Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Jun 1932

Vol. 42 No. 10

Finance Bill, 1932—Second Stage.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

I move the Second Reading of this Bill, It embodies; in general form, the resolutions which have already been before the House and which have been discussed at great length. There are a few minor matters which were not mentioned in the Budget speech and which were nolt covered by the Financial Resolutions incorporated in the Bill. There is also one major matter which was mentioned in the Budget statement but which was not deal with by resolution embodied in the Bill.

A resolution was not necessary because the major matter was in the nature of a concession, and that is governed by Section 7 of the Bill. Section 7 relates to relief to investors in Saorstát Eireann securities which the Government proposes to make operative., This section provides for a repayment or an allowance of 20 per cent. of the income tax applicable to dividends received by individuals resident in Saorstát Eireann, and not resident elsewhere in respect of sums subscribed by them to capital issues made after the passing of the Act by Public companies, which satisfy certain conditions. Paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) of that section is the operative section which gives the concession. Paragraph (b) is introduced in order to ensure that in estimating the total income of the individual for the purposes of income tax and sur-tax such dividends or interests as he would receive from securities entitled to the benefit of the section shall be deemed to be reduced by 20 per cent. Otherwise a person, some part of whose income was derived, from investments enjoying the concession, might find himself liable to surtax when it was not the intention of the Government that he should be so liable. Sub-section (2) specifies the provisions that the company must comply with in order to secure the concession. The first of these is that it must be incorporated by or under the laws of Saorstát Eireann. It must be a company limited by shares within the meaning of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908. The third is that it must bve managed and controlled in Saorstát Eireann, and thr fourth is that it must be a company which carries on business or, if it has not alreaycommenced business, intends to carry on business wholly or mainly within Saorstát Eireann. Paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) providees that the capital which is proposed to be raised by the issue enjoying this concession, "is, or is intended to bem, or has been devoted to the establishment or extension in Saorstát Eireann of one or more industires as defined by this section.

The defining clause is sub-section (5) of Section 7. The third condition to be fulfilled by a company is that no part of the cpaital to which the concession applies is to be or has been used directly or indirectly for the purpose of acquiring an existing business or any share or interest in an existing business, or of purchasig investment, or of paying off existing loans or debentures. The purpose of this paragraph is to ensure that the concession will only appluy to those cases in which fresh capital for the purpose of expanding a business or starting a business is being invested.

For instance, if an existing business were merely to be turned into a limited company, and there was no expansion of the business, or where new capital was to be used merely to pay off debentures issued, then the concession would not apply. In this connection a point may arise where capital was being raised not merely to purchase an existing business, but also to develop and expand it. In that case there would have to be two capital issues of distinct classes of shares,. Supposing the business which it was proposed to extebd were are the same time to be secured for say £50,000, and tghe company wished to raise £200,000, fo which £150,000 would be devoted to the expansion of the business, then there would have to be two distinct issue of two classes of shares, one of which of shall call "A shares, the total issues of which would amount to £50,000, devoted to the purchase of the business, and which would not enjoy the concession. The second class, which we will call the "B" shares, would enjoy the concession and would continue to enjoy it so long as the £150,000 of the capital was devoted to the real purpose of the issue, that, is to the extension of the existing business or the continuance of such extension. Paragraph (d) of sub-section (2) is merely to provide for the convenience of administration. That is to say it provides that the issue of stock, shares or security to which the concession applies must be readily distinguishable from the other issues of the company. Sub-section (3) provides that the dividend warrant in respect of which the concession will be claimed by the investor must also be easily distingushable. The manner in which sub-section (3) will operate is as follow: If the Minister certifies that he is satisfied that the issue of capital made by X.Y.Z. company in respect of the "B" shares of that company fulfils all the required conditions, the dividend warrants of the company will show separately thye dividends on the "B" shares and inspectors of taxes throughout the country will know at once that the allowance can be granted in respect of these dividends. Sub-Section (4) provides for the withdrawal of the certificate of the Minister which confers this concession if he considers that any of the presecribed conditions have not been met. Sub-section (5) makes the concession admissible in respect of any type of trade or business subject to cetain specified exceptions which are set forth in the sub-section.

Section 8 of the Bill relates to a minor matter and is designed to legalise the practice which has been in existence for many years. Irt enables the Special Commissioners to communicate by post their determination on an appeal. This practice has been followed for many years. There are two types of cases in which it is followed. It frequently happens that after hearing arguments on a legal question arising on appeal the Special Commissioners reserve their determination in order to consider the arguments. According to a strict reading of the law, they ought to arrange a further sitting to give judgment. That would entail the Sepcial Commissioners going say, to Tralee or some other centre in which they have sat, resummoning the appellants or their representative, and formally delivering their determination on the appeal. Quite obviously that would put both the State and the appellants to a considerable amount of inconvenience and would involve them in considerable cost. It has not been the practice to do that. Hitherto, the Commissioners having determined the appeal, notified the appellants by post of their determination.

The second case, which is similar to the first, is one in which possibly greater hardship nmight be impsed if the strict letter of the law were to be complied with; that is the case of an appelled whose assessment is small. As a general rule, when such an appellant comes before the Special Commissioners it is found that he has nothing but vague general statements to substantiate his appeal and the Commissioners, in order to give him time to produce some sort of account or written evidence to support his case, adjourn the determination of the case for the purpose of allowing him to submit such evidence to the local inspector of taxes. If the documentary evidence support the appellant's case, the inspector of taxes notifies the Special Commissioners accordingly.

If it does not support his case, a corresponding notification is sent. In either event the Special Commissoners can notify the appellant of their determination by post.

In this case, as in the first case, in which the amount of money involved is greater, it would again be a hardship on the appellant if he had to appear before the Sepcial Commissioners in person, and quite obviously it would be an unjustifiable expenditure if the Special. Commissioners has to travel to Galway or Tralee or some remote part of the country merely for the purpose of issuing their determination and stating, in effect, that the appellant had not been able to produce satisfactory documentary evidence to sustain his case. It has not been the practice of the Commissioners to proceed in this way. They have utilised the post for the purpose of communicating the determination of the appeals to the appellants. The practice has been found, at any rate, convenient and cheap. I am not going to say that it has given general satisfaction. I suppose the amount of satisfaction which the preative give would be assessed by the reduction in income tax which the appellants secure. At any rate, it has been a convenient and chep practice.

It happens, however, that the validity of a determination given under these circumstances has been questioned recently in one of the Circuit Courts. The strict letter of the law possibly would involve the Commissioners proceeding in ths very cumbersome, tedious and expensive way to deliver their determinations in the case of every appeal which came before them. Accordingly, the purpose of this sub-section is to legalise the practice hitherto prevailing and to enable to Commissioners, without question, to communicate determination by pose.

In connection with this section I would like to point out that, zas the law stands, whenever, a determination is communicated or is given at a personal hearing, the appellant, if he desires to appeal to the high Court on a point of law, must express dissatisfaction immediately with the decision of the Special Commmissioners., If the desires to carry an appeal to the Circuit Court on a point of law or fact, he must express dissatisfaction within ten days. Sub-section (2) provides that where a determination is sent by post the tinme limit for both purposes shall be twelve days after the date of the written determination.

Section 9 deals with certain reciprocal relief in respect of the United States of America,. It relates to the exemption from income tax, including supertax or surtax, in respect of income derived from the operation of a ship or ships documented under the laws of the United States. As the House is no doubt aware, there is a very special case for relief from double taxation in respect 0of profits on shipping. A tramp steamer in the course of a round voyage may call at several different countries and be charged income tax in each of them. The principle of making arrangements for relief on shipping profits has been gererally recognised by many countries and by the League of Nations. In the Finance Act of 1927 provision was made for making such arrangements by order and arrangements were, in fact, made with Norway and Sweden under the section and an arrangement is in course of conclusion with Denmark.

It was originally intended to make an arrangement in the same way with the United States, but it was found that technical difficulties arose owing to the fact that the Saorstát legislation contemplated a formal arrangement being made, whereas the law of the United States does not admit of this., That law provides for the granting of relief on the lines followed in Section 9 of Bill and would make the relief possible only in the case of those countries which grant an equivalent exemption to United States citizens and companies. If this section is passed in its present form it will satisfy the equivalent exemption privision of the United States law and reciprocity by the United States will, therefore, follow automatically. In order to ensure this, the section, I think, has been based on the United States provision.

One other matter which was not referred to in the Budget statement and for which it was bnot necessary to introduce a Resolution is referred to in Section 35. It exempts from legacy duty the whole of the legacy give for charitable purpose by the will of a person dying, after the passing of this Act, where the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied that the whole of such legacy has been, or will be, applied to charitable purposes in Ireland. There is no new principle embodied in this section. As a matter of fact, under Section 38 of the Stamp Duties (Ireland) Act, 1842, a legacy that must be applied to charitable purpose in Ireland is exempt from legacy duty. It happneded, however, that owing to certing court decision, this exemption was held not to operate unless the terms of the will are such that the executors, or trustees, must apply the legacy for the benefit of a Irish charity. It has happened, owing to careless drafting, that in many cases, although it is reasonablu clear that the intention of the testator was that the legacy should be applied in Ireland, the will has been so drawn that the executors have had to option of applying the legacy for charitable purposes elsewhere. In such cases, even though the legacy wqs applied wholly for charitable purpose in Ireland, exemption cannot be given under the existing law. The clause is designed to remedy this defect and to ease the conscience of the Exchequer which, at the present moment, will, owing to an accident or an error on the part of tghe person drafting a will, get duty to which it has no equitable claim.

These are the only features of the Finance Bill which, as I have said, have not already been before the House either in the Budget speech or in the form of the Resolutions. I may say that in connection with the Bill as it stands, owing to the pressure on the draftsman's office and the expediency of Parliamentary procedure, it will be necessary to introduce a number of minor amendments on the Committee Stage. Most of them are drafting amendments, and intended merely to clarify the text. There is, however, one section which has been omitted from the Bill, and which it is intended, also, to introduce on the Committee Stage. This is a section which appears in last year's Finance Act dealing witht the duty on moneylenders' licences. It may be remembered that under Section 19 of last year's Act, power was taken to levy money upon moneylenders' licences which might be issued under any Act passed, or to be passed, during the financial year ended 31st April, 1931. The last Government were unable to introduce the necessary legislation in time. We hope to be in a position to introduce it in the current year, and, accordingly, on the Committee Stage a section will be introduced giving us power the impose a licence duty should the necessary legislation be passed.

Mr. Dockrell

Can we ask for information in regard to the Minister's speech and get replies on some points?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes.

Mr. Dockrell

The Minister spoke about the extra amount that would be allowed on income tax to individuals. I take it that is with the object of encouraging investment in Irhs securities. I would like to ask the Minister if he would consider extending that to capital expenditure in the case of corporate bodies under the same conditions. After all I take it that the Minister is bnot out to penalise thrift, and if a company, which is steadily making capital expenditure from year to year, is just as much entitled to this as a company which comes upon the market mnand makes as issue of capital at the one time. I would ask the Minister to consider that point.

There is another question I would like to rise. It is in connection with Section 36, corporation profits tax (2) (d). In the case of a company which is said to bve complying with those conditions by what date would they have to comply with them in order to qualify for the lower rate? I would be glad if the Minister would answer these questions. There are other points, of course, but I can raise them on the Committee Stage.

Mr. Wolfe

I would draw the Minister's attention to one or two points. In section 8 of the determination of appeals by Special Commissioner by post is provided for. I quite agree by that has hitherto been adopted withy success, and that on the evidence both of the Revenue Commissioners and the appellants such appeals have meant a saving of time, trouble and expense. There is a practive that exists in the office of the Inspector of Taxes to which I would like to direct attention. Under the law at present a taxpayer gets 21 days from the receipt of his notice of assessment in which to appeal from that assessement. Nothwithstanding that notice has left the office of the inspector of Taxes informing the appellant that if he wishes to appeal he must do so in 21 daysm if may not have reached him for a considerable time after that date. Cases ocfcurred in 1922 and 1923 where there was considerable dealy from the sending out of the notice by the Inspector of Taxes and its receipt by the appellant.

