraph.
(6) That where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners that a motor car is constructed and adapted for propulsion or traction along rail tracks and is intended to be or has been and is being used exclusively for such propulsion or traction or that an article is a component part or accessory or is intended to be or has been and is being exclusively used as a component part or accessory of any such motor car as aforesaid, the Revenue Commissioners shall, subject to such conditions (if any) as they think fit to impose, allow such motor car or article (as the case may be) to be imported without payment of the duty mentioned in this Resolution or, where such duty has been paid on importation, shall repay such duty.
(7) That where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners that an article is of a kind mainly used as a component part or an accessory of a motor car but is imported for use for some other purpose, the Revenue Commissioners shall, subject to such conditions (if any) as they think fit to impose, allow such article to be imported without payment of the duty mentioned in this Resolution or, where such duty has been paid on importation, shall repay such duty.
(8) That the Minister for Finance may by order exempt from the duty mentioned in this Resolution any specified article liable to such duty if he is satisfied that, having regard to the small value of the article, it is inexpedient that the duty should be charged.
Orders made under sub-section (5) of Section 13 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, and in force on the 25th day of April, 1928, may be revoked or amended by an order made under this paragraph and, until so revoked and subject to any such amendment, shall apply to the duty mentioned in this Resolution and continue in force accordingly.
(9) That the Minister for Finance may make regulations for providing for the total or partial exemption for a limited period from the duty mentioned in this Resolution of motor cars brought into Saorstát Eireann by persons making only a temporary stay therein.
Regulations made under sub-section (6) of Section 13 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, and in force on the 25th day of April, 1928, may be revoked or amended by regulations made under this paragraph and, until so revoked and subject to any such amendment, shall apply to the duty mentioned in this Resolution and to motor cars liable to that duty and shall continue in force accordingly.
(10) That the provisions of Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1919, shall apply to the duty mentioned in this Resolution with the substitution of the expression "Saorstát Eireann" for the expression "Great Britain and Ireland."
(11) That the new import duties which were first imposed by Section 12 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, and were continued up to the 1st day of May, 1928, by Section 12 of the Finance Act, 1927 (No. 18 of 1927), shall not be charged or levied on any article chargeable with the duty mentioned in this Resolution.
(12) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).
5.—(1) That a customs duty of an amount equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent. of the value of the article shall be charged, levied and paid on all empty glass bottles and empty glass jars of the kind hereinafter mentioned of a capacity of not less than five fluid ounces and imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 26th day of April, 1928, that is to say:—
(a) all empty glass bottles of a kind ordinarily used for bottling table waters as defined by sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Finance Act, 1916, spirits (excluding perfumed spirits and medicinal spirits), wine, beer or cider, and
(b) all empty glass jars of a kind ordinarily used for containing jams, marmalades, or jellies.
(2) That if it appears to the satisfaction of the Minister for Finance, in consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that bottles and jars of the kind specified in paragraph (1) of this Resolution made of white glass and suitable for the requirements of traders in Saorstát Eireann are not manufactured in Saorstát Eireann, the Revenue Commissioners may, by licence, authorise, subject to such conditions as they shall think fit to prescribe and as shall appear in the licence, the importation without payment of duty of empty glass bottles and jars of the kind specified in the said paragraph (1) which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, are made of white glass.
(3) That any article liable to the duty mentioned in paragraph (1) of this Resolution which is re-imported into Saorstát Eireann after exportation therefrom shall be exempt from the said duty, if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners either:—
(a) that the article had not been imported prior to its exportation, or
(b) that the article had been first imported prior to the 12th day of May, 1924, or
(c) that the article had been first imported on or after the 12th day of May, 1924, and either was not liable to duty under any Act of the Oireachtas in force at the time of its importation or was so liable and such duty was duly paid thereon.
(4) That any article which is imported into Saorstát Eireann after having been previously imported into and exported from Saorstát Eireann by way of transit only under bond shall not be deemed to be re-imported into Saorstát Eireann within the meaning of this Resolution.
(5) That if any person acts in contravention of any of the conditions prescribed by the Revenue Commissioners under this Resolution he shall for each offence incur a penalty of fifty pounds and any article liable to the duty mentioned in paragraph (1) of this Resolution in respect of which such contravention has taken place shall be forfeited.
(6) That Section 6 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1879, shall not apply to articles liable to the duty mentioned in paragraph (1) of this Resolution.
(7) That the value of any article for the purposes of this Resolution shall be taken to be the price which an importer would give for the article if the article were delivered, freight and insurance paid, in bond, at the place of importation and duty shall be paid on that value as fixed by the Revenue Commissioners.
(8) That Section 19 of the Finance Act, 1925 (No. 28 of 1925) shall be repealed as on and from the 26th day of April, 1928.
(9) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).
6.—(1) That there shall be charged, levied, and paid on every bottle or jar of the capacity of five fluid ounces or more imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 26th day of April, 1928, and containing at the time of importation any dutiable commodity a duty of customs at the rate of sixpence for every dozen or part of a dozen such bottles or jars.
(2) That Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1925 (No. 28 of 1925) shall be repealed as on and from the 26th day of April, 1928.
(3) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).
7.—(1) That the new import duties which were first imposed by Section 12 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, and were (with the exception of the duty on records and other means of reproducing music and the duty on blank film on which no picture has been impressed) continued up to the 1st day of May, 1928, by Section 12 of the Finance Act, 1927 (No. 18 of 1927), shall, with the exceptions aforesaid and with the further exception of the duty on motor cars (including motor bicycles and motor tricycles) and accessories and component parts thereof other than tyres, continue to be charged, levied, and paid on and from the said 1st day of May, 1928, up to the 1st day of May, 1929.
(2) That whenever the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied that any cinematograph film imported into Saorstát Eireann is of an educational character they shall, subject to compliance with such conditions as they think fit to impose, exempt such film from the payment of the duty on cinematograph films included in the duties mentioned in this Resolution.
(3) That the provisions of Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1919, shall apply to the duty mentioned in this Resolution with the substitution of the expression "Saorstát Eireann" for the expression "Great Britain and Ireland."
(4) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).
8.—(1) That the additional duties on dried fruits which were first imposed by Section 8 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, and were continued up to the first day of August, 1928, by Section 13 of the Finance Act. 1927 (No. 18 of 1927) shall continue to be charged, levied and paid on and from the said 1st day of August, 1928, up to the 1st day of August, 1929.
(2) That the provisions of Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1919, shall apply to the duties mentioned in this Resolution with the substitution of the expression "Saorstát Eireann" for the expression "Great Britain and Ireland."
(3) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act. 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).
