I accept the statement which the Minister has made exactly in the spirit in which it has been made. That is to say, that he is anxious to do this thing if a reasonable method of doing it can be found; but he takes up a purely impossibilistic attitude. He says there are difficulties, there are border-line cases and that because there are border-line cases you cannot discriminate in this matter. The whole of our lives is made up of discriminating in matters much more complex than this particular matter. I have taken this particular case purely as an example. I have knowledge of what is really going on. The Minister for Finance or any of his representatives did not take the opportunities which have been given to them. That is to say, the Minister for Finance has had invitations for himself or any member of his staff, or any representative of the Education Department, to examine that particular example from the beginning to the end, to see it during rehearsals, to see its actual performances, to see the effects upon the individuals who were in process of training there, and the Minister for Finance has made no effort whatever—it may be that there are some technical or departmental difficulties which prevent his doing so—as far as I know to take advantage of these opportunities. In other words, he says that it is quite impossible to discriminate between educational and non-educational entertainment, and he has made no effort to do so. It is quite ridiculous for the Minister for Finance to put up an impossibilistic attitude in face of those facts. We have asked him to find any form of test he likes of a definitely educative character. We have asked that that should be under the Education authority, that the ordinary inspectors of schools should go there and inspect them and say whether or not it is a school, a technical class, whether it is day by day and in the actual visible effects which he sees produced to the satisfaction of his own educational authorities, proved that it is an educational institution.
If the Minister for Finance had taken that opportunity, if he had sent his people to examine it, if he had come back and said after the examination that those people were unable to set any standard or criterion by which they could decide whether or not it was educational, then there would be something in his attitude. But he has made no attempt whatever, as far as I know. Again, let me say that I think it is possible that there may be some Departmental snag in the way of making that test. I do take the Minister as sincerely anxious in this particular case, or in cases of this kind, if he could get a line of discrimination; but his argument that he cannot find a line of discrimination, when the evidence is that he has never tried, is an argument that should not be put before the House. There are authorities upon education which are far higher than the Minister for Finance or myself, and those educational authorities have been satisfied, and have gone out of their way to certify publicly their satisfaction that the test of being predominantly educative has been fulfilled in this case. The President of the Cork University does not go upon a public platform in the city of Cork to certify, in face of the citizens of Cork, that an institution whose work they are there to examine is in the highest degree educative unless the case is flagrantly made out that it is educative. What authority does the Minister for Finance put against the certificate of the President of the University of Cork? What criterion does he put against the certificate that has been given by educated and competent public men in the city of Cork, who do know what is going on? What has he done to find a standard or to prove that there is no standard which can be applied to a thing so definitely and predominantly educative as this; a test which will not apply to an ordinary cinema, an ordinary dancing class, or something of that kind?
I think the House will recognise that, to the extent to which the thing is educational actually to tax an educational activity is not merely a question of getting money, but of doing a definite wrong. The money which the Minister gets in this particular way, if it is obtained by taxing, and to that extent preventing an educational activity, is not merely money lost, but it is actually doing a damage. This particular institution lost hundreds of pounds, every single penny of which is represented by money paid to the Minister, and had to be kept going for a period in spite of the Minister, because he was charging tax, and but for the fact that the members and some of their friends who were interested in it were prepared to put up money for the Minister over a period of years, that educational activity would have come to an end. I certainly believe that from an educational, cultural, and national point of view the coming to an end of that particular institution, run as it is now, would have been a tragedy. There is not one Deputy who would not be altogether a more competent member of this House if he had had the training that these boys and girls are getting there, if he had been trained, as these boys and girls are, not merely to speak words but to understand them—an intensive training going on over years, in which the greatest literature in any language is not merely taught, but taught to be understood and expressed and realised. And yet the Minister says that there is no means of discriminating between that and a cinema entertainment! Honestly the Minister is not just to himself in putting himself on exhibition behind a statement of that kind. There ought to be some criterion, some method, and what we suggest is that the method of using the educational authorities to certify in a matter in which they are competent shall be used.
It may be said that the educational authorities do not exist for that purpose, that their funds are provided for other purposes. Our answer to that is that any people who think they have a claim must be prepared to pay the cost of that examination and certification. The Minister says there are border-line cases. We say, let every border-line case be decided in favour of the Minister. The burden of proof lies upon those claiming that these are educational activities. We accept that burden. We simply ask the Minister to set up machinery by which that burden can be discharged, and we will pay for it. I do not think any case has ever been put to the House more sincerely or reasonably, or any better case put forward. The Minister must find some other reason than that he cannot find any line of discrimination, when failure to find that line of discrimination is backed by the fact that he has made no effort whatever to use the machinery in his hands to find that line of discrimination. We are not tied to the particular details put down here. We are tied to the principle that this State shall not raise its revenue by taxing and penalising educative institutions, and if the Minister can find any more severe, correct or searching test than the test which we have put up, we are prepared to accept that test. But some test ought to be found, and some test can be found if the Minister and his advisers will put their minds to it.