There were then cases in which, ordinarily, the notivce of assessement did not and could not reach an appellant sometimes for a week or ten days. I have found one inspector of taxes making the point that the appellant's right of appeal had gone owing to the words, which I contend are contrary to the law, at presenbt on the notice of assessment limiting the right of appeal to twenty-one days from the date of the notice of assessment and not from the receipt of the notice. I respectfully submit that the appellant has twenty-one days from the time at which the notice would ordinarily be delivered to him by post. The timehas been cut down. I suggest to the Minister thgat while there are inspectors of taxes who would take advantage of that to deprive the appellant of his right to appeal, he ought to make it clear that the twenty-one dauys should date from the time at which the notice of assessment would ordinarily be delivered by post. At present the words in this form are: "If you are entering an appeal against the above you must give notice in writing specifying the ground of appeal within twenty-one days of the date hearof to the inspector of taxes. "I have often seen these notices sent out with no date on them. I have seen many instances of that, and I have seen what I submit is a direct violation of the law, a curtailment by the taxes office of the time in which the taxpayer is entitled to appeal. I hope the Minister will see his way — I do not think it can be done this year — to provide for that by slightly altering the form of the notice in conformity with the decisions and making it clear to the appeallant that he has twenty-one days from the date at which a leeter would ordinarily be delivered to him in the course of the post.

Professor O'Sullivan

The Minister has indicated that the main difference between the Bill and the Resolutions already before the House is to be found in Section 7 . That is the section that deals with the 20 per cent. rebate for investments in Irish companies. Even though the pretence is that this is meant to help investment in Irish industry, he still cannot get rid of what appears to be an ingrained habit in the Minister of discriminating between different classes in the community. Why, for instance people who put their investments in Irish industry under conditions that the Minister for Industry and Commerce yesterday painted as very unfavourable and very discouraging when they did what he considered a patriotic act, are to be penalised and to get no benefit for being patriotic before the advent of the present Ministry, and are to get no abatement in the tax, is not quite clear.

One would have imagined that after the rather sad but salutary lesson the Minister was taught in connection with one other example of discrimination which is now familiar to the House and the country, tthe Minister would pause before continuing that policy of discrimination. Not merely will you have discrimination now between one Irish business, favoured at the expense practically of a business next door, which has done, according to the views of the Ministry, patriotic work in the past, but you will have, apparently, discrimination in certain cases between shareholders in the same business, as was instanced in the case brought forward by the Minister himself. Into the details of that we shall have an opportunity of going in Committee.

I recognise, of course, that the Minister can carry this Bill through the House, and that he will carry it through in spite of the arguments brought forward — I was going to say because he has the support of the largest Party in the House, but shall I say, because he has the support of the largest Party not in the House; not merely the Labour Party, who have all through this Session shown such keen interest in the epoch-making decision taken in this House, but even the Fianna Fáil Party, who have equally shown keen interest in the epoch-making Budget, for which the Minister and his Government are responsible. Nothing that has occurred since the Minister has put his Budget before an outraged public, no consideration that has been given to the proposals in that Budget, leads us to alter in the slightest the verdict we had to pronounce on that Budget as a whole. Further consideration only strengthens us, and I believe the country, in the belief that this is a throughly bad Budget from every point of view; from the point of view especially, of the prosperity of the country, and of its connection with employment. Boomed as a Budget to help tp promote employment, in reality any fair examination of the proposals contained in the Bill can only lead to the conclusion that for every man put into employmemnt probably two or three will be dismissed as a result of the innumerable burdens that, in this Bill, it is proposed to put on every class of community.

This is called a democratic Budget and, in one sense, it can claim to be that, because it hits every class without exception; it flays every person, practically speaking, in the community, so far as a Finance Bill can attempt to do it. When we objected, as we did on one occasion in connection with the Resolutions, to the proposed increase in income tax and in the allied taxes, everybody will remember what our principal objection was. It was that under these particular provisions alone money was being taken out of a main fund in the hands of private individuals, from which employment could be paid for by private individuals to the extent at least of one and a half millions. But the income tax is only one of the many examples of the way in which industry, business and employment will be hit. As if it was not enough to hit the country by interfering thus seriously with employment, every class of the community is hit by the taxes imposed. I do not know what number of taxes are proposed in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister may be able to tell us. There may be 70 or eighty so far as I know. It is not merely those with incomes who are hit. If anybody will examine the various schedukes and the sections that deal with the imposition of taxes on tea, tobacco, etc. , let him ask himself what class of the community is escaping from the Budget?

It is a democratic Budget in this sense. It flays everybody. There is a story told by the barbarian, victorious before Rome, who stated his terms. The Senate asked him " What is left to us? " and his reply was " Your Souls. " That is practically all that the Minister has left us. We are not in the position to clothe ourselves in the happy fashion which he did in the past. Even the hair shirt for which his leader stands will be pillaged as a result of this Budget. Everybody is being hit. An attempt is made to hoodwink the general public, especially the poorer classes of the population, into the belief that they are getting something for which they are not paying. An appeal is made to other passions if they do feel they are paying. When they see their follow thrown out of employment, an attempt is made in speeches through the country and in propaganda by the Government and its supporters to appeal to the envy of a section of the population. An attempt is made to stir up what are really the beginnings of class hatred and class war. That has been attempted in most countries and it is a much more serious factor in bringing about revolutions of a communistie and socialistic kind than any possible advantages that could accrue from the adoption of those systems.

That is the one great attraction this Budget has or can pretend to have so far as any section of the community is concerned. It is quite clear that it is the intention of the Government to tax this country, as at present economically organised, out of existence. That can be the only effect of this Budget. It will make impossible altogether employment by the private individual. We have already indicated that as one of our principal objections to these taxation proposals. Everything that has occured since and every piece of news that has come in from different parts of the country confirm the soundness of our opposition to these taxation proposals. This Bill will lead to a searious decrease in the employing power of the private individual. I quite admit that taxation is necessary. The Minister sill make that point. But is taxation to this extent necssary? Anybody who has had experience of this House for the last 10 years knows perfectly well that it is not the House which has stood between the country and extravagance. That has always been the thankless business of the Executive Council and of the Minister for Finance. Now that the Government itself is guilty of gross extravagance — extravagance that threatens to ruin the country — who is to stand between them and their extravagance? There is no salvation for the country now. We withstood demand after demand for increase of taxation. Remember, that all sorts of proposals for social and other services can be put up quite as reasonably as many of those dealt with in the present Bidget. Sums amounting to many more millions than are contained in this Budget could be spent on proposals which would be as reasonable as those contained in the Budget. With a soft-hearted — I shall not say a soft-headed — Ministry in office, there is no limit to the expenditure or to the Budget which we shall be asked to face ina couple of years. It is the duty of the Minister for Finance to resist plausible proposals for taxation, even proposals which seem to have a real claim, because the country is not in a position to bear increased taxation.

The Government in office for the last ten years carried out that task and incurred a great deal of unpopularity in so doing. We are now succeeded by a Government which is prepared to buy popularity at the expense of the community by gross extravagance in the policy which it is fostering. No attempt has been made by the Government to consider the effect of this taxation on the capacity of the country to carry on industries about which the Government pretends to be so concerned or to carry on ordinary business at all. No real effort has been made by the Government to consider these things. Proposals have been simply put forward and it has been decided that so much money is necessary. The Government must find the money and, hence, eaxation must be imposed. What the general effect will be is not for the Government to consider. That is their view. It is a case of profligate spending the like of which we have not had experience for many years. And remember the time chosen to do this! On the confession of the Minister for Finance himself, he allows this expenditure, he boast of this expenditure and he encourages this expenditure at a time when, according to himself, the country is least able to bear it — when dividends have fallen, when every class of the community is hard hit owing to the world crisis and the fall of prices. That is the time chosen by the Minister for Finance and by the Government of which he is a capable representative to put burdens on the people. Nobody cna tell, as I indicated already, what burdens this Finance Bill really does impose upon the great bulk of the people. Estimates — in some cases, mere guesses — constitute the best information we have. Even those do not represent the real burden. Take one item — that referred to in Schedules 8 and 9

The estimate there is £910,000. What is that based on? I am discussing now the mere taxation aspect of the matter — the amount of money likely to be raised from taxes. We have heard the Minister's colleague — the Minister for Industry and Commerce — tell us day after day what he expects in the way of new industries being set up, so that, it is implied, the incidence of these particular taxes will not be so heavy as it otherwise might have been.

Naturally the more industries that are set up in this country the smaller the imports and smaller the actual amount raised here by taxation. Does anybody, even in the Minister's own Party, I wonder, accept his optimism as regards the industries that are likely to be set up here? The public know that there is very little justification for the extraordinary optimism of the Minister for Industry and Commerce in connection with the items that have been tariffed. If the optimism is unfounded then it is not merely £910,000 that the new tariffs will bring to the revenue but a great deal more. That is only the direct burden that will be on the people. There is an indirect burden as well. Is anybody likely to share the blind otimism of the Minister for Industry and Commerce that there is going to be no increase in the price of articles manufactured in this country as a result of the imposition of these tariffs? I am really convinced now that the Minister himself believes it, but I doubt if there is another sane person in the country who shares that optimism. If that optimism is not shared I ask anyone to imagine — because we can do no more than that — what is likely to be the burden placed on every class of the community, the poor and the rich, but hardest of all, on those least able to bear the burden? The rich, as Deputy Dowdall indicated, will be able to pass the cost on to the consumer, especially so far as these tariffs are concerned. it used to be one of the outstanding planks of the Fianna Fáil Party when in opposition — apparently they did not bring the plank with them to their now platform — it was certainly the view of the Minister's parliamentary Secretary that even income tax was, to a large extent, passed on, and was a burden on industry. Most of these taxes are. They are bound to be, and when a crisis such as this Budget and the policy exemplified in it is bound to produce arises, any sane man knows that it is the poor will suffer first. It is not those who are better off will suffer most severely. At all events they can bear the crisis for a while but the poor will suffer right through, and will suffer immediately. The question is, how they will come through that crisis,

There is one thing that may help the Government in this matter and it is that these tariffs are put on at a time of falling prices. The Government can utilise that as a debating point with which to try to confuse their followers, and confuse the country generally. They may be able to show that prices have not gone up so much despite the tarrifs, by telling the people they are not paying much more for goods now than they paid 12 months ago, before the tariffs were put on. But this is a time of falling prices all over the world, and what the Minister should tell the public is that but for these tariffs prices would be much lower now. It is not a comparison between what prices are now, after the imposition of tariffs, what they will be in six months' time, with what they were six months ago before the imposition of tariffs. That is not the real question. It is what prices would inevitably be as a result of the falling prices were it not for the imposition of these tariffs.

There was a time when the Minister's colleagues told us that in the last resort the farmers are the main producers and, therefore, have to bear the principal burdens of all taxation. Now we have, not merely the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce — who might possibly have very little knowledge of farming — but the Minister for Agriculture, the man whose business it is to look after the interests of the farming community, coming forward and practically justifying every tariff, and every increased tax, forgetting the stand he once took that, in the last resort, it is the farming community will have to bear these increased taxes. It is not merely what they will have to bear indirectly, but there are plenty of taxes they will have to bear directly. They are in the little paragraph in the White Paper that was circulated and include a tax on farm implements. But there are many other taxes in this Bill not merely on farm machinery and galvanised iron, but on such things as tea and tobacco that the farmer will have to pay directly. If the producer in the last resort will have to bear most of the burdens of taxation, and if the farmer is still the main producer in this country, then undoubtedly the farmer will have to bear the main bulk of the new taxation imposed by this Bill.

What does he get in return? He is to get £250,000 extra yearly for the relief of local rates. How long he will enjoy that relief, and whether the extravagance of the Ministry is going to be followed by extravagance on the part of local bodies only the future can tell. It is extremely likely, because examples of that kind quickly find imitators. Therefore, the £250,000, so far as he is concerned, is probably a passing solace to him, but it is very poor comfort for the real burdens put on him in this Bill.