9.—(1) That in lieu of the present customs duties, drawbacks, and allowance in respect of sugar, molasses, glucose, and saccharin there shall be charged, levied, and paid as on and from the 26th day of April, 1928, the duties specified in the second column of Part I. of the First Schedule to this Resolution, and there shall be paid and allowed the drawbacks and allowance set out in Part II. of the said Schedule, but subject both as respects duties and as respects drawbacks and allowance to the provisions, so far as they are applicable. set out in Part III. of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1925 (No. 28 of 1925).
(2) That in lieu of the present excise duties, drawbacks, and allowance in respect of sugar, molasses, glucose, and saccharin there shall as on and from the 26th day of April, 1928, be charged, levied, and paid the duties specified in the third column of Part I. of the First Schedule to this Resolution, and there shall be paid and allowed the drawbacks and allowance set out in Part II. of the said Schedule, but subject both as respects duties and as respects drawbacks and allowance to the provisions, so far as they are applicable, set out in Part III. of the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1925 (No. 28 of 1925).
(3) The duty imposed by this section shall not be charged or levied in respect of sugar or molasses made from beet grown in Saorstát Eireann, and the provisions of Section 6 (except sub-section (1) thereof) of the Finance Act, 1922, shall apply and have effect subject to the following modifications, that is to say:—
(a) the word "non-dutiable" shall mean exempted by this paragraph from the duty imposed by this Resolution, and (b) the expression "Saorstát Eireann" shall be substituted for the expression "Great Britain and Ireland."
(4) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).
FIRST SCHEDULE.
SUGAR, MOLASSES, GLUCOSE, SACCHARIN.—RATES, DUTIES, DRAWBACKS AND ALLOWANCE.
PART I.—DUTIES.
|
Articles |
Customs Duty |
Excise Duty |
|||||
|
s. |
d. |
s. |
d. |
||||
|
Sugar which, when tested by the polariscope, indicates a polarisation exceeding ninety-eight degrees |
the cwt. |
11 |
8 |
11 |
8 |
||
|
Sugar of a polarisation not exceeding seventy-six degrees |
the cwt. |
5 |
7 |
5 |
7 |
||
|
Sugar of a polarisation: |
|||||||
|
Exceeding |
76 and not exceeding |
77 |
the cwt. |
7 |
9.4 |
5 |
9.4 |
|
,, |
77,,,,,, |
78 |
,, |
7 |
11.6 |
5 |
11.6 |
|
,, |
78,,,,,, |
79 |
,, |
8 |
1.9 |
8 |
1.9 |
|
,, |
79,,,,,, |
80 |
,, |
8 |
4.1 |
8 |
4.1 |
|
,, |
80,,,,,, |
81 |
,, |
8 |
6.4 |
8 |
6.4 |
|
,, |
81,,,,,, |
82 |
,, |
8 |
8.6 |
8 |
8.6 |
|
,, |
82,,,,,, |
83 |
,, |
8 |
10.8 |
8 |
10.8 |
|
,, |
83,,,,,, |
84 |
,, |
7 |
1.4 |
7 |
1.4 |
|
,, |
84,,,,,, |
85 |
,, |
7 |
3.9 |
7 |
3.9 |
|
,, |
85,,,,,, |
86 |
,, |
7 |
6.4 |
7 |
6.4 |
|
,, |
86,,,,,, |
87 |
,, |
7 |
8.9 |
7 |
8.9 |
|
,, |
87,,,,,, |
88 |
,, |
7 |
11.7 |
7 |
11.7 |
|
,, |
88,,,,,, |
89 |
,, |
8 |
2.5 |
8 |
2.5 |
|
,, |
89,,,,,, |
90 |
,, |
8 |
5.9 |
8 |
5.9 |
|
,, |
90,,,,,, |
91 |
,, |
8 |
9.2 |
8 |
9.2 |
|
,, |
91,,,,,, |
92 |
,, |
9 |
0.6 |
9 |
0.6 |
|
,, |
92,,,,,, |
93 |
,, |
9 |
4.0 |
9 |
4.0 |
|
,, |
93,,,,,, |
94 |
,, |
9 |
7.3 |
9 |
7.3 |
|
,, |
94,,,,,, |
95 |
,, |
9 |
10.7 |
9 |
10.7 |
|
,, |
95,,,,,, |
96 |
,, |
10 |
2.0 |
10 |
2.0 |
|
,, |
96,,,,,, |
97 |
,, |
10 |
5.4 |
10 |
5.4 |
|
,, |
97,,,,,, |
98 |
,, |
10 |
8.8 |
10 |
8.8 |
|
Molasses (except when cleared for use by a licensed distiller in the manufacture of spirits) and invert sugar and all other sugar and extracts from sugar which cannot be completely tested by the polariscope and on which duty is not specially charged by reference to the other provisions of this Part of this Schedule:—If containing 70 per cent or more of sweetening matter |
the cwt. |
7 |
7 |
7 |
5 |
||
|
If containing less than 70 per cent. and more than 50 per cent. of sweetening matter |
the cwt. |
7 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
||
|
If containing more than 50 per cent of sweetening matter |
the cwt. |
4 |
7 |
4 |
7 |
||
|
The amount of sweetening matter to be taken to be the total amount of cane, invert and other sugar contained in the article as determined by analysis in manner directed by the Revenue Commissioners. |
|||||||
|
Glucose: |
|||||||
|
Solid |
the cwt. |
7 |
5 |
7 |
5 |
||
|
Liquid |
the cwt. |
7 |
4 |
5 |
4 |
||
|
Saccharin (including substances of a like nature or use) |
the oz. |
3 |
9 |
5 |
9 |
PART II.—DRAWBACKS AND ALLOWANCES.
A.—CUSTOMS DRAWBACKS.
|
Nature of Drawback. |
Amount or Rate of Drawback. |
|
(1) Drawback on the export or on the shipment or deposit in a bonded warehouse, for use as ship's stores, of duty-paid sugar or molasses (including sugar or molasses produced from duty-paid sugar or molasses) and which has passed a refinery in Saorstát Eireann. |
In the case of molasses produced in bond an amount equal to the duty paid and in any other case an amount equal to the duty which would be chargeable on the importation of the like article. |
|
(2) Drawback on the deposit in a bonded warehouse for export of beer in the brewing of which duty-paid sugar or glucose has been used. |
An amount equal to the duty paid in respect of the sugar or glucose. |
|
(3) Drawback on the export, or on the shipment, or deposit in a bonded warehouse for use as ship's stores of goods (other than beer) in the manufacture or preparation of which in Saorstát Eireann any duty-paid sugar, molasses, glucose or saccharin has been used. |
An amount equal to the duty chargeable in respect of that quantity of the sugar, molasses, glucose or saccharin which appears to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners to have been used in the manufacture or preparation of the goods, or, in the case of residual products, to be contained in the goods. |
|
(4) Drawback to be allowed to a refiner on molasses produced in Saorstát Eireann from sugar, on which the import duty has been paid at the current rate and delivered to a licensed distiller for use in the manufacture of spirits ............ the cwt. |
2s. 7d. |
B.—EXCISE DRAWBACKS.
