asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware of the anomaly caused by making every holder of 1,000 pounds or more of tea liable for the payment of an excise duty of 4d. per pound on the tea, while the holder of less than 1,000 pounds pays no such duty and is consequently in a position to undersell the holder of tea who has paid such duty; and if he will take steps to remove this anomaly by allowing the first 1,000 pounds to be held free of tax.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Adjustment of Tea Tax.
asked the Minister for Finance if he is aware that there are many retailers of tea who had one thousand pounds or more of tea in stock on the 12th May, 1932, when the imposition of the excise duty on tea took effect and who did not become aware of such tax for forty-eight hours afterwards, and sold tea during that period at the price prevailing before the tax was imposed, and if in, view of this he will take the necessary steps to grant reliefs to such retailers from payment of such tax in respect of tea so sold.
I propose to reply to questions Nos. 14 and 15 together, and also to a question in similar terms of which I have received notice from Deputy Dillon.
I have given this matter the fullest consideration, and in all the circumstances I propose to allow a remission of the Excise duty on tea in respect of 500 pounds of tea in all cases where stocks liable to duty as being in excess of 1,000 pounds are in the ownership or possession of any individual or firm.
As a further measure of relief I propose to allow, where desired, payment of the duty chargeable, in two moieties, one being made forthwith and the other within a period of three months.
Would the Minister state why he fixes it at 500 lbs.? Will he state to the House why he will not agree that the duty should be charged only on the tea in excess of 1,000 lbs? As stated in the question, the present position is that a person could have 999 lbs. of tea and he would have to pay no duty at all on it, while another person who would have 1,001 lbs. of tea would have to pay the duty on the 1,001 lbs.
Would the Minister not allow the matter to remain over until the Financial Resolution comes before the House? From the point of view of the Department of Finance it is a small matter and will mean very little in revenue. I think the Minister might see his way to give way and fall in with the suggestion of Deputy Morrissey and say that the first 1,000 lbs. would be exempt from duty; or failing that, would he allow the matter to remain over until to-morrow and so not jump too quickly to a decision? This question does affect a lot of small traders and it would result in a certain amount of injustice being done to them. I would urge on the Minister to look into it and agree to what Deputy Morrissey has suggested or else allow it to remain over until the Committee Stage.
The question is a small one as regards the amount of money the Minister for Finance is to get out of it, but having regard to the number of traders who are affected by it, it is large. With regard to the reply to question 15, it is a very important matter. In the big cities a large quantity of tea was sold on the Thursday after the Budget was introduced, and it was sold at the old price; but on Friday morning those merchants received notice that they would be held liable for the 4d. per lb. duty on the tea sold in the interval.
I am meeting Deputies Dillon and Wolfe by allowing the first 500 lbs. free of duty irrespective of whether the stocks were in excess of 1,000 lbs. or not. There are reasons why the middle figure should be fixed rather than that total exemption should be given. I would be prepared to state these reasons more fully on the Committee Stage of the Bill. At the present moment that is the offer of immediate relief which we are making.