I admit that there is another class of the farming community for whom something is being done — those concerned with the production of creamery butter. They may get a certain advantage from the Bill which was introduced and sponsored by the Minister for Agriculture, but the extent of that advantage no one can tell. It depends on the amount of butter we are able to export to the British market and, not being a prophet, I cannot tell what that amount is likely to be in the future. In return the main producer, as he was called by the Fianna Fáil Party, has to bear tax after tax, burden after burden, tariff after tariff, at a time when he, like every other class in the community, was longing, not for an increase but for a decrease in the amount of taxes that the country had to face. There was no justification clearly for most of the taxes in this Budget. We have still an opportunity of criticising it and of hearing some justification for the tax on tea, a tax that will hit the poorer class in the community especially. If the Government did feel in clined to relieve the poorer farmers, why, instead of going on with the £250,000 grant for the relief of local rates, did they put a tax on tea? They say that it is a substitute for the tax on sugar. They could have largely met the position by dropping the proposed grant of £250,000 and given more relief to the farming community, and especially to the poorer classes in that community by dropping the tax on sugar and not imposing the tax on tea. In fact had they dropped a great deal of their extravagant proposals taxation of that kind, like the tax on tobacco, could have been dropped.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce gave us the excuse that, of course, there were mistakes in the imposition of these tariffs; they were inevitable, the tariffs were put on so quickly. I have yet to learn that it is an excuse for a man who kills people in Grafton Street to say that because he drove his car at 120 miles an hour he was bound to kill a couple of people. That is practically the excuse given by the Minister and his colleagues for the slight faults that he sees in this egregious Budget. A great fault that we have to find is the speed with which these taxes are being imposed. There could not have been an examination of one-fifth of one-tenth of them in the time the Minister had at his disposal. The Government have given no explanation for these tariffs. Attempts have been made to get an explanation, but I am convinced the Minister could not possibly have an explanation for the various aspects of these proposals.

A week ago we had a debate here on a small matter which occupied what the Minister for Industry and Commerce would look upon as an unconscionable time. Deputies who could speak with a first-hand knowledge of farming and who supply farmers with the commodity that was being discussed, had not the slightest hesitation in telling the Minister that he did not know what he was talking about when he was speaking in reference to a tax on superphosphates. Complete lack of examination was clear. There appeared to be consideration of only one aspect. There was neglect of primary interests and failure to consider the various reactions. The tax in respect of superphosphates is estimated to raise a small sum of mponey, but every person with an interest in the farming community and a knowledge of agricultural matters gave it as his firm conviction that the tax would put up the price, not merely on the articles upon which the tax would be paid, but on the home-produced articles as well.

That is one example of the reckless imposition of tariffs. There was no excuse offered for it; no answer to the various arguments put forward by way of criticism. The fact is the Minister was not in a position to answer these arguments. That was a definite instance of the immense amount of damage that even a small tariff can do to one of our principal industries. Of course the debate had no effect on the Minister. He had his majority with the combined Parties over which the Government now have control. Apparently what happened was this — and I think it is not an unfair description of the attitude of the Government so far as tariffs are concerned. Meeting together they said: "We want an economic Irish Ireland," to use the phrase the Minister for Industry and Commerce used yesterday. "We want an Ireland entirely self-supporting. You are the Minister for Industry and Commerce. You go ahead and do what you like. It does not matter what it costs and what casualties there may be on the way. Of course we will deny that, but if they are too big we will say that they are necessary for the economic revolution."

A man who was at one time a Minister for Defence and who is now Minister for Industry and Commerce cannot get out of the use of such martial terms as "casualties." However, the casualties are there, whatever you like to call them. The Minister is told by the Government to go straight ahead. The consequences to the population, and especially the consequences to the existing system of economy, are not to be taken into account. The Minister is told "Your business is to set up industries no matter what they cost and it does not matter if, ultimately, it ruins the country. If you can do it, good and well." It is a political policy and it is in no sense an economic policy. The Party now in office are much more interested in polities than they are in economics. They seem to be under the impression that tariffs are patriotic; that a refusal to damage the country by putting on tariffs would be unpatriotic. On that assumption they have acted.

I do not know of any country in the world that does not, when it imposes tariffs, immediately face up to the problem: is there any danger of reprisals so far as these tariffs are concerned? I know from first-hand experience, by meeting the heads of these countries, that that is one of the first question they ask themselves when they impose tariffs. If anybody in this country dares to ask are reprisals possible, one is accused of being unpatriotic, of putting bad thoughts into the heads of other people. In my opinion the motto Fianna Fáil ought to have on their banner is an ostrich in the middle of the tricolour, not standing up quite straight either.

So far as mere words are concerned we are told that the Government are interested in the export trade. I remember not many years ago when the leader of the Government Party said it was time this country ceased to be either a playground or a feeding ground for John Bull. He made that speech, I think, in Donegal. Apparently the tourist traffic was something unpatriotic. Supplying foodstuffs to England was unpatriotic. It is only recently they gave lip-service to the idea that we must take some care; that we must guard the particular trade we have. I fear that that is only lip-service. I suggest to the House that the Government care nothing about the export trade. They put on tariffs without the slightest consideration as to whether or not they will damage the export trade we have. They will go on with their policy, political or otherwise, without any consideration for the damage to our export trade.

If one dares to raise an argument in favour of that export trade, not merely in cattle, butter, poultry or other matters of agricultural porduce, but even as regards industries in the towns, one is sneered at. The people responsible for raising these industries and establishing them are sneered at. One gets the impression that the investment of Irish money in Irish industries is almost a crime and the person who gets an income from money invested in Irish industry is a person who grinds the labourer, who is rolling in wealth and who should be taxed, if possible, out of existence. That is their real attitude. An effort is being made to blind the people to the real issues at stake. The country must make up its mind whether or not it is going to have the business largely run by the State, by State institutions. Not a day passes in which there is not a sign of the increased control that is going to be exercised by the State in all matters.

We have not got the monopolies the Minister for Industry and Commerce promised us yesterday. We have not got the wheat tariff yet. The Minister spoke about estimated savings in the Civil Service. Has he attempted any calculation of the extra cost that will be involved as a result of the increased State activities following this Budget and the whole economic policy of the Government? Obviously the only working class — and a very hardworking class it is — that will be increased by the economic policy of the Government is the State service. It is quite obvious that that is the aim — more and more State management and State control. The President goes to Cork and speaks of remodelling this State according to what he calls Christian idals. After their example in the past I am prepared to seek guidance, as to Christian morality and Christian policy and Christian economics, anywhere else rather than on the benches opposite, and especially the front benches opposite.

We are not going to accept socialistic measures and policy merely because the President describes them as satisfying the yearning of his Christion will. The fact that that man without any sense of reality in politics, economics or anything else puts before the public this measure and machinery as practical, is enough to appal the country and to open the eyes of many of the people of the country as to what is in store for them. A man with that kind of mind is apt to lead this country much further than it contemplates or desires to go. We know perfectly well where a man of this kind can lead the country, even a country that is bigger and stronger and more determined than this country. He makes the appeal and the Government makes the appeal that not only will he benefit the poorer classes and lift them up but that he will pull down the other classes that may be above. This is not merely an appeal issued at meetings in various parts of the country, it is what is termed the equalisation of wealth. How many people have heard that cry recently and have heard it announced oftener and oftener as time goes on? What has indulgence in that policy done for the poor? Does anybody believe the cry that is raised? Is there any indication that it will do anything to improve the condition of the poor? I admit that the Fianna Fáil Party and the Labour Party combined, if left in office long enough by the country, are capable of smashing up the present system. I quite admit their capacity for doing that, but I do not believe they are capable of putting any other system in its place, and I do not believe they have any clear conception of the system they want to put in its place. Here they are mainly destructive. They are capable of pulling down but not of building up. They are revolutionary, as the Minister for Industry and Commerce boasted, in economics and in politics. Revolutions are very often more capable of pulling down than of building up, and the effects that spring from revolutions are very different from those that the inaugurators of the revolution looked forward to. These are some of the objections we have to this Bill. The details we will discuss afterwards, but the principle of the Bill, and the policy for which it stands, are entirely unsound and calculated to do untold harm to the country and to every class of people in the country. Not only will it do harm to income tax payers but it will do harm to a number of those who live by the labour of their hands and to a number of the poorer classes above all. it is to them that this Bill is likely to do damage. The policy for which the Government stands is likely to do very grave damage to all classes, and much greater damage to the poor than to any other class of the people. For these reasons we oppose this Bill and ask the House to reject it.

Mr. Bennett

Speaking on the introduction of this Budget I ventured to describe it as a scare Budget, and thouggh the taxpayer has slept over and dreamt over it and carried it in his thoughts since then, I venture to say he has accepted my defination. Many of the taxpayers who can afford to do are rapidly retreating before the Minister's fire, but the great bulk, unfortunately, are so confined to their various occupations that they have to remain, perhaps subsequently to become some of the casualties that the Minister for Industry and Commerce reffered to in another matter. That was when he was speaking to the original motion referring to the effects that this Budget would have upon certain enterprises. Take the question of income tax. We pointed out that the increased income tax would hamper trade. We pointed out that the decreased profit in industry owing to the increase in income tax would inevitably mean a decrease in employment and a great addition to the number of unemployed whom the Minister appears anxious to help and whom the Labour Party is anxious to preserve by means of the Minister's legislation. We said that the increase in income tax and sur-tax would have the result that many people in the country, whose capabilities to employ others was dependent solely upon their investments, inside and outside the country, would, of necessity, have to curtail their expenditure and curtailment of their expenditure would necessarily mean reduction in the number of their employees. We have evidence of that result from the Budget. The Minister in the original debate stated that there was no evidence of the fact of any such occurrence. I can give the Minister not one or two, but ten or more instances of a reduction of employment by employers and of the reduction of the weekly wages paid to employees as a result of the imposition of the increased income tax and super tax. I am sure Deputies in other parts of the House could give the Minister similar information.

There is also the fact to be noted of numerous rich people coming into the country in connection with such sports as hunting and racing. Men and women who spend a great portion of their time and income in this country — income not derived from any sources within this State but income derived from Endland, Scotland, America and elsewhere. These people, owing to the great addition to income tax and super tax, will no longer come here. There is evidence of that in the difficulty that secretaries of hunts and such people have found in providing substitutes for the people who inprevious years carried on these sports in this country. These are only a few instances of the results of the increase in income tax and super tax. Every business man knows the effect the increased income tax will have on business in this State. There used to be a song in my younger days cleverly describing the taxes that were put on every year but it always concluded with the line that whatever you do " do not tax our tea. " The Minister has taxed the one thing that in this popular manner he is implored not to tax. I think the suggestion of Deputy O'Sullivan is a reasonable one that if instead of the £250,000 being given in relief of rates to the smaller farmers it were employed in relief of the taxon tea it would give these people a greater amount of assistances.

Then we come to the tariffs. We have plenty of evidence of the extensive use of tariffs in other countries and of the effect produced by the protective tariffs in those countries in the last ten years. We know their effects upon finance and trade and upon employment generally. The Minister himself and Deputies know or must have read of the financial crashes that have taken place in other countries as a result of an intensive protective policy. The number of unemployed in these countries has increased out of all proportion as a result of these tariffs. And having evidence of the steps that these countries are taking in the endeavour to extricate themselves from the bog into which they have fallen, we ourselves are invited to step into a similar bog. The Minister and his colleagues seem to be anxious to establish industries and the methods they propose to the House to establish industries are to adopt a protective policy and to put on tariffs. Now I wonder did the Minister for Finance take into consideration what the effect of his proposals would be, not only upon the industries he is proposing to establish, or the industries he is proposing to help, but on the many great industries in this country which are flourishing and which do not demand any protective help or any teriffs whatever.

Take for instance the shipping industry. If there was any industry that was more needed than another here it was the great carrying industry. We have evidence that in the South of Ireland there are individuals who were not afraid to put their money into such an industry and who have defied the temtation made to them to part with that industry. I refer to the Limerick Steamship Company, which is a credit to the State. That Company carries on a very big business. What will be the effect of the Minister's legislation upon this one company? It will have the effect of diverting a great deal of the cargo on which this company depends for its revenue. I am stating a fact when I say that the directors of the company have already had an intimation that scores of manufacturers who hitherto sent their goods via the steamers run by this company will no longer do so and will take advantage of an alternative service because the imposition of the package tax will necessitate the setting up by them of a packing factory at some central portion of this State which almost certainly will not be in Limerick or the western portions of Ireland. The various tariffs in the Schedule of this Bill, to my mind, will have a disastrous effect upon the western and the southern ports — Limerick, Galway and Waterford. Future meetings of the various chambers of commerce will, I venture to prophesy, verify that statement.

There was recently a prospect of a large undertaking commencing in the City of Limerick. I refer to the extension of the docks and the connecting of the docks with the railway. This scheme was expected to provide employment for anything from 300 to 500 workers. There appears to be great danger that this scheme will not materialise now because of the effect of the various taxes. The result may be that the contract price for building the extension and the railway will have to be increased owing to the taxes on various commodities but a far greater danger to the ultimate beginning of the project will be this; That I very much fear the Harbour Board Commissioners will hesitate to undertake the scheme and to borrow the great amount of money to fulfil that scheme if there is a danger — as there must be a danger — that their revenue owing to the imposition of these taxes will have fallen to such an extent that they will be unable to make provision for the interest and sinking fund of that loan.