|
Nature of Drawback. |
Amount of Rate of Drawback. |
|
(1) Drawback on the export, or on the shipment, or deposit in a bonded warehouse for use as ship's stores of duty-paid sugar, molasses, glucose or saccharin. |
An amount equal to the duty paid. |
|
(2) Drawback on the deposit in a bonded warehouse for export of beer in the brewing of which duty-paid sugar or glucose has been used. |
An amount equal to the duty paid in respect of the sugar or glucose. |
|
(3) Drawback on the export, or on the shipment, or deposit in a bonded warehouse for use as ship's stores of goods (other than beer) in the manufacture or preparation of which in Saorstát Eireann any duty-paid sugar, molasses, glucose or saccharin has been used. |
An amount equal to the duty paid in respect of that quantity of the sugar, molasses, glucose or saccharin which appears to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners to have been used in the manufacture or preparation of the goods. |
|
(4) Drawback to be allowed to a refiner on molasses produced in Saorstát Eireann from duty-paid sugar and delivered to a licensed distiller for use in the manufacture of spirits the cwt. |
2s. 7d. |
|
(5) Drawback on the deposit of duty-paid glucose in a warehouse approved by the Revenue Commissioners under Section 2 of the Manufactured Tobacco Act, 1863, for the manufacture of cavendish and negrohead tobacco. |
An amount equal to the drawback which would have been payable on the export of the glucose. |
C.—ALLOWANCES TO REFINERS ON MOLASSES PRODUCED IN SAORSTÁT EIREANN AND USED SOLELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF FOOD FOR STOCK.
|
Nature of allowance. |
Rate of Allowance. |
|
Allowance on molasses produced from sugar on which duty has been paid on importation or on which the excise duty has been paid ............... the cwt |
2s. 7d. |
10.—(1) That in lieu of the duties of customs chargeable under Section 21 of the Finance Act of 1925 (No. 28 of 1925) there shall be charged, levied, and paid on all articles (other than sugar confectionery, cocoa preparations, beer, table waters, herb beer, cider, perry, wine, tobacco, spirits and any article on which a duty is imposed by Section 26 of the said Finance Act, 1925) imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 26th day of April, 1928, and made from or containing sugar or other sweetening matter, the following duties of customs, that is to say:—
(a) if the articles are prescribed in the official import lists to be entered on importation by weight, a duty at the rate of one penny and one farthing in the pound;
(b) if the articles are prescribed in the official import lists to be entered on importation by measure, a duty at the rate of one shilling on the gallon.
(2) That the duty mentioned in this Resolution shall be in addition to any duty chargeable in respect of any spirits or saccharin used in the manufacture or preparation of the article, but in lieu of any duty which might otherwise be chargeable on any other ingredient used in the manufacture or preparation of the article.
(3) That the provisions of Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1919, shall not apply to the duty mentioned in this Resolution.
(4) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).
11.—(1) That where a manufacturer in Saorstát Eireann of goods in the manufacture or preparation for sale of which varnish made with spirit (in this Resolution referred to as spirit varnish) is used shows to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners—
(a) that a spirit varnish made in Saorstát Eireann and reasonably efficient for the purposes of such manufacturer is not obtainable, and
(b) that a substantial proportion of the said goods is exported,
the Revenue Commissioners may, subject to the provisions of this Resolution and to compliance with such conditions as they think fit for the security of the revenue from time to time to prescribe, allow the importation by such manufacturer without payment of spirit duty of such quantity of spirit varnish as they consider reasonable for the said purposes of such manufacturer.
(2) That no spirit varnish shall be imported under this Resolution without payment of spirit duty unless the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied that such varnish is made with spirit which has before use in the manufacture of such varnish been sufficiently denatured to render such spirit impotable.
(3) That no continuing authority for the importation of spirit varnish without payment of spirit duty shall be granted under this Resolution by the Revenue Commissioners for any period exceeding three years, but any such continuing authority may, so long as the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied that the conditions prescribed by them under this Resolution continue to be fulfilled, be renewed from time to time for periods not exceeding three years.
(4) That any such continuing authority as aforesaid or any renewal thereof may be withdrawn by the Revenue Commissioners at any time.
(5) That if any person acts in contravention of any of the conditions prescribed by the Revenue Commissioners under this Resolution he shall for each offence incur a penalty of fifty pounds, and any varnish in respect of which such contravention has taken place shall be forfeited.
(6) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).
12.—(1) That the duty of customs imposed by Section 16 of the Finance Act, 1925 (No. 28 of 1925) shall not be charged or levied on the following articles imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 26th day of April, 1928, that is to say, hoods and shapes for the manufacture of hats which require for the purpose of such manufacture to be blocked, shaped, or cut, and in respect of which it appears to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners that the process of blocking, shaping, or cutting represents a substantial portion of the process of manufacture.
(2) That paragraph (e) of sub-section (2) of the said Section 16 of the Finance Act, 1925 (No. 28 of 1925) shall cease to have effect on and after the 26th day of April, 1928.
(3) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).
13.—(1) That Section 6 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1879, as adapted under the Adaptation of Enactments Act, 1922 (No. 2 of 1922) shall, on and after the 26th day of April, 1928, have effect in relation to plain spirits, distilled in the Irish Free State re-imported from Great Britain or Northern Ireland as if the words "the same shall be brought back within five years from the time of the exportation thereof, and" were omitted therefrom.
(2) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).
14.—(1) That on and after the 1st day of May, 1928, entertainments duty within the meaning of Section 1 of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, shall not be charged or levied on payment for admission to any entertainment as respects which it is proved to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners that the entertainment consists solely of one or more horse races and that the holding of the entertainment has been authorised either by the Turf Club or by the Irish National Hunt Steeplechase Committee.
(2) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).
15.—(1) That Section 16 (which relates to the abolition of limited aggregation of certain settled property) of the Finance Act, 1907, shall be repealed so far as relates to persons dying after the passing of the Act to give effect to this Resolution.
(2) That sub-section (2) of Section 12 (which relates to the amendment of Section 4 of the Finance Act, 1894, as to aggregation) of the Finance Act, 1900, shall be repealed except so far as relates to persons dying before the 19th day of April, 1907.
16.—(1) That corporation profits tax chargeable on profits of a foreign company arising in an accounting period ending after the 31st day of December, 1928, shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be charged, levied and paid at the rate of seven and one-half per cent. in lieu of the rate of five per cent.
(2) That this Resolution shall not apply to corporation profits tax chargeable on profits of a foreign company arising in an accounting period in respect of which such Foreign company satisfies the Revenue Commissioners either—
(a) that during the whole of such accounting period all the members of such foreign company were resident outside Saorstát Eireann, or
(b) that—
(i) in the case of the accounting period current on the 1st day of January, 1929, during the whole of the time from the 31st day of December, 1928, to the end of such accounting period, or
(ii) in the case of the accounting period current at the expiration of six months from the day on which such foreign company commenced to carry on business in Saorstát Eireann, during the whole of the time from the expiration of such six months to the end of such accounting period, or
(iii) in the case of any other accounting period, during the whole of such accounting period.
such foreign company maintained in Saorstát Eireann a branch register of its members resident in Saorstát Eireann and that according to the law of the country in which such foreign company is incorporated and the law of Saorstát Eireann all stocks and shares registered in such branch register and held by persons domiciled in Saorstát Eireann are or are deemed to be property situate in Saorstát Eireann for the purposes of assessment to death duties in such country and in Saorstát Eireann, or
(c) that such foreign company commenced to carry on trade or business in Saorstát Eireann within six months before the end of such accounting period.
(3) That this Resolution shall be read with Part V of the Finance Act, 1920.
17.—That it is expedient to amend the law relating to customs and inland revenue (including excise) and to make further provision in connection with finance.
That is the position of all Deputies. We are waiting to put forward amendments.
I understand that the view the Ceann Comhairle takes, and has taken every year during which he has been here—the Ceann Comhairle was absent on one occasion and a somewhat different procedure was followed— is that the ordinary amendments are not in order on the Report Stage, but are in order on the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill, in which these Resolutions are incorporated.
Resolutions 1 to 3 agreed to.
RESOLUTION 4 (CUSTOMS).
I move:—
"That the Dáil agree with the Committee in Resolution No. 4."
I would like to ask the Minister if he has considered, or will consider, the case which Deputy Moore made here when Resolution No. 4 was before the Dáil in Committee, in connection with the operation of the Imperial Preference duty. Deputies will recollect that Deputy Moore pointed out that as a result of the new tax the duty payable upon a chassis imported direct from France, with the intention of having a body built here, would be higher than the duty on the same chassis if the body were built in England. I would like to point out that the operation of this new tax is likely to have in another direction a bad effect upon the coach-building trade in this country. Leaving the Imperial Preference out of the reckoning, we find that, assuming the cost of a chassis was £600, and the cost of a body, whether built in England or Ireland, was £150, when the importer brought in a completed car before the new duty went on, he paid in duty £50 out of the total outlay of £800. That is, he found he would save one-sixteenth of the purchase price if he had the body built in the Free State. Now, if he imports a completed car he pays £250 in duty, and if he imports the chassis only, he pays £200 in duty. Again, he saves £50 by having the body built here, but this time the total outlay is £1,000. Thus he finds that now he saves only one-twentieth of the total price of the car, and consequently the inducement which he has to import a chassis and have the body built here, is lessened to that extent. I do not think it was intended by the Minister in imposing the tax that it should operate as a reduction of the preference given to the coach-building trade in the country. If it is merely the intention to use it for the purpose of getting revenue, I think some provision should be inserted to ensure that even the preference that has already been given should be continued. I would like if the Minister would tell us if the Government has taken into consideration the question of the abolition of the McKenna duties on cars, and if not, what particular advantage does the Free State get by retaining this preferential rate of duty, in view of the fact that practically two-thirds or more of the cars we buy come under the Imperial Preference rate.
With reference to the first point the matter is under consideration, that is the effect of Imperial Preference and the adding of a British-made body to, say, a French chassis. We are going into that with the Department of Industry and Commerce and I think we will be able to see that the position is kept right. The Department of Industry and Commerce has certain powers as regards the amount of British labour there must be in any article to entitle it to Imperial Preference. I think we will be able to fix that matter up, but I shall be able to speak more definitely on what we propose to do when the Committee Stage of the Bill comes along. With reference to the second point, we propose to put in an amendment on the Committee Stage of the Bill providing that where a chassis alone is imported without a body attached, we will give three months' credit for duty, whereas if the chassis is imported with the body attached, the duty will have to be paid on entry. We think that perhaps will meet the position of the coach-builders and make it at least as desirable for people to have an Irish body as before from every point of view. We do that, because if we did not give credit the position would be that the man importing an entire vehicle could have the use of it immediately on paying the duty, whereas if he imported a chassis some time would be lost before an Irish body could be fitted and before he could have full use of the vehicle. With reference to the question of Imperial Preference that is a matter I think that is a fairly big consideration. This is the only duty of any consequence in regard to which Imperial Preference operates, and one of the reasons why we retain it is that we have the Ford factory in Cork, which sends parts into Great Britain, where they are charged duty at the Imperial Preference rate. I do not say that it would necessarily follow that the British would refuse to give us that preference if we refused them, but possibly it might prejudice the situation for that factory.
If we were to decide to do away with Imperial Preference in this matter it would be a fairly serious step in view of the position of Ford's in Cork, and the need they have, if they are to carry on at all, to send their parts into England at the Imperial Preference rates. I do not want to discuss that matter very fully unless Deputies at a later stage were anxious to have it discussed.
Can we take it as a definite assurance that the Minister is still giving consideration to the position that Ford's enterprise is in Cork at the moment.
Yes.
With reference to the duty charged on tyres, would the Minister say whether there is likely to be a considerable increase in the customs difficulty in bringing back a car to the Free State after it has gone across the Border?
None.
Question put, and agreed to.
RESOLUTION 5—DUTY ON BOTTLES.
I move:—
"That the Dáil agree with the Committee in Resolution 5."
I would like to ask the Minister if between this stage and the date on which the Bill will go before the House he would consider meeting the representatives of the Irish Glass Bottle Makers? The reason I ask that is because I feel the Ministry are not taking an attitude in this matter that is in strict accordance with the facts. For example, the Minister himself, when this matter was being discussed at a different stage, made a statement which indicated that he was viewing the matter of the remission of this duty on the manufacture of bottles in this country as a question of machinery against an antiquated method of manufacture. Naturally, any person who takes a progressive view of things does not like to feel that he is siding with antiquated methods against new inventions. If the issue here were one of machinery against the older and less efficient method, there would be no question whatever as to what side an ordinary individual would take. But it is not so. As has been indicated, the bottles which will be imported free of tax, the bottles which are not being manufactured or will not be manufactured now by the Irish Glass Bottle Company, are mainly manufactured in England and Scotland by the very same methods by which they would be manufactured here. That is by hand or by hand-fed machines. I am confirmed in my impression that the Ministry are not correctly informed in this matter both by the fact that the receivers who are in charge of the factory and the manager of the factory with whom they have no doubt consulted, have no practical experience of the making of bottles by hand or by hand-fed machines. Deputy Beckett, who spoke on this matter on the last day, and who was himself at one time engaged in the glass bottle-making business, made a statement that showed he also was misinformed. I would like to make a statement with regard to what he said for the purpose of putting him right. He said that: "Deputy Lemass proceeded to discuss the question of unemployment amongst the bottle-makers, which every Deputy deplores, but in his discussion he wandered into fields of employment in which the bottle-makers in either the Irish Glass Bottle Company or the Ringsend Bottle Company never worked. He started off by mentioning ink bottles." Then he added, further: "There have been no crib bottles made in Ringsend for the last fifteen years," and in connection with those bottles he said, "nor are they ever likely to be made."