Speaking again for the City of Limerick of which I have some knowledge I want to refer to a smaller industry. I bring this to the notice especially of the Minister whose interest is to build up industry in this country and to bloster up industry by tariffs and by protection by preventing any competitors coming on the scene of their operations. We have in that city lately set up an industry employing thirty hands for the canning of peas and beans which are natural products of the soil. At the moment they employ thirty hands with the prospect of extension in that they propose to tin not only peas and beans but fruit and now are faced with a tax on tins. A tax on tins may appear to be a very small tax but it means for the Directors of this concern this, the difference between the price of the tin if manufactured here and the price of the tin imported from one of the largest manufacturers in the world would be just the difference between a profit and a loss on such a small struggling industry. The Minister shakes his head but I prefer to take my information from the Directors of the company who set up this industry and who made no plea to the Minister for protection or any plea that the rest of the State should come to their assistance but who were national enough and plucky enough to put their money into this industry which should be helped rather than impeded.

The Minister was at great pains a few days ago to defend another proposal in this Bill which was debated in this House for two days, and for which neither the Minister nor any of his colleagues could make any defence — the imposition of the tax on phosphates. That tax was imposed solely to help manufacturers who did not need the Minister's assistance or help, because they were supplying as the Minister put it four-fifths of the needs of the country in that particular commodity. Here, in the case of an industry which asks no help, the Minister refuses to give a little remission in taxation. One does not like to refer to many items in the Schedules as there will be an opportunity of going into them in detail. There is one, however, to which I should like to refer. The Minister appears personally to take a great interest in the extension of the wollen industry — a very laudable desire. I ask the House, however, to consider whom the great addition to the wollen tax is going to serve. Certainly not the consumer; nor to any extend the workers, because there will not be a very great addition to the number of employees, and it will be almost certainly set off by the number disemployed as a consequence of kindred tariffs; and most certainly not the farmer. The Minister seems to doubt that. If there is one section of the community that this tax will not help it is the farmer. When originally a small tariff was imposed on wollens, I ventured to say that there might be some attempt made to use Irish wool in the manufacture of these articles. I think I am speaking correctly when I say that the quantity of wool used in the manufacture of Irish woolens at present is almost nil, and is not likely to be increased greatly as aresult of the Minister's taxation. Lately in the local market the price of wool has been about 4d. per lb. In some districts it has been almost impossible to sell it. Indeed I know of one farmer who, in the last three or four weeks, took one hundred fleeces of wool into a certain market and could not get a quotation. When he made a pathetic appeal to the buyer and asked him what he would do with it, the buyer said; " I would advise you to burn it. " That is the position that the farmer is in regard to wool at present. As far as we are aware, the Minister has made no provision in his legislation for any very great quantity of Irish wool being used in the manufacture of the various articles that the woollen manufacturers turn out.

We shall have an opportunity on the Committee Stage to consider the various Schedules in detail. I ventured to describe the general consequences of the Bill to the people and its effect on industry generally. Already, I think, in many industries the output is declining. Certainly there is evidence in many towns and cities, which are not manufacturing centers, of a great curtailment in the business of retailers. There certainly is no evidence of increased employment in the country districts. There will inevitably be a serious effect on the revenue of western and southern ports as a result of this legislation, anda direct effect on the employment of dockers and other people on the quays in Waterford, Limerick and Galway. Even if a few new industries are established as a result of the legislation, there is no doubt that the effect of the increased tariffs, the increase in income tax and the other increases in the Bill, which cannot be defended, will be a great increase in the number of people disemployed in various industries and by various private individuals. On balance, it will be found that the extra number employed under the new circumstances will by no means come up to the number that will be disemployed as a result of it.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

I should like, with your permission, sir, to give some indication at this stage of various modifications in the duties imposed and specified in this Schedule and which will be introduced on the Committee Stage. I had some hope that we would have these modifications contained in the Bill before it was circulated, but owing to pressure of work in the draftman's office it was not found possible to do so. An indication of the nature of these modifications, however, will be of use to Deputies when considering what amendments, if any, they may table at a latter stage, and also to importers, manufacturers, and the like, who are concerned in these matters. As I indicated before, in respect to the duty on monumental and architectural building stone, it is intended to insert words excluding slate, and also excluding crushed stone. In connection with that duty also we have considered representations made by Deputies and others in respect of the hardships that might be caused where building were being constructed under contracts entered into before the introduction of the Budget, and in respect of which construction work has been actually begun at the time the Budget was introduced. We propose to introduce into a Bill a section which will give power to the Revenue Commissioners to exempt from duty cut-stone intended for use in a building which is being constructed pursuant to a contract entered into before the date of the Budget, and in course of construction at that date. We intend also to insert a similar provision in respect of fabricated steel. In paragraph 5, which relates to metal door frames, metal window frames and sashes, I have considered representations made by Deputies interested in the stained - glass window industry, and we are inserting words excluding from duty frames, sashes and casements constructed and intended for use as containers for stained glass.

In respect of paper bags, it is intended to insert a weigh limit. It will apply only to bags that do not exceed 8 ozs. in weight. In respect of putty, paints, distempers and the liquid form of paste it is intended, as I explained on the discussion on the Report Stage, to insert in the 5th column a special licence provision which will enable them to permit of the importation free of duty of special classes of paints or distempers that might be required by the manufacturer in the process of manufacturing. The particular example I give is cellulose used by motor body builders. It is not possible to exclude that particular article by definition and so it is intended to take powers by licence to permit its importation free of duty to manufacturers of motor bodies. In No. 15, which relates to the duty upon printed matter, there is the exclusion of printed matter which is imported firmly adhering to cardboard. It is intended to extend that to any other material such as linen or cloth.

Mr. Anthony

Does the Minister mean to exclude cartons bearing printed matter?

Mr. Lemass

They were never subject to duty.

Mr. Anthony

I understood the Minister in his statement on the Budget to say that he intended to do so at some time. I drew his attention to the fact that there were a very large number of cartons imported into the country and he said that he would see that there would be a tariff imposed on them.

Mr. Lemass

I do not think that I made any such definite statement as that. It is by no means clear that there is a necessity for an import duty on it.

Mr. Goulding

What about signs coming into the country in celluloid?

Mr. Lemass

The duty applies only to paper.

Mr. Anthony

The Minister must be aware that this matter arises in connection with containers for butter, margarine and such things.

Mr. Lemass

Yes, but at this stage I am merely indicating the modifications in the duty which it is intended to make in the Committee Stage of the Bill. The question of new duties is an entirely different matter.

Mr. Anthony

What I want is some assurance that this very important end of the industry must not be neglected, the importation of cartons for cigarettes, margarine or the butter industry. These would give a tremendous amount of employment to our people and without the inclusion of these cartons in the Minister's own budgetary arrangement the other things would be of comparatively little value.

Mr. Lemass

I said that the position in respect of them was under consideration, but it was quite obvious that a lot of them must have been exempted.

Mr. Anthony

I should like to make the Minister aware that I know of at least one manufacturer who was prepared to put in £5,000 worth of machinery to cope with this particular demand for cartons. The Minister must be made aware of that.

Mr. Lemass

It is intended to exclude from duty maps, patterns for the manufacture of other articles, ornamental greetings, foreign Government publications, and forms officially prescribed by foreign Governments. In respect of the duty upon books it is intended that the duty shall in future take this form, and instead of the ad valorem duty upon works of fiction it is intended to have a flat rate of duty.

Sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 15 provide for duties of 33? and 10 per cent. This duty will not apply to books bound in leather or any material which is an imitation of leather, no matter where printed. It is proposed to exclude from the scope of the entire duty, books of an educational or scientific character or generally required for use in schools, colleges and universities. It is also intended, in accordance with the undertaking given here on the Report Stage, to exclude books imported for use of libraries which are not proprietary libraries.

Reference No. 17 relates to duties upon manufactures of iron or steel wires. It is intended to insert a provision about springs and screwed wire. Also in the fifth column it is intended to insert a similar licence provision to enable us to permit of the importation of small quantities of special classes of wire required by manufacturers in the process of manufacture here. In the duty which relates to articles manufactured wholly or partly of wood it is intended to insert before paragraph (c) a special provision in relation to: hammers, hatchets, adzes, axes, pickaxes, mattocks, hoes, rakes and forks with wooden handles imported complete and wooden handles therefor imported separately. For the purpose of this duty, furniture is excluded from the scope of this Bill because it is liable to another duty. It is proposed to exclude picture frames imported without a picture and to exempt from the duty, in accordance with the discussion we had here, tools, spools, churns, incubators, punnets, chip baskets and boxes, musical instruments, unfinished covers for loose-leaf ledgers, educational requisites, crucifixes and toys where the value of any such object does not exceed 1/-. I think it was Deputy Blythe who suggested that we should exclude from the duty articles of trivial value. After examination, that was found to be impracticable and it was found better to exclude specific things which it was intended to cover.

Mr. Minch

There are certain trade thermometers which have wooden backs and which have been held up as furniture.

Mr. Lemass

If they are being held liable to duty as furniture, I take it that that is the duty that always applied to them. There has been a furniture duty since 1924 or 1925 and the only alteration made in that duty was made by the Finance No. 2 Bill. That involved some increase in the duty without any alteration in the definition which had been in practice before that, so that matter does not arise in this connection.

Mr. O'Hanlon

Would the Minister say if he is excluding the wood used in printing offices for mounting metal castings?

Mr. Lemass

I could not answer that straight away. We had some question like that before, but my recollection is that we decided that there was no case for exclusion. I would not like to answer the Deputy definitely at this stage. It is, of course, also intended to exclude filled containers and component parts of umbrellas and road and rail vehicles. In connection with this duty also, it is intended to insert in column 5 the same licence provision to cover certain minor items such as wood pegs required by shoemakers and things of that kind. In number 24, in accordance with the promise made to Deputy Alton, it is intended to exclude photographs which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, are of a technical or scientific nature.

Mr. Bennett

Might I ask the Minister whether washing pegs will be excluded from the tariff on wood? They are articles very commonly used by women for hanging linen on lines, and they are of very small value.

Mr. Lemass

I will look into the matter, but, at first sight, I see no good reason why they could not be manufactured here. From No. 28, in accordance with the undertaking given, it is intended to exclude unexposed sensitized films, plates, paper and cards. From No. 33, it is proposed to exclude rubber floor covering. In respect of No. 34 I said that it was intended to take out that duty, which applied to all articles made wholly or mainly of brass, tin or lead, and to insert instead a definite list of the items to be covered. On examination, however, that was found to be neither necessary nor practicable, in respect of tin and brass. In respect of lead, the duty will apply only to sheet lead and lead piping, but, in respect of brass and tin, the duty will apply generally, with a list of articles which are specifically excluded, namely, electrical and gas fitting apparatus instruments and appliances; surgical, scientific and optical apparatus instruments and appliances; apparatus, instruments and appliances for educational purposes; tin foil capsules and crown corks; brass wire, whether screwed or not; brass pins; brass rivets; brass screws; brass tubing; brass syringes and sprayers; unworked brass rods; toys; printers' blocks; filled containers; the component parts of type-setting machines or type-composing machines and the component parts of agricultural machinery, excluding dairy machinery; religious objects of brass or tin of which the value does not exceed one shilling.

Mr. O'Hanlon

Did the Minister mention printers' blocks?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. O'Hanlon

They should be in connection with lead.

Mr. Lemass

They are being excluded. In the Fifth Schedule of this duty, as it stands now, the Revenue Commissioners are authorised to exclude from duty machinery specially manufactured and designed for use by the proprietors of dairies and creameries in the process of their business. It is intended to substitute for that the following words: "Machine wholly or mainly of brass, other than a pump, or on any container wholly or mainly of tin plate of a capacity of ten gallons and upwards. In that connection also, we will have in respect of these duties, a similar licensing provision, because it is only by such a provision that we can meet some of the minor items that were mentioned, such as those referred to by Mrs. Collins-O'Driscoll — certain very small brass parts required by corset manufacturers and others.

Mr. Broderick

Are rim-locks with brass tongues exempt?

Mr. Lemass

The duty only applies to articles wholly or mainly of brass. Any article which contains a small brass fitting or something of that kind would not be subject to duty.

Mr. Brodrick

Do brass hinges come under the tariff?