Since last Friday I got into touch with the representatives of the bottle workers for the purpose of finding out whether Deputy Beckett was correct in the statement he made that there had never been any crib bottles made in Ringsend for the last 15 years, or whether my statement was correct. As a proof that Deputy Beckett's statement is not correct, I would like to point out that the receivers of the company, early in this year, stated that they were prepared to extend the manufacture of crib bottles here only that they were unable to secure competent workmen, skilled in the manufacture of crib bottles. That statement was communicated by an official of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce to the Glass Bottle Makers' Protection Society, and they prepared a list of their members who were skilled in the manufacture of crib bottles and transmitted the list to that official. But so far nothing has been heard of it, and these men have not been employed. I feel perhaps that Deputy Beckett may have been confused by the particular term I used. In their trade "bottle maker" and "crib worker" are two distinct classes, and when he says that the bottle makers in the Ringsend works have never been employed at this particular type of work, he would be, perhaps, correct in saying so under ordinary conditions. The bottle makers were not employed at that work. The crib makers were. I used the term "bottle makers" to indicate the men who made bottles. Apart from that, the men employed in the Ringsend works at crib work were bottle makers and members of the Bottle Makers' Union. They were skilled bottle makers, who happened to be skilled crib workers as well. Deputy Beckett also said, in connection with the three skilled workers who were brought over from Scotland to train the local workers here in operating the Foster machines, the hand-fed machine, that they made large quantities of bottles on that machine. He added: "Might I ask Deputy Lemass, if he has any further interest in the matter, what became of these bottles that these men were paid wages for making? I think he will find, if he makes as careful an investigation as I did, that not one of the bottles they made was ever sold or was saleable." I was interested in the matter, and since Friday last I did make inquiries, and I was supplied with the name of the firm in Dublin that bought these bottles, and the only complaint they made about them was that when they wished to repeat their order they were unable to do so.
The letter I read was a declaration made by the three Scottish experts that they were prevented by the manager of the works from carrying out the work for which they were brought over here, that is to train the local workers in the utilisation of this machine. They made that statement in the most definite manner, and Deputy Beckett referred to it as being somewhat fishy or doubtful, and he deplored the fact that it was referred to in this House at a time when the subject of it was to be discussed between the receivers of these two companies and the men involved, including the three Scotchmen. That meeting took place on Saturday, and it may be of interest to Deputy Beckett and other Deputies to know that the local Bottle Workers' Protection Society were put to the expense, in order to insure that they would be able to prove the facts alleged, of bringing these three Scotch experts from Scotland and paying their expenses and paying them for their loss of time while here. They had to take the local workers also involved in the incident and pay them for the loss of time. The whole lot of them came to meet the receivers on Friday last. The meeting began at 12 o'clock, and the first thing one of the receivers (the Chairman) intimated to them was that the meeting would end at 1 o'clock. In fact it did end at a quarter past 1. At the meeting the manager of the works made a statement concerning the incident, and the men concerned were all there; and every one of them adhered to his original statement, and said it was their opinion that the manager of the works was not interested in the operation of the machine, and was not anxious that the machine should be successful. The meeting ended at a quarter past 1, and they gave the men no adequate opportunity of expressing their views of what the attitude of the manager had been. In view of these facts and the other definite statements which have been made concerning the manufacture of glass bottles here in this country by the unemployed workers, I think that there should be some investigation of the matter before this Resolution is embodied in the Bill. Remember this Irish Glass Bottle Company is operating on a State guarantee. The State is financially involved in its success, and we believe that so far as it is manufacturing bottles by machinery, bottles of which very large quantities are required, there is no reason why it should not be a success. But for some reason the receivers and managers of the company appear to be definitely prejudiced against the manufacture of bottles which they say cannot be economically manufactured on the machine and which can be manufactured by hand. So the workers involved maintain, I believe. A circular has been sent to all Deputies in this matter in which these men state that they were prepared either to lease or to buy the Ringsend factory for the purpose of manufacturing bottles by hand and putting in hand-fed machines. The Ringsend factory was purchased by the Irish Glass Bottle Company some some time ago for £5,000.
That is wrong— £12,000.
These men were one of the parties to the transaction.
I was one of the parties to the putting up of the money, and I know.
Let us say £12,000. I will take it the Minister is right and that the workers are wrong. Let us say that the factory was purchased by the company for £12,000. It was equipped with a considerable amount of plant, including a motor car which, I think, was in fairly new condition and which was purchased some time ago for £1,000. The company offered to lease the factory to the workers for an annual rental of £1,000, and subsequently they offered to sell it for £12,500. It would have taken another £10,000 or £12,000 to put into the factory the barest minimum of equipment to enable it to start working. The company may have been quite within their rights in demanding that sum for the factory. Any Deputy who may have had an opportunity of seeing the factory will agree with me that it is a heap of ruins, and some day, perhaps, the Inspector of Buildings on behalf of the Dublin Corporation will order it to be taken down. At present it is in a dilapidated condition and, stripped of its equipment, as it is to a large extent, it is certainly not worth £12,000.
Presuming it is, we all want to see the manufacture of bottles proceeded with in this country, and before we take action in regard to the removal of a tariff we should be satisfied that the manufacture of these bottles can be proceeded with economically. The workers say it can. Several people who have studied the matter are convinced that it can. The Irish Glass Bottle Company do not appear to be convinced that it can, but, merely to ensure the success of their own business, they are anxious to preserve their monopoly. Whether they should retain that monopoly and whether the State should assist them in retaining it is another matter. The matter we must consider as representatives of the people is whether or not we should take the action which this Resolution proposes that we should take. I do not want to press it any further than this, that the Government and the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance, or some representative of the Government, should meet the representatives of the workers to discuss the matter in all its details before the Finance Act is introduced.
In regard to this particular question of the Ringsend Works, and apart altogether from the dispute between Deputy Lemass and Deputy Beckett, about which I know nothing, I want to say that there have been negotiations going on for quite a long time as between the particular bottle workers who are concerned in this memorandum which was circulated to Deputies and the receivers of the factory at Ringsend. I do not know any body of men who have been more sympathetically treated by the receivers than that particular section of workers. Meeting after meeting has been held, letter after letter written to them explaining the position, and intermediaries in the form of officials of my own Department have gone from time to time and have held meetings, sometimes of the bottle workers alone, and at other times of the bottle workers and the receivers, in order to try to bring both parties to an agreement, in order to find out if there is any possibility of certain lines of bottles being manufactured in this country by hand, and if there is any possibility of the workers' guarantees being tested that they can get sufficient capital to start the particular premises which they hope to lease from the glass bottle people and proceed to manufacture a certain line of bottles on their own. An enumeration of all the letters written, and the records that I have here with regard to meetings held from time to time, will prove my contention that no body of people has been so sympathetically treated by the receivers than those particular bottle workers.