Mr. Lemass

Yes, they will be liable to duty. In No. 35, which relates to the duty on sporting apparatus and accessories of various kinds it is intended to add to the list of exclusions, after the words "personal clothing," the word "furniture," and also the words "saddlery, harness and parts thereof," which are liable to duty under another Bill, also, in accordance with the undertaking given here on Report Stage of the Resolution, to exclude the component parts of such appliances, apparatus, accessories and requisites. In respect of No. 36, in order to make the position clear, it is intended to insert after the words "cordage, cables, ropes" the words "not forming part of another article at importation," and definitely, as we undertook to do, to exclude binder twine and coir yarn. As I explained on Report Stage, we will also have a licence provision inserted to enable us to permit certain forms of peculiar coloured twine, and things of that kind, required by brush manufacturers for the process of manufacture, to be imported free of duty.

In Resolution No. 8, which is the second schedule to the Bill, it is intended to insert, in respect of newspapers, an exclusion of foreign Government publications, and also an exclusion of papers required by libraries other than proprietary libraries. In consequence of the amendment made in the book duty in the first schedule, Item No. 6 of this schedule will, of course, be deleted entirely. The only other modification in this connection relates to the package tax, from which it is intended to exclude soup in liquid form imported in packets. It is also intended to insert in the body of the Bill, a section which will empower the Revenue Commissioners to exempt from duty any article liable to duty which is imported into this country for the purpose of undergoing brass manufacture here and subsequent re-exportation. Certain representations have been made to us in relation to a number of articles, in respect of which considerable additional employment might be given in this country, and a valuable type of industry built up, if that power existed by which manufacturers, who are, in fact, proposing to do so, could import certain articles into this country and subject them to further processes of manufacture with a view to re-exportation. Articles imported for that purpose, and for subsequent exportation, will not be liable to duty. These are the main changes it is proposed to make in this Bill on the Committee Stage, and I give an indication of them now, as I have explained, so that Deputies and others interested will know our intentions in that regard.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I had some little trouble about one item. Are machines wholly or mainly of brass to be taxed?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Might I ask the Minister if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance will have to pay duty every time he comes into this State?

Mr. Lemass

If we put a tax on brains the Deputy would not pay much, anyway.

Mr. O'Hanlon

From No. 34 in the first schedule, the Minister has excluded printers' blocks?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. O'Hanlon

In No. 18, printers' blocks would come under the heading of wood, and if they are not excluded from No. 18, a good deal of trouble will be caused. The amount of wood in a printers' block is insignificant, but it is necessary and the inclusion will cause great inconvenience to newspapers. The blocks are of lead mounted on wood.

Mr. Lemass

I would not like to deal with the matter now because I cannot say definitely what the position is. It has been represented to me that the actual process of making the woodwork and applying it to the block is very simple and that it could easily be done here.

Mr. O'Hanlon

That is not the point. The point is the inconvenience it will cause to a great number of newspapers in the country in respect of English advertisers who send the block over. It is composed of lead and wood and there will be customs duty on wood and not on lead.

Mr. Lemass

I will look into the point.

Mr. Anthony

The mounting of a block does not take such a whole lot of time. I think Deputy O'Hanlon's point referred to a special type of advertising in which, let us say, a firm such as the manufacturers of Pears Soap sent a special line, a text line or something of that character. They will send in an advertisement mounted or unmounted. Mounted means that it is mounted on wood.

Mr. Lemass

I think that is understood.

Mr. Anthony

In regard to component parts does the Minister include in these component parts, linotype or intertype matrices? Matrices are not manufactured in this country.

Mr. Lemass

They are being excluded from duty.

Mr. Goulding

Would separated oil be included under the heading white oil?

Mr. Lemass

As far as I am aware all white oils which are subject to duty are being made here and are being made at a sufficiently cheap rate. In fact there is a substantial export business in them.

Mr. Goulding

What about separated oil?

Mr. Lemass

I could not answer in regard to separated oil.

Mr. Blythe

The various small modifications intimated by the Minister are good as far as they go, but I do not think that they go nearly far enough nor do I think there is going to be time either for the members of the Opposition or members of the Government Party to discover one-tenth of the difficulties that are going to arise and the hardships that are going to be inflicted by the multitude of tariffs imposed in this Bill. I think already it must have become apparent that a great many other changes will really be required and that there will be a great many other matters in regard to which as good a case can be made for exemption as has been made in the case of the matters in which exemption has been given.

We are dealing in this Bill with the imposition of, I think, fifty-one tariffs. We have a new procedure in relation to them and I think we should have a new procedure in relation to exemptions. I would suggest that the Minister should consider whether he would not introduce a clause into the Bill enabling the Minister or the Executive Council to make Orders exempting articles altogether from the scope of any of the duties imposed under this Bill and to allow an exemption Order or a modification Order to come into effect after having been laid on the Table of the House in the ordinary way. Even if we had more of Parliamentary time, if we were going to sit until October, and this Bill was not going to be hurried in any way, I believe there would be a great many cases of difficulty and hardship which could not be brought under the notice of either members of the House or the Government and could not be considered by them.

If the Minister does not want to have the pressure which even the existence of that section would involve—because I know as long as the possibility of modification exists deputations of all sorts will roll up to the Minister with suggestions—let him limit the period of operation of it until say the 1st November, but let him at any rate take power to continue this beneficent—if I might use the word of the Minister for Finance—process of wiping out some of the hardships which the Bill will inflict. It is quite obvious when tariffs to this number are imposed that the Government could not by any means have explored them or have an idea of the ramifications of the variety of taxes imposed and I think the recognition they have shown of that should be carried a bit further and that they should fix some period of months during which they can modify, so that they will not have people who will make a case to them answered with the statement: "The Bill has been passed. We cannot introduce fresh legislation into the Dáil. The time that even the smallest Bill will take is so great and the amount of discussion which it would get is so considerable, that although we recognise that your case is a hard case, we cannot do anything about it." They can take the powers of exemption that I suggest and it would be easy for them to issue an Order which would come into effect simply by laying it on the Table of the House unless it was rejected. The Government would then be in a position to give the necessary relief in any case the soundness of which they were convinced, without involving themselves in any great loss of time. That, however, is dealing simply with the statement of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.

So far as the Bill as a whole is concerned, it is a Bill that cannot be too strongly condemned. It is a Bill which imposes a burden of one million and three quarters on the consumer more than was sufficient to meet State expenditure and balance the Budget last year. It seems to me that in the present state of affairs there can be no justification whatever for the introduction of a Finance Bill which imposes several additional burdens to that extent on consumers. There is nothing in the Bill in any way to modify the objection that must be taken to that great increase. There is not even some shifting or changing of the burden that would be of help to the community. We have in fact, except the mere change from sugar to tea, which I think was a bad change, nothing but a piling on of fresh burdens in every direction. I do not see anything of any importance in the Bill which is not in itself something that is worsening the position of the community.

Even Section 7 which perhaps the Minister for Finance or the Government would regard as a constructive section is a section which as a whole I think is an objectionable section and one which will lead to an enormous amount of administrative difficulty in the future. I see no reason at all why some particular set of investors who are apparently having to invest in a limited liability company or some sort of corporation like that are going to get an advantage in income tax over people who previously invested their money and were prepared to risk it when there were no such risks as there are at present. If there were no tariffs at all, it would be possible to make out such a case as might be made out now for giving special relief to investors whose money is invested here, but when we pile up tariffs and, along with that, give this particular sort of exemption, we are doing something which is uncalled for. Anybody who has any competence at all and invests in new business, particularly in manufacturing business, should be able to make money. It may be that after a time, if sufficient people come in, apart from the question of tariffs being revised, it will not be so easy to make money, but most of them are fixed at such a rate as to give the people engaged in the manufacture of the articles concerned easy money. There is no reason at all for giving them special income tax relief and any increase of relief as suggested would be unfair to other people and will lead to all sorts of administrative difficulty and manoeuvring in the future. There will have to be certainly, if a few years of this particular sort of relief is to continue, a great many amending clauses introduced, because anybody can see loopholes which could be availed of under the section as it stands, and while those loopholes could be closed up, probably others with little more difficulty could be found and we would have time spent and money lost on it which will give no return whatever.

If the Minister was going the whole hog and imposing a differential tax on income of investors abroad, that would be a proposal which from many points of view would be defensible. I do not know that it would be entirely a wise proposal, but at any rate it would be logical and defensible. As it is, however, I think it has nothing to recommend it. It will not get £10 invested in any industry that would not have been invested without it. If the tariffs will not make people put money into an industry, the giving of a 20 per cent. exemption on that part of the income on Irish industry that arises out of the new industry after the passing of this Act, will have no result at all. Official time will be wasted. People will be encouraged to resort to all sorts of accountancy devices to escape a certain amount of tax and nothing further will result from it.

I regard this particular proposal in Article 7 as futile and objectionable, and I think it is particularly objectionable to have the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce brought into sub-section (2). I see no reason why the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, should be required to certify that a particular company is incorporated by the laws of Saorstát Eireann. It is not necessary for a Minister to certify that. It is not necessary for them to certify that a company is limited by shares within the meaning of the Companies Consolidated Act of 1928, or that it is managed or controlled from the Saorstát, because that is to be determined by the Revenue Commissioners. The residence of a company, I believe, is determined by where control lies, so that they have already to decide where control lies, and there are quite a number of other cases down here for which there is no reason for the Minister to bring them in. There is no reason for Ministers to poke their noses into a business concern and forcing it to have its affairs submitted to them. Our whole procedure in regard to revenue collection, so far, is that the Minister for Finance is kept out of it. A Minister for Finance is a politician who may be a business man. It is entirely objectionable that in his official capacity he should be getting information which is inside information about the affairs of individual firms. Our scheme provides that everything in connection with income tax is dealt with by the Revenue Commissioners and they are officials who are bound by oath not to make any disclosure so that the private affairs of the individuals are kept private, and no man by virtue of political office can get knowledge in connection with their income tax. I think that if the drafting of this section is to be proceeded with, at any rate the grounds for relief should be set out clearly in more detail, if necessary, than they are set out now, and the administration of the section should be left entirely to the Revenue Commissioners. The Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce should not come into it at all.

There is another matter that I would like to refer to. That is the tobacco duty and the discrimination which is introduced against certain firms there, or in favour of other firms. I would be as anxious as the members of the Government that a home firm—a purely Irish firm—should have every opportunity of carrying on its business, and I would give a great deal of attention to the needs and difficulties of any such firm. But I do not think that anything that we know of could justify the introduction of the principle which we find in this Bill in regard to the tobacco duty. We have an increase of 1/2 in the lb. in the tax on tobacco, and then we have certain firms allowed to get their tobacco at 7d. in the lb. less than the general rate, and "it is provided that they shall be Irish born residents" and so forth—a special definition of Irish born residents. Then we have references to the period for which a firm must have been operating. If we are to introduce a principle like that it is only a step further to say that an excise duty on such and such an article should be paid by firms "A" or "B" and that all the other firms should be free of that excise duty. It is the same as if the general income tax should be 5/- and that a certain number of people, set out in the back of the Bill, should have to pay 6/-. The principle is unjustifiable and one which will cause great difficulties in the future and a great deal of harm. The Minister, in so far as he listens to Opposition speeches, in regard to this particular section, has by no means heard the end of it. All sorts of people through the country will come forward to him claiming special privileges and encouraged to look for treatment which they would never have looked for if something like this had not been adopted by the Government. There is no sound way of dealing with taxation proposals except the imposition in general terms and the giving of exemptions in general terms and the avoidance of the putting in of specific words to hit a particular firm or group of firms, and not to hit another firm or group of firms.

All the firms in the tobacco manufacturing trade here established their factories when it was perfectly legal to do so and when there was no discouragement suggested. To penalise one firm as against others is not a bit different, in the way it is being done here, from saying that firms which have subscribed £500 or £10,000 to the funds of Fianna Fáil shall be exempt and those that have not so subscribed shall be liable. There is no limit to the abuses that can arise if the principle contained in this section is held by and extended. It will be very difficult for the Minister, or for the Government, once something so unfair and unsound as this is has been admitted, to avoid going further. There will be as strong cases as this is, and stronger cases than this is, put up to them. There are very easy remedies. The easiest remedy and the best remedy is for the Government, even at this stage, to make up their minds to recognise the real needs of the present economic position and, instead of setting out to spend one and three-quarter million pounds more than was sufficient to balance the Budget last year, to try to bring the amount down to last year's level or below it, if that should prove possible. If the Government would recognise that a time of falling national revenue is not a time for increased tax burthens, is not a time for increased expenditure, then it would be very easy for them to get rid of all the major hardships we find in this Budget.