The bottle workers certainly were emphatic that they received sympathetic treatment from the Department of Industry and Commerce. I would not agree with you about the receivers.
I will confine my remarks to the treatment they received from the receivers, leaving my own officials out for the moment. At meetings which they had with the receivers, and at meetings held under the chairmanship of officials of my own Department, and of which I have records and their accounts, I repeat that I do not know of any body of workers more sympathetically received or whose claims were examined in such detail and with such sympathy as those people. And they have been brought a long way. I remember when I received at least one of the two men who have signed this document and two others. I received those three persons at one time, and they were introduced to me by Mr., then Deputy, Johnson. At that time the contention of these people was that it was the introduction of machinery into the bottle business that had ruined bottle-making all over the world. That was three years ago, and that was their attitude—that it was the introduction of machienry that had ruined bottle-making in all countries in the world. They claimed that wherever the machine was installed there was a failure, and I think they committed themselves to that in writing. Now they have been brought along by process of reasoning and getting certain arguments and figures put before them until they have, within the last year, abandoned that contention. They have been going on the basis that there are certain types of bottles which can be more economically manufactured by hand and by the hand-fed machine than by the complete machine process.
The thing resolves itself into this: the glass bottle factory is subsidised by the Government to a very big extent. They are working on a Government guarantee and they are operating under a tariff. They have every advantage, and we put it to them that, having every advantage, it was their duty to see that every class of worker who could be employed would be given the fullest opportunity of getting employment, and I believe they have tried to meet us fairly, recognising the consideration that they have got in very many ways from the Government. But it came to this in the end, that the bottle people themselves did not believe that economically, even as a side-line to the bigger business, they could run the manufacture, even by the semi-automatic process of the hand-fed machine, of certain types of bottles. They were being importuned from all sides, being the only factory here, that they should manufacture every type of bottle. If I were asked, merely from the point of view of saving State money, would I say that the tariff be continued as it is at present or with the modification proposed in the Financial Resolution now under discussion, I would have no hesitation in saying on which side I would come down. Undoubtedly it embarrasses the factory to be asked to produce certain bottles, because they believe they have responsibility in the country to produce all types called for, and there are certain side-lines which, even when they load the charges on these against overhead charges on the other types of manufacture which are economical and profitable, they cannot manufacture economically. They were therefore prepared to abandon them. They have asked to be relieved of the necessity of manufacturing certain types, and from the point of view of its reaction on the factory and, consequently, the security of the State's money, I would have no hesitation in asking, even in pleading vehemently, for this modification of the tariff. There was, then, the other side of the question. The bottle workers said: "Very well, test us; let us get facilities and we will guarantee to make, and to make to the needs of the public in Ireland." Certain negotiations were started, and they complain in this memorandum that they were asked for an exorbitant rent. They say that the factory was purchased for £5,000. It was not. That particular end of it was purchased for £12,000—£5,000 cash and shares to the extent of £7,000 more. But what stands against that particular factory is a sum of £12,000, not £5,000 at all; £5,000 was only the cash end, but there were other accommodations.
Did not that include an O'Neil machine and several items of equipment?
No. There was a factory at a particular time. It had certain things. There was a factory in a particular state. I know nothing about this motor truck that is talked about; I do not remember it occurring in the statement of assets that came when the guarantee was under discussion. I have not got the guarantee papers here; it may have been there. But after that factory was purchased £5,000 cash was paid, and liabilities to the extent of £7,000, and some hundreds of pounds by shares as a liability also existed. The people themselves put an additional sum of about £10,000 into it. They put £13,000 extra into it in the provision of new plant and machinery. And in the place that is now described as "derelict" there was in the books of the company value to the extent of £26,000. Negotiations were entered into with the men. They said distinctly: "We do not want these machines in this place. We are not going to operate these machines; we are going to operate by the hand process or the semi-automatic process. Take your old machines away. There is your air compressor; we do not want that." This is all subject to correction. I am stating the case as it was put to me. There were certain negotiations and it came to this, that the receivers were asked to remove from the premises certain property. They did so, and they left the place in what they thought was a suitable condition for the men to operate the hand process. They had to look at what was left and say: "How does this stand in our books? Where are our commitments to the shareholders and to the Government we have incurred liabilities with?" and they make a strict calculation as to the rent they ought to charge. I believe that if they had come to myself or to the Minister for Finance and asked leave to rent it at the amount that was put up, we would have looked at it in this way: if it amounted to a weakening of the assets of the firm we would have come along to the workers and asked for a new guarantee, and we might have shifted some of the burden of the old guarantee to the workers if they had put up a good proposition. But, certainly, as a transaction between the factory and the bottle-workers we could not allow that place to be leased at less than the £1,000 that it was decided to ask for it. I do not know that possibly £10,000 might not be taken if what was supposed to be put up was a proposition for a sale.
I have heard a sum of £12,500 mentioned. I think that eventually came to £10,000, but I am not disputing it. But remember, receivers are receivers; they have their liabilities to certain people. They had to look at the whole transaction, viewing this from their own position as receivers on behalf of certain people; and we were at their back, ready to pounce on them if they carried out what we thought was a bad bit of business. There was State money there; there were certain assets on which money was put up, and we had to see, if that was put forward as a business proposition and likely to be accepted, that assent would be required from some Department of the Government, whether my own or that of the Minister for Finance, I cannot say, but that of the Minister for Finance in the end, probably through my Department. But any offers that were made broke down in the end. I cannot convict the receivers of any harsh dealing with the men in so far as the transactions necessary either to the renting or the selling of the concern was concerned, and when people are speaking of that they should remember that the people in question are only receivers, and they have very definite responsibilities before the Dáil in regard to certain moneys that were lent. I am prepared to meet this particular body of workers in the interval between the passage of this Resolution to-night and the bringing forward of the Bill, even although I say that this file is simply a mass of records of previous meetings at which I had tried to explain the position, tried to point out to them that where a factory having a profitable line of business was unable to operate the smaller line economically, they are not likely to operate the smaller line and make a business success of it when the other line has failed.
If my Department, being in some supervisory capacity over the factory, were asked: "What do you think is the best thing to render more secure the Government money in that factory?" I would say unhesitatingly: "Modify the bottle tax as proposed in this resolution," because it must be viewed entirely from the business end. There is the other element. The tariff has been there for two years; it has been well-known that the bottle factory has been anxious to get rid of the unremunerative end—of the smaller type of bottle. The workers have tried to get people to give them the capital to buy the concern, and working capital. They say that they have been unable to get a certain amount. But it has been rather widely advertised from various sources that this end of the business was open to anybody who liked to come in, that there was a tariff there to protect that, and nobody has come in, although the tariff has been in operation for two years. We have in fact a two years' test of this end of the tariff, under which we cannot get any work done. I would be prepared to receive the workers again to find out if they had got any new proposition. But if they are going to put to me all the things in the Memorandum that have already been put up, I do not think such a meeting would serve any useful purpose except to get these people to realise that we are sympathetically disposed towards them, but that we will not go to the point of doing an unbusinesslike thing, of making that factory a burden with a particular line that is unbusinesslike and uneconomic.
The fact I want to stress is that these bottles from which it is proposed to remove the tax—that is, I take it, every bottle not manufactured by the Irish Glass Bottle Company—were made for many years in this country economically by the same process by which they are still made throughout the world.
The workers who made them are still here and are available. They have been unemployed for a long time, living in the hope that they could induce the only firm still in the business—the Irish Glass Bottle Company—to undertake the manufacture of these bottles by hand or by hand-fed machines. Now, the removal of this tariff will practically remove their last hope of getting employment in this country. No doubt a lot of what the Minister has said is true. It sounds convincing, but I think the possibility of any factory, and the construction, as they suggest, of an eight-hole furnace that will give work to about 48 men in the manufacture of bottles specified in that particular memorandum might be considered, and if necessary the facilities which were given to the Irish Glass Bottle Company could also, to a lesser extent, be given to these workers. It is that matter I now wish to discuss. I believe if this tariff goes off there will be no necessity for ever putting it on again. The skilled workers here will drift to other trades or will emigrate. The possibility of these bottles ever being manufactured here will be removed, and it is for that reason that I would like to see every possible effort made to ensure the manufacture of bottles by these men in this country before finally deciding to remove the tariff.
I will go every step of the way with Deputy Lemass. We put on this tariff; we thought it was going to be successful with regard to bottle-making. It is with a considerable amount of reluctance that we ask the Dáil to let us retrace our steps, even on portion of the tariff. Experience has taught us a certain amount with regard to it. If there is any prospect of the extra bottles being made it would be quite easy to keep the tariff on. As a matter of fact, if the tariff is kept on, and if the glass bottle factory is not to be asked to turn from lines it considers profitable to this unprofitable line, there will be a certain amount of right in keeping it on, and we would be prepared to do it if we could be shown that there is any likelihood of this type of bottle being manufactured here immediately or in a year or so. There has been no case shown. I would be glad to meet the workers with Deputy Lemass if he believes that there is any possibility of a case being made that certain people will get employment, that certain people will manufacture in a way that the bottles can be sold commercially. I will meet them between this and the bringing in of the Bill. The Deputy asked me a specific question about the types of bottles that were made here at one time. I do not think very much argument can be drawn from that. The conditions have changed.
The method of manufacturing these bottles by hand has not changed since the time of Pharaoh.
I think there are certain other conditions that operate. They can be produced as a side-line in a bigger type of factory, but the biggest type of factory we have here finds it uneconomic commercially.
There is agreement evidently that there are two kinds of bottles, bottles that a factory can produce economically and bottles that it cannot produce economically. The Minister's Department has given a figure of the total value of all classes of bottles used in the Free State annually. Is the Minister in a position to say what proportion of the bottles used in the Free State would be covered by either one or the other type of bottles mentioned in the debate?
I cannot say now, but I am sure I could get that definition.
I did not expect that the Minister would be able to give it now.
I will endeavour to get the information by the time the Bill is brought in.
Resolutions 5, 6, 7 and 8 agreed to.
RESOLUTION 9—CUSTOMS AND EXCISE.
I move:—That the Dáil agree with the Committee in the Resolution.
I take it that this Resolution deals with the sugar tax. I want to say that I am not in agreement with this Resolution, and I shall take another opportunity of putting down an amendment to have the tax restored to the figure at which it stood before the introduction of the Bill. We divided the House on this question before, and I do not propose to go into it again now, but will wait for an opportunity on the amendment.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolutions 10, 11, 12 and 13 agreed to.
RESOLUTION 14—EXCISE.
I move:—That the Dáil agree with the Committee in Resolution 14.
This is a proposal to remit a certain entertainments tax. The entertainments tax as far as I understand it, was a war measure, introduced in 1915. The war, I believe, is over for the past ten years, and therefore the conditions which prompted the introduction of the tax have long since disappeared. In the neighbouring country, Great Britain, this tax was abolished some years ago in respect of the lower prices, but instead of finding relief from this tax in this country extra taxes have been imposed in the shape of duties on imported films and for the maintenance of a film censorship. In consideration of this tax and the people it affects it is just as well that we should ask why it is singled out for consideration.
I would suggest that the Deputy is hardly in order in discussing the tax on this Resolution, which is merely one to remit the tax. I think the Deputy's argument would be more properly in order on an amendment on the Committee Stage of the Bill proposing further remissions or perhaps the remission of the entire tax.
Mr. HOGAN
I want to suggest that the Minister might consider the matter between this and the introduction of the Bill. I do not know whether it would be necessary for me to give him some of the arguments that I consider he might give consideration to between this and the introduction of the Bill. Probably the Minister knows the arguments himself and ignores them.
I have heard them from people most interested in the matter. I have had several deputations from, for instance, those representing the owners of the picture houses and such places.
Mr. HOGAN
Do I take it that having had representations from these people this is the result of his consideration of the matter, as embodied in the Financial Resolution?
Yes.
I suggest that Deputy Hogan and the Minister will have more opportunity of discussing this matter on the Second Reading of the Bill.
Mr. HOGAN
If that is the ruling I submit, with all respect, that the Minister might at least allow me to reiterate these arguments and see if the reiteration of them would have the effect that it does not seem to have had when other people put forward the recommendations, on which he was adamant.
The Deputy will get the opportunity of reiterating.
I intended to raise some matters in connection with what I spoke about last week, but I may have a better opportunity on Resolution 17.
What exactly does the Deputy want to raise?
I want to go into further details in connection with the position of racing generally.
I am afraid the Deputy cannot deal with the question of racing generally now.
I understood from the Ceann Comhairle at the meeting of the Committee on Privileges and Procedure that we were to be allowed to discuss each of these resolutions very fully, in order that we could, if possible, come to be of one mind as to what the amendments would be later on.
I think the Deputy must have misunderstood him. The Ceann Comhairle said he would give a certain amount of freedom to ask questions of Ministers, in order to extract information which might be useful to Deputies.
As the Minister for Finance had only seven or eight minutes the other day to deal with points raised, he omitted to refer to many of the important matters which I asked specific questions about, and I should like to know when these questions will be answered.