I should like to refer also to the corporation profits tax. The corporation profits tax is simply a form of income tax applicable to companies. It is an undesirable form of income tax because it falls with full force on all shareholders. So far as the ordinary income tax is concerned, the shareholder with a very small income can get repayment. The shareholder who is getting £50 or £100 or £120 has to bear the full weight of the corporation profits tax. Charities, which would be exempt altogether from income tax, have to bear the full weight of that particular form of income tax called corporation profits tax. It is an undesirable form of tax. It could be justified when our income tax was very low as compared with the income tax on the other side of the Channel. In my view, it cannot be justified when our income tax has gone up to 5s. in the £.

Ministers talk about encouraging and developing industry, but I do not know how they expect a spirit of enterprise to arise in a country like this, which is so undeveloped industrially and which is so economically backward, when there is an income tax on the profits of a business of any size of 6/6 or 7/- in the £, whereas in Great Britain—a highly developed, industrial country — the highest income tax any business pays is 5/- in the £. Business and industry grow in every country by the development of enterprising and successful firms. One always finds that the firm which does progress and grow is the firm in which profits are not all distributed, in which the owners are willing to let a substantial portion of the profits remain in the business for the purpose of extending the business. If we put a tax of 6/6 in the £ on the profits of such a business, expansion is undoubtedly made harder. The shareholders must draw a certain proportion of the profits. If you have taken 6/6 in the £ away, more has to be drawn to meet their needs. The portion which is not drawn—the reserve —has had 6/6 in the £ deducted and a definite handicap is imposed on the type of firm that will give us industrial expansion. We are not going to have all-round level growth. That never exists. In every country there are firms which make practically no progress—firms which, instead of progressing, are always slipping down into extinction, as it were. Progress is got by the growth of certain firms in which there are efficiency, enterprise, and that form of self-denial which leaves capital in the business and builds the business up by the use of that capital. It is a very serious thing for us to have our effective income tax higher than it is in a country beside us much richer and much more industrially advanced. If the Government wants to discriminate between investments in the Saorstát and investments outside it, it would be a rather good line for them to vary the existing arrangements in regard to corporation profits tax—not to put corporation profits tax up all round by two and a half per cent., as they are proposing to do, but to leave the rates as they were and to exempt Irish-owned firms operating here altogether. They could get some of the objects they are trying to attain by the Bill which was before the House last night and to-day in that way and they would be doing a thing which is more justifiable than what is proposed in this Bill and in the Bill which was before the House last night.

In any case if they do not see their way to do anything towards reducing the scope or the rate of corporation profits tax they certainly ought not to increase it, and ought not to bring more firms within the range of that tax. I can see absolutely no justification for what is proposed, having regard to the circumstances that exist here, and I think the Government ought seriously consider the effects of direct taxation, when forced to a high level and particularly when forced substantially beyond the level in the country that is nearest to us and in which a great deal of Irish money is invested. Some one has already pointed out how that may affect manufacturers. Take the case of a firm which has an establishment here and an establishment on the other side. If any profits are made here by the firm 6/6 in the £ is payable but if it makes profits on the other side, only 5/- is payable. Will it not be to the advantage of that firm to do as much as possible of their trade in the outside factory rather than in the factory here? That sort of thing is going to operate in many other cases, and in a great number of ways. From that point of view the proposal in the Budget is to be condemned. If it were absolutely necessary that this should be done, much as people might dislike it, they could not say a great deal against it, but when the thing is entirely unnecessary, and when the Minister, taking the stand that he ought to have taken, could have avoided the need for all these new impositions, then I think it is certainly a pitiful one.

I do not know whether it is the policy of the Government to prevent big enterprises arising here; whether they do not want any factories on a large scale, or whether they want small factories all over the country. It would seem as if they did, because I heard someone say that this corporation profits tax does not fall on the smaller firms, and he regarded that as justifiable because the tax will not fall on smaller firms. But, if the object of this excessive taxation is to discourage the growth of large enterprises and to big and successful factories, I think it is an extraordinarily short-sighted policy.

It would be, perhaps, a good thing if we could have our industries more scattered over the country, and not to have them concentrated in one or two areas, but it is very easy to pay too high a price for the dispersion of industry. We have known of factories which failed recently, and failed very largely because they were put up in some country district where the cost of manufacture was bound to be greater than it ought to have been, where the carriage of material was high, and where the finished goods had to be brought an unnecessarily long distance to the market. Factories have failed because, instead of being in a town that they ought to have been in, in Dublin, Cork or somewhere near a big market, where raw materials would have to bear the least possible cost of carriage, but apart from the difficulty and cost of bad location, extra cost will arise in small factories through overhead charges being unnecessarily high. I say if this tremendous burden of taxation of 6/6 in the £, which the Government is putting on enterprises of any size, is designed to penalise and discourage big enterprises, I regard it as a policy which is beyond the description of foolish and short-sighted. If we are going in for industrialisation we ought to try to get the advantages of industrialisation. There is no use in refusing to face up to the logic of the situation, and to try to get industrialisation with all its disadvantages and none of the advantages. If we are to have industrialisation we ought to have the biggest factories that this market will support, and we ought, if possible, to have the lowest prices, the most scientific management, and the best conditions and wages for the workers that the markets and other conditions allow. If the policy of penalising successful enterprises is continued we can only have, at best, small poky, ill-managed factories where proper skill cannot be employed, where the factories would not bear the cost of scientific research. In general, we will have every disadvantage that it is possible to have, where the workers will not have the best advantages, probably because the best appliances, machinery and methods cannot be brought in, and where they will get less wages than they would get in an efficiently run factory. In this and in other Bills the Government seems to be unable to make up its mind what way it will go. They seem to be straddling from one course to an entirely different course.

Even at this stage I believe they ought, as a result of the discussion and of the information that they have learned—because the amendments that they have made in the Bills show that they are not entirely incapable of learning—admit that facts have been brought to their notice that they were not aware of. If they would reconsider the matter and make up their minds that there is only one thing to be done once this country decides to go in for industrial development, and that is to go in for it along modern lines, making the utmost use of modern methods and appliances, encouraging industries to grow up along lines which will give the cheapest production to the consumer and the best conditions to those engaged in the industries. I would suggest that this penal income tax and corporated profits tax ought not to be raised to the level which the Minister contemplates raising it. When the first Free State Budget was introduced the total tax was only 6s. — 5s. income tax and 1s. corporation profits tax. The Minister has now raised this tax, in pursuit of the policy of higher expenditure, to a level beyond what it was when this State was established. I think it is foolish and inconsistent for the Government to take the line they are taking.

We have also a tax on bank notes. The Minister possibly thinks the imposition of the tax would lead one to suppose that he is going to get this tax from the banks, that here are rich corporations with excessive profits from which he could take a slice and that nobody would be really anything the worse. The talk about the excessive profits of the banks is clearly ill-considered and ill-informed talk, because when we consider the bank dividends we have to consider not the mere figure of the percentage but on what that dividend is earned. The profits would be high if they were earned only on the nominal paid up capital of the banks. Everybody knows that they are earned on something more than that and that for long periods the directors of the banks have not distributed profits that way, but have put them to reserves, both to disclosed reserves and to undisclosed reserves to meet casual losses. When the reserves of all are taken into account, when the total capital employed on which the profits are earned is taken into account, those bank profits are not high. If a man has £100 invested in a particular firm, earns £5 on it the first year and does not take that £5 out but lets it remain in the business and if, in that way, he leaves the profit earned year after year until he has finally built up an extra £100, then if he makes a profit of £10 it is called a dividend of 10 per cent. but it is not really a dividend because it is not earned on the original £100 but on that sum, plus the other £100 which has been carefully built up. In that way, if we look at what bank profits are paid on, anybody will see they are not excessive.

If the Minister sets out to take new money off the banks what the banks will naturally do, and what they will be bound to do, will be to try to recover the extra amount the Minister has taken off by the way they will conduct their business. It will be very easy for the banks to alter their policy a shade, to be a little more cautious in the loans they make, to be a little bit more prompt in putting pressure on those who owe them money. By that change in policy they will recover in their business the extra amount the Minister is taking off them. Because the banks are not making excessive profits, I think they are bound to alter their policy in the way I have suggested. As a result of this new tax on the banks the Minister will not, as he seems to think, find himself in the position of getting easy money for the Exchequer without doing harm to anyone else; but at a time when he is supposed to be helping business he will be putting fresh obstacles in the way of business and will be creating new difficulties for those doing business who might need ordinary accommodation from time to time to enable them to carry on.

There are few sections of this Bill to which the fundamental objection that I have indicated does not apply. Apart from that objection, it seems to me that the Bill is imposing new burdens when it ought to be taking off burdens. There is too much of a tendency to discriminate between one individual and another, one class and another. I have referred to the proposals in regard to certain income tax relief, and I have referred to the proposals in regard to tobacco.

I think the discrimination which is proposed in regard to games and sports is unjustifiable. I have on several occasions in this House, when a vote was taken, supported a certain small advantage that was given to the G.A.A. A few years ago a certain income tax concession amounting to £2,000 a year was given to the G.A.A. and certain people objected to that special concession being given to that organisation. I defended it here on the grounds that because these national games had in some respects less drawing power than the international games, it was desirable they should be given some small advantage. I think a discrimination to the extent that is proposed in this Budget is entirely unjustifiable. The people who are going to pay now to attend soccer matches in Dublin, taking them as a whole, are poorer than the people who attend the other games. They are going to be taxed and the other games are going to be free. We are not going, as a result of that, to lead to any additional keenness for Gaelic games. Perhaps the opposite result will follow.

I think the Minister would be much better advised to put the position as regards taxation on games back to where it was before the introduction of the Budget and to leave the G.A.A. with the small advantage it had in respect of income tax, an advantage sufficient to be of some little consequence to it and to indicate that the State was prepared to go some distance towards giving additional encouragement to home games. To take up the line that there was some cardinal point of national policy involved in the rules under which people kicked football and to make considerable discrimination in that regard seems to me to be absurd. I think in this respect, apart from going back on all sorts of previous statements that the Minister and other members of his Party made, the Minister has yielded to the sort of evil spirit which permeates this whole Budget.

On the Second Stage of a Bill we are supposed to deal with the principle. This Bill would seem to have two principles. One principle is the reckless and unnecessary increase in taxation. The other principle is the unfair discrimination between individuals, firms and classes, and the introduction of quite a new era of, I fear, favouritism and corruption in the administration of the affairs of the State.

Mr. Carney

I find it difficult, almost impossible, in fact, to understand the mentality of the Opposition as exemplified by the last speaker, Deputy Blythe. He objects on the one hand to the relief given to native manufacturers and, on the other hand, he objects to certain other things which are in direct contradiction to what he said at first. His attitude is the attitude of the Opposition as a whole. At no time when they were in possession of these benches could they agree amongst themselves in regard to their policy. One Minister was in favour of slow tariffs. Deputy Hogan, then Minister for Agriculture, was not in favour of tariffs at any price. To-day we had that attitude exemplified when Deputy Mulcahy asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce could he not speed up the establishment of industries in this country; could he not get the 80,000 unemployed employment in the country. We have another Deputy saying "Make haste slowly." Yesterday evening I listened to Deputy Brasier when he said that the policy of this Government should be to make haste slowly.

That policy of festina lente for the past ten years resulted in the closing down of factories, in unemployment for 80,000 people, and in the emigration of 250,000. Now at this stage of our history we have, on the one hand, one member of the Opposition saying, “Make haste slowly,” and another saying, “Speed up the work; get these industries established and the people employed.” How is the Government going to deal with an Opposition that cannot agree amongst themselves as to what they want and what they do not want? Deputy Blythe spoke about the decentralisation of industry and, according to him, this Bill will make for decentralisation. If it will make for decentralisation of industry, then I say the Bill is a good Bill, and typifies what Arthur Griffith spoke about many years ago, when he was supposed to have been followed by Deputy Blythe, because Arthur Griffith saw the value in a country like this of decentralised industry and the folly and unwisdom of the establishment of huge industries such as in places like London, Leeds, Bradford, etc., and all the evils which follow from the slum areas in these big industrial centres. Deputy Blythe said that many small factories had failed in this country simply because they were decentralised, because they could not get the raw material, and because they were in a bad centre for distribution. I can prove to Deputy Blythe that there are factories in this country that not alone cater for the people of the country, but have an export trade. Although they are decentralised, they are not failing.