The Deputy will be at liberty to put any question he likes in connection with these matters to the Minister for Finance when the Finance Bill comes to be considered. That will, perhaps, be a better opportunity for him.
The only question that I think I failed to answer was with regard to the totalisator, and all I can say is that the intention is to give a licence as soon as possible to the governing bodies, that is, the Turf Club and the National Hunt Steeplechase Committee, to operate the totalisator here.
I also asked whether it was intended to publish the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee which inquired into the position of Irish racing, and whether the only suggestion made by that Committee was the abolishing of the entertainments tax, which I may add is going to help, but is not going to save racing, which will be extinct at the end of this year.
I think I told the Deputy in a letter that the Report of the Committee is based on a great deal of evidence, some of which was confidential, and that that confidential evidence was touched upon in the Report in such a way that it would not be proper to publish the Report without obtaining the consent of the various people who furnished the information. I am considering whether that consent can be obtained. If it cannot, I will publish a summary of the Report, leaving out such matters as could not be disclosed without a breach of confidence.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolution 15 agreed to.
RESOLUTION 16 (CORPORATION PROFITS TAX).
I move:—
"That the Dáil agree with the Committee in Resolution 16."
On this Resolution, I would like to ask the Minister for Finance why it was decided to exempt from the higher rate of tax the companies mentioned in paragraph (a) of sub-section (2), that is, foreign companies, all the members of which are resident outside Saorstát Eireann.
There are a lot of foreign firms doing business here, and, from the point of view of income tax and ease in assessing income tax, it is desirable that they should register as separate companies here, as we do not want to encourage the doing of business through individuals, whose affairs are much more difficult, and they have not the same obligation in regard to accounting. It is felt that we should not do anything to discourage the actual companies, the foreign firms, who are obliged to comply with certain requirements which make it comparatively easy to collect the tax. That, however, is not the real point. What we are getting at in this Resolution is really the company which has a large number of Irish shareholders, which owns substantial property here, and on which, under present circumstances, you cannot get death duties. We are actually aiming at going beyond that. The whole question of foreign companies is under consideration, and we do propose to take certain steps that will get us the equivalent of death duties in all cases. But that is a bigger and more intricate problem, and for the present we are only dealing with that class of company which has a substantial number of Irish shareholders, and substantial property here, and on which at present, owing to the operations of the existing scheme of double taxation relief, we do not get any taxation at all.
I admit that other foreign companies which may not have any Irish shareholders do constitute a problem. Let me suppose for a moment that we have a firm making woollens here on a very large scale that is owned by a dozen people living in England—that they own the shares. In the course of a generation the whole of these dozen people will die, and that entire property will pass to their successors. We would get no death duties on that. Although the property will be nominally situated in England, because the company is registered there, and the shares held there, the actual physical property that would pass would be situated here, and we should get death duties. We are considering a scheme which will enable us to get death duties in such a case.
But the case of these companies is not at all so glaring or at present so important or urgent as the one which we are proposing to deal with in this particular way. That is, when a company has property situated here, has large numbers of shareholders here, but is actually registered in England, and is an English company, in that case we, in many instances, fail to get death duties at all. Take the firm of Guinness, for instance. If a person in Dublin who had a large holding in Guinness's, and practically no other estate, died, we will get absolutely no death duty whatever. Suppose he had some estate situated here, we would get a small fraction of the death duties, but it might be very little, because the additional estate might not raise the rate on the whole very much above the rate it would be charged on the Guinness's part of it, if that were taken separately. The result is that the British tax leviable on the Guinness's portion would be only a small amount less than the whole tax, and we, under the existing system of double taxation relief, which works fairly enough in general, would have to repay the amount to the British Government that the executors of that person had to pay, and we would get practically no tax.
We simply set out in this Resolution to deal with the one problem and the more glaring problem. Probably in another year further proposals on the whole matter of getting the equivalent of death duties in regard to foreign companies will be dealt with, but we do not at present want to do more than compel those companies which can establish Colonial Registers to establish them, and let us get the death duties that will come to us if they set them up. Take the case of Guinness's again as an example. If they had a Colonial Register here, and the person whom I cited, who had a large holding and was domiciled here, died, and his shares were on the Saorstát Register, they would be deemed to be property situated here, no British death duties would be charged on them and we would get the entire amount. We are only out in the present resolution to compel companies, which have Saorstát shareholders and are carrying on business here, to establish a register here that will give us the death duties in respect of the holdings of these Saorstát shareholders. We are not out to deal with what is a bigger problem and, in some ways, a more difficult problem, but one which is under investigation. If the companies set up a Register and if all these people were outside the country, we would gain nothing. The Register would be a register but there would be no entries, and there would be no point in regard to that. We are not proposing to tackle in this the whole question of foreign companies, although that is under consideration. We are dealing only with one aspect of it. There may be certain difficulties in establishing a Register if there were no names, and we do not want to put difficulty in the way of a company at present until we have considered the matter further.
Would it be correct to say that from any foreign company, all of whose shareholders are resident outside the shores of the Saorstát, the Saorstát gets no income-tax and no estate duties? Would that be correct?
That would be correct.
I take it that the Minister is now giving the House an assurance that the problems represented by these very serious facts are going to have very definite consideration between now and the next Budget.
Yes. I would like to say one thing. As far as income-tax is concerned the thing operates both ways, as the Deputy will understand. For instance, take the Great Northern Railway Company, which might earn all its profit in Northern Ireland. I am not saying that is so, but we would get all the income-tax, so that as far as income-tax is concerned we have the advantages in regard to wealthy individuals under the present arrangement, which cancel out the disadvantages of the income-tax side. But so far as estate duties go, we recognise it is a very urgent matter, to which we are giving careful consideration.
As far as I understand it, the Minister increased the corporation profit tax to get at the death duty.
Exactly.
But he exempted those companies whose shareholders live outside the country. Was there any objection to getting a little more off those under the corporation profit tax?
We want to deal with that whole thing, and there is a definite question there. The real question is, all along the line, simply the estate duty, because the present system of double-tax relief is really advantageous to us. We get more income-tax under the present system for relief of double income-tax than we did under the old system prior to the agreement of 1926, whereby we would have got half the income-tax and the British the other half from those companies subject to double-tax, when each country would have given relief as to half. The present arrangement, so far as income-tax is concerned, is advantageous to this country, so you may leave it out of account so far as revenue is concerned. The real position is, we do not get death duties when the actual property in these concerns passes from one individual to another at death. That is a problem we want to deal with as a whole. We do not want to put impositions on these companies in any sort of haphazard way. We are examining methods of dealing with the whole estates duties problem; but here is one simple aspect where you put no particular burden on the company at all. We would simply secure for the Saorstát Exchequer death duties that ought to be coming to it and that are at present going into the British Exchequer. We are imposing no burden at all upon any company.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolution 17 agreed to.