There were many arguments used against the policy of the present Government in regard to the tariffs which are being imposed. The arguments contradicted themselves. If those tariffs were useless, why have we the outcry now about foreign capital coming in? We are supposed to be preventing foreign capital from coming into this country. Foreign capital could have come into this country during the last ten, twenty, or eighty years, as there was nothing to prevent it. It did not come in for this reason, and here the wise policy of this Ministry is exemplified. Every industry that existed in this country in the past, if it showed signs of being successful, was bought up by a foreign combine, run for a time, and then closed down. The consequence was that when the people of Ireland saw that they said, "It is impossible for us to carry on; look at that big firm which has had to close down."

Deputy Brasier said that we had not the industrial mind. We have not, for the simple reason that every industry we had was bought out and was ruined. The manufactured goods we used were made across the Channel. Englishmen, Welshmen and Scotchmen were well paid for manufacturing the goods we used here. What did the people of the country get in return? The small farmer, who produced the cattle, sheep, butter and eggs, lived on the verge of starvation. He could not even feed beef to his own children, although he produced it. He could not give them an egg for their breakfast or put butter on their bread. He lived on the verge of starvation, and he bought his manufactured goods across the Channel. The Englishmen could afford to buy the butter and the beef and eggs produced in this country that the people here could not afford to eat themselves.

That is what Arthur Griffith saw and that is why he preached his economic policy. He saw that in this country we were in a unique position. We had land, but we had a very small population. We had roughly at that time four and a half millions of a population. The country could have supported, on a very low estimate, between ten and twelve millions of people. Arthur Griffith saw that if we could balance the industrial arm as against the agricultural arm we would be in a fine position if and when any crisis arose, such as war or something else, owing to which we might be cut off from other parts of the world. England becoming highly industrialised, on the other hand, set up a population of forty-two or forty-three millions. She could not feed her own population, and had to depend on foreign markets for the sale of her manufactured goods. When these foreign markets disappeared, England started to go down, and did not stand in the same position as we did. There was the policy of Arthur Griffith: England, on the one hand, too highly industrialised and unable to feed her own population, and Ireland, on the other hand, with plenty of land but not manufacturing the goods for her own people.

That is the policy that Fianna Fáil is pursuing, and every piece of legislation introduced since the Government took office has been designed for that end, to balance the industrial arm as against the agricultural arm, and, if we have any surplus of agricultural produce, to export it if possible. There is the means of providing work for the workless, and that is the principle underlying the legislation introduced by this Government. If there have been any penalties imposed as against foreign capital they were designed for the purpose of seeing that foreign capitalists would not come in here in the future, and do what they did in the past—take over Irish enterprises and ruin them, leave the country destitute of industry and set up those industries in their own country. That is the fundamental principle underlying the legislation introduced by Fianna Fáil. It is a system designed to provide work for the Irish people in their own country. It is not an impossible thing. It is the thing that Deputies Mulcahy and Blythe, and the rest of them, subscribed to when they were either genuine about following Arthur Griffith or merely giving lip-service to something that he said.

General Mulcahy

Will the Deputy say why the application of those methods has doubled the registered unemployed in the City of Dublin since Deputies opposite took control?

Mr. Corry

Because there is no longer preference for ex-Army men.

Mr. Carney

It is easy to reply to the Deputy at any time. The answer is that a quarter of a million people, inside ten years, through the administration of the Deputy's Government, were compelled to emigrate to the United States and elsewhere. The United States were compelled to stop emigration, with the consequence that all the young people who were growing up and who, ordinarily, would have emigrated, owing to the system imposed by the late Government, have no outlet. Everything disappeared in the way of factories during that regime, and these people go on to the list of the unemployed.

General Mulcahy

rose.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Mulcahy spoke for forty minutes without interruption and Deputy Carney is entitled to speak now without interruption.

General Mulcahy

I do not want to interrupt the Deputy in any way but it is just on a point of explanation. If Deputy Carney wants to bring me into it as regards the effect of this proposal on unemployment it is certainly not interrupting the Deputy very much to ask him a question like that. I withdraw the question because the Deputy apparently does not understand it.

Mr. Carney

I never object to a question from any member on the Front Bench opposite, because I find that their mentality is not sufficient to put a question that anybody on these benches cannot answer. During the last election, when I was speaking around the country, I said that although there were 80,000 registered as unemployed I would put the total at 150,000 people, for the reason that there were many hundreds of people in the country who were not registered and who would not register because they knew there was no hope of securing employment through the last Government. Our Government is asking them to register in the hope of getting them employment through our policy; hence there has been an increase in the numbers for that reason as well as for the reasons I have already stated.

I cannot understand the mentality of people who oppose any legislation in this House that might make for the betterment of the people or for their employment. I certainly cannot admire anybody who does it with his eyes open and who knows the danger. Of course some do not and of course I do not blame them because, as they say in our part of the country, it is a case "Like Willie Weir, when they don't like, they don't hear." Our support is for the Bill and for any legislation that is designed for the betterment of the people. We hope that some of the Opposition will come to their senses, if I may put it that way, and see the light.

Mr. Anthony

I just want to make a few observations on the Second Reading of this Bill. As I stated earlier, I felt myself in agreement with many of its provisions but I also felt disagreement with many other of its provisions. I felt, with others, that there might be many more exemptions and I feel that there are many articles which are not manufactured in this country which might be exempted from tariffs or taxation. I can quite appreciate and understand the difficulties of any Minister for Finance in attempting to balance a Budget. He might feel called upon to introduce into his Budget certain items which might be revenue-producing as distinct from protection of tariffs. Whilst there have been many modifications of the Bill as originally introduced, I feel that the Minister for Finance might go somewhat further and consider the suggestions that have been made to him to include in the number of exemptions such items as have been mentioned by other speakers.

I want to deal, as briefly as I possibly can, with some of the items in the Bill. I will deal first with the tariff on woollens and worsteds. On more than one occasion in this House, I have drawn attention to the fact that if there was any process in the manufacture of woollens that gives more employment than any other or than all processes put together, that that process is the spinning end of the woollen industry. I know, of course, that my argument will be met by some persons who are experts, or who pretend to be experts, in the industry and who will tell me that in this country, whilst we have heard here the advocacy of the hair shirt, it is absolutely essential for the success of the woollen industry in this country to import our finished yarn from Belgium, France and other places because, forsooth, of the variety of the patterns that our Irish people desire and demand. I challenge that position altogether. I have consulted the people in the trade, disinterested people, if you like, and interested people, if you like, and they tell me that in their view it will be quite an economic proposition to set up at least one mill in this country which would be used for the purpose of spinning the yarn which could otherwise be manufactured into the finished product or commodity of worsted material.

We have in my own area, in the Borough of Cork, within a two-mile radius of the City of Cork, a number of mills. In the whole of the Borough we have something like five woollen mills and I am very glad, indeed, to say that in those mills, with one exception, a good standard rate of wages is being paid, and decent normal hours of work acknowledged and adhered to by the employers. We have Morrough's mills, we have the Dripsey mill, and we have O'Brien's mill. These give, as I have just said, good employment, pay decent wages and acknowledge hours and conditions which are summed up in the fair wages resolution of the British House of Commons and embodied in all contracts entered into by Government Departments in this State.

In reply to a question put by me here within the last fortnight, I was given an illuminating answer. The question I put was to this effect, and I speak from memory: "What was the effect, if any, on employment, of the imposition of tariffs; how many extra persons had been engaged in the industry since the imposition of these tariffs on woollens." The reply I got was to the effect that there was a lesser number of people engaged in the industry to-day than there was before the imposition of these tariffs.

I would enlighten the Minister a little further. Giving the Minister credit for the very best intentions in the world, he must have regard to this fact, that in the Blarney Woollen Mills there are two looms running night and day, off Shannon power, with, roughly, four persons engaged for the entire twenty-four hours, and doing the work that was performed, some years ago, or that gave employment some years ago, to 8 or 9, or even 10, persons As I said, I quite appreciate the difficulty of the Minister for Finance, but I would ask him seriously to consider the effects of these tariffs in relation to employment. If he considers for one moment that these tariffs on woollens will result in additional employment in the industry, I think the amount of employment will not be worth any consideration whatever. They may result, here and there, of course, in the employment of a few extra persons, but when you take into consideration the other things in this Budget which will increase the cost of living, especially for the poorer class of our population, it will be realised that these tariffs are not going to have the beneficial effect on the country that the Minister hopes for.

There is another matter to which I would like to refer. In Section 32 of this Bill some relief is given to the breweries in the country. That, I understand, is a very welcome relief, and will have the effect of keeping in existence some of the smaller breweries in the country, but, at the risk of, perhaps, some little unpopularity, and at the risk, possibly, of being the victim of badinage, I would suggest to the Minister that it would be a very useful thing if he would consider some legislation that would result in the reduction to the ordinary consumer in the country—the working man who cannot unfortunately pay 1s. 8d. for a glass of whiskey and who is engaged in hard manual labour at the docks and on the roads—if not, in this Budget at some future date, of the price of the ordinary pint of stout or pint of beer. I know that I would immediately draw on myself a lot of badinage, as I have suggested, and be made the butt of a whole lot of jokes in this connection, but I am prepared to put up with all that kind of thing. There is a demand in the country for a reduction in the price of that commodity. Relief has been given to the breweries and it is a welcome relief, and one in which I, personally, have some little interest, because if I were to speak from the purely insular point of view, I could say that there are two breweries located in the city of Cork, and I would certainly welcome it if only for that reason.

In Section 22, it is proposed to exempt certain games from entertainments tax. I think it was Deputy Blythe who suggested that, while he gave a certain amount of support during the passage of the last Budget through the House, to the exemption of Gaelic games from entertainments tax, he felt at the time that these games should get a certain preference. I feel, as an ordinary Irishman, and I think I am just as good an Irishman as Deputy Blythe or as the present Minister for Finance, and just as good an Irishman even as the President of this State, President de Valera, just as good, if not a better Irishman, and I say this, and, again, I am prepared to accept all the nice jokes that can be cracked at my expense, that I have indulged in every outdoor game and every field sport that any man in this country has indulged in, and I see no reason why, at this time of day, Gaelic games should get any preference over any other games played in this country by any athlete or boy or young man who indulges in outdoor sports.

Of course, it is considered to be a very great and patriotic thing to say that the Gaelic Athletic Association should get preference in this country. My reply to that is that the Gaelic games can always attract all that is best and all that is good in this country, and there is no need now for any further support in the way that support is proposed to be extended to them in this Budget, and that it is rather a sign of weakness on the part of those who pretend that they are so ultra-Irish that it is considered a breach of the rules to witness what is known as a foreign game, a game of rugby or a game of soccer. It is a wonder they do not bring in the game of ping-pong. I am aware that in making this statement, I am going to be attacked by all the green, white and yellow patriots in this country, but I have been attacked before, and I do not mind being attacked before again. There is no reason at this time of day why any further patronage should be extended to any game. We in this country proclaim, and we have been able to proclaim, with a good deal of truth, that we can hold our own—and we have held our own—in athletic pursuits the world over. We have produced some of the greatest champions in athletics the world has ever known —I could name five or six right off the reel with whom I was associated—and these men never asked for any patronage from any Government, and they played all sorts of games whether they were foreign games, according to the rules of the G.A.A. and the N.A. & C.A. They played rugby and the President of this House played rugby, and now, forsooth, we are asked that Gaelic games should get a little more spoon feeding. I want to know from the Minister does he consider it a manly attitude, a sportsmanlike attitude to ask that they must be protected and that other games must be mulcted, because, in essence, that is what it really means.

We have heard this evening this oft told tale about emigration in this country. The last Government are blamed, for the purpose of propaganda, for being the main cause of exporting from this country—I use the words I hear so frequently and read so frequently at the cross-road speeches—30,000 people annually.

Then, on the other hand, we are told that since this Government came into office these 30,000 persons are remaining at home, and that they will remain at home next year, the year after, and the year after ad infinitum, until we get, I forget, how many millions. If you multiply it by ten you will get something like 300,000 persons who will be kept at home here in ten years because, forsooth, we have a Government which is going to give us all sorts of protection and help to induce our people to stay at home. Let us examine the question and let us be honest. What is keeping our people at home? It is the United States of America. If we had all the prosperity in the world centred in this country our people would emigrate. I stated before in this House, and I repeat it, that this country could never maintain the 12,000,000 population that we hear talked about here so frequently. They would be all eating their heads off in about six weeks if we had 12,000,000 people in this country. The reason that these 30,000 people have remained in this country is because the United States forbids them to go there. The United States of America says: “We forbid you to come here; instead of you people coming in here we are sending some of your people back.” That is why we have 30,000 people more in this country. It is not because we have tariffs.

Whilst I welcome certain tariffs and whilst I believe they will result in some employment, I believe that they will also result in a tremendous lot of other people being disemployed. I should like to see a little more honesty in our debates in this House on every side and that Deputies would face up to what are the real facts of the situation. When we hear, as I have heard it frequently stated, even to-day, that 30,000 persons are kept here, we altogether disregard the fact of the American letter which comes back to the boy or girl here, or the returned Yank, as he is known, who comes back displaying his brass chain and diamond ring, who talks of the glorious time he is having in America—all these inducements that are held out to the young boy or girl in the villages and hamlets of our country. These are the things that induced our people to emigrate to America. That avenue is now stopped, but let us not attribute it to tariffs. Uncle Sam is the boy who stopped it, and not tariffs.

I do suggest that this is a kind of patchwork legislation, that we will have to delve, dive, and dig down to the roots of the whole position, and that instead of putting on indiscriminate tariffs the whole economic system will have to be re-cast. Tariffs alone will not help us. I do not want to be misinterpreted or in any way misquoted. Tariffs alone will not help us to our economic regeneration. I would say to the Minister that whilst I feel that he is quite sincere and I believe that his Executive are sincere in formulating these tariffs, believing, as I think they do that they will solve most of our economic difficulties, at the same time I feel that although they have done a whole lot by way of suggestion in the proposals before us in this Bill, there is not even one line running through this Bill to protect the persons who are the real producers. If the Minister believes, as I am led to understand most of the Executive believe, that the labour costs should be the first charge on industry, I do not see any evidence of it in these proposals. My experience of some of these tariffs is that in the woollen industry alone, with the exceptions I mentioned in my own constituency and I know the same conditions exist in Tipperary, and that very good conditions exist in Kilkenny—excellent conditions where workers have good wages and where they work under hygienic and good conditions, I know that they work under hellish and slavish conditions in another place. I have a letter here received no later than to-day complaining of the conditions in one mill which I have not mentioned but the name of which I will hand to the Minister where the workers before the imposition of the tariff used to work from 8.30 in the morning until 6.15 p.m. Now they work from 7.30 in the morning until 7 p.m. There is a limited number of workers but this small number of workers are sweated to produce the woollen goods which are tariffed under this Budget.

Mr. Norton

Deputy Blythe, speaking earlier this evening in connection with this Bill made a suggestion which I think was a very valuable suggestion indeed. The Minister for Industry and Commerce this evening read for our information a long list of variations that he proposed to make in connection with the tariffed articles. It seems to me, considering the whole method of imposing tariffs, the short time for the consideration of tariffs, and the fact that possibly all the ramifications and reactions of tariffs have not yet been measured, it is quite likely that the Minister or the Executive Council may desire to make further variations, further definitions, or further exclusions in the case of the tariffs that have been imposed. The variations already made, and the variations and definitions foreshadowed to-day, seem to indicate that the full ramifications of these tariffs have not yet been explored nor completely understood. Deputy Blythe made the suggestion that either the Minister or the Executive Council ought to take power in this Bill to vary by order of the Executive Council, or to define by order of the Executive Council, certain other variations and definitions which might become necessary in order to remove grievances or to adjust unforeseen difficulties during the period that the Dáil was not in session. If some further difficulties make their presence felt after the Dáil has adjourned, then there will be no means of remedying these difficulties until such time as the Dáil resumes, and then it will require a slow process of legislation, and we may have legislation upon legislation in order to define and clarify what are really very small points.

Mr. Hayes

I would like to know does Deputy Norton suggest that the Minister should have power to add to the burden or merely power for remission and exemption?

Mr. Norton

Personally, I think his power ought to be related to exclusions and definitions so as to clear up doubts of that character and facilitate the general transaction of business which, I am afraid, will be somewhat interfered with in some respects unless the Executive Council take these powers. I strongly recommend the Minister to take the advice given to him in that connection, because I believe it will be found to be of value to the Government, and of value to the people interested in industry as well.

There are some matters in this Bill to which I desire to make particular reference. One is the tendency in this Bill and in the Companies Bill to give certain powers to one Minister or to two Ministers to do things which, I think, should be completely outside the domain of Ministerial activity.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

Mr. Norton

In this Bill it is proposed that the Minister for Finance, in consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, shall be satisfied that certain conditions are complied with in relation to Irish firms to whom a preferential rate of income tax shall apply. I have a strong personal objection to giving powers of that kind to an Executive Government. Powers of that kind are open to possibilities of all kinds of corruption, and they are powers which ought not to be assumed by any Government, no matter how pure the administration of that Government may be. I complain about it now in relation to this Government, and I would complain about it in relation to a Cumann na nGaedheal Government or in relation to a Labour Government if it were in power. The pressure that can be brought is often so strong that political considerations sometimes force Ministers and Parties to yield to it, with disastrous consequences to the community as a whole. I would suggest to the Minister that in this Bill and in other Bills of the kind, where provision of this kind has to be made, that if the Revenue Commissioners cannot be used as the body to determine whether conditions are or are not to be complied with, some body ought to be constituted to determine these matters, and they ought to be taken completely out of the hands of the Minister to decide, no matter what Party he belongs to.

In this section, dealing with preferential income tax for Irish firms, there seems to be a belief implied that this will attract capital to Irish industries and that that will result in an extension and development of our industries and perhaps the employment of more people in them. I am greatly afraid, like Deputy Blythe, that this is a step in the dark, and nobody can place any dependence that this development will take place. I am greatly afraid that it is simply dissipating revenue which, if collected by the Exchequer and used on behalf of the community, would bring about much more tangible results to the community than the results which will accrue from a policy of that kind.

I would have much preferred if the Minister had taken a bigger and perhaps a more courageous step. There is a very considerable sum of Irish money invested in foreign investments helping to develop industries elsewhere, and helping to earn dividends for the investors, and I would have preferred if the Minister had come to the Dáil with a much more revolutionary policy than the policy enshrined in this particular section and had asked the Dáil to give him power to levy a special tax on foreign investments—a special tax to be used as a compulsory subscription to an internal development loan. A tax could be levied, the money could be brought to credit by the State, and the money thus levied might be put by the State into a national development fund, there to bear a reasonable interest for the person thus compulsorily made to invest. I will be told by all the orthodox financiers in this House and by all the "hands off industry" people in this House that this is a revolutionary proposal: that it is State Socialism, as Deputy Professor O'Sullivan will tell us; but I put this to the Minister: that raising money in this way, justifiable from a financial point of view, justifiable from an economic point of view, would provide the Minister with a very substantial development fund which could be used to give some drive to the tariff policy which is enshrined in this and other Bills. Because, after all, when we come to examine the tariff policy, when we come to survey the whole industrial possibilities of the country, the plain fact remains that we are a small country, a sparsely populated country, and that so far we have not resident within the country the ingredients, nor, so far as employers are concerned, the desire for any great industrial expansion. There is too much of the usual attitude on the part of employers who say, "Oh, we did all right last year and we will do all right this year," and they will never do any pioneering or breaking of new ground. Their attitude is: "It may be risky and dangerous, and after all we are paying five per cent. and making a thousand or two profit and what is wrong with that?"

That kind of mentality I am afraid, is deeper in the country than the Ministry appreciate, and if tariffs are going to be used as an aid to industry, then, having regard to the fact that our capitalists are capitalists in some cases only in outlook and name, that some of them have very little money, perhaps less experience, and perhaps still poorer in imagination and enterprise—that if industry is to be built up by a capitalism handicapped in that way, the State will have to come to the aid of that kind of employer and capitalist by giving him State guidance—the expert information which the State can give—and by making available to the more progressive kind of capitalist the credit facilities which would enable him to develop his industry to the best advantage of the Nation. I feel, at all events, that a tariff policy which is not accompanied by power to ensure that industry is exploited to the fullest, which is not accompanied by credit facilities to employers, and which is not accompanied by power to supervise the development of tariff industries, is a tariff policy that is going to yield very disappointing results indeed.

Deputy Carney's speech this evening was one with some portions of which I agreed. I could not help feeling somewhat sympathetic, however, for his blissful belief that tariffs only were going to produce in this country an industrial system or an industrial position where every town in the country will have its tall chimney and its black smoke going skywards. I believe that the tariffs will produce more industries. I believe the tariffs will produce more employment, but for Heaven's sake, I would appeal to the Ministry not to delude the country into believing that tariffs are going to stud the whole country with a diversified and diffuse industrial life. Frankly, I cannot see it happening. Frankly, I cannot see much happening, and since we have a problem of 80,000 unemployed men and women it is nothing short of criminal to imagine that tariffs, plus capitalism, are going to produce these results.

Mr. Morrissey

They deluded certain portions of the House into that belief.

Mr. Norton

Deputy Carney believes that we are going to get back to the conditions of 50, 80 or 100 years ago, when, in certain parts of the country, we had small mills and small factories. We had those mills and factories, but there has been a vast change in the whole economic complexion of the world since then. The conditions that made it possible for those mills to exist at that time are not still with us, and we ought to save money and energy by realising that, in existing conditions, it is going to be very, very difficult—I say it with a good deal of disappointment—to maintain in a small, sparsely-populated country, such as this, that diffuse kind of industrialism some people so fondly cherish. I should like to see that happen, but I have no evidence that it is likely to happen either under tariffs or as the result of any special desire on the part of industrialists to produce within the country a diffuse kind of industrial system. The reasons are fairly obvious. While there are certain economic and financial advantages to employers in starting factories in provincial towns, one has got to remember at the same time that the port towns and the big cities offer advantages which outweigh the advantages offered by rural areas. The whole tendency will be towards the port town, towards the big centre of population, towards the spot where goods are sold, towards the place which serves as an artery for distribution, and I am afraid that that inevitable and natural industrial tendency will make extremely difficult— well nigh impossible—the production in the rural areas of the industrial activity that is so necessary. Under these tariff proposals, the whole reliance for industrial development is on the basis of individualism, on the basis of the private capitalist, and there is not a single piece of power in this Bill or in any other Bill, nor is any power yet foreshadowed so far as the Government is concerned, to compel, if it were possible to compel under the existing social system, the development of industries in rural areas.

What I said before, I must come back to—that I believe very disappointing results will accrue from a tariff policy which is operated solely on the pivot of the private employer and the private industrialist. Strange as it may seem, there is an amazing affinity of outlook and of approach between Cumann na nGaedheal and Fianna Fáil in relation to the industrial policy of the country. About 18 months or two years ago Deputy Mulcahy announced that the Government should not interfere in industry. He overlooked the fact that the Government were responsible for developing the Shannon Scheme. Ignoring that obvious tribute to State intervention in industry, the then Minister for Local Government and Public Health said the State ought not to interfere in industry but ought to make the ring, as it were, ought to clear the field and let the private industrialist come in and till the field. Without using exactly the same words, the Minister for Industry and Commerce said the other day, if I can rightly summarise his view, that they did not propose, as a State or as a Government, to interfere in industrial development. Deputy Mulcahy, on the one hand, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, on the other hand, are in agreement on at least one thing —that for our industrial development we must still continue to rely on private industrialism, on the private capitalism which has given us 80,000 unemployed men and women and which, in my view, will not reduce that 80,000 men and women so long as the basis of our industrial activity is the same. As I said before, in a small, sparsely-populated country such as this is, deficient in certain factors that make for industrial growth and strength, it would be very much better if the Government were to recognise that, having regard to our weak economic and individual fabric, the potentialities of industrial growth lie in comprehensive development, supported by the power, the credit and the organisation of the State—that the State should recognise the necessity for organising under its own ownership or, at least, under its own control, certain basic industries suited to the country. I shall be told, again, of course, that this is State socialism.

Mr. Good

Labour's millennium.

Mr. Norton

Labour's millennium would be hardly worse than Deputy Good's millennium which has given us 80,000 unemployed.

Mr. Good

It is not Deputy Good's.

Mr. Norton

If anybody has any doubt as to whether the unemployed men and women would prefer to work under what is called State socialism to being hungry under Deputy Good's individualism, I invite the Minister or the Employers' Federation to conduct a referendum of the 80,000 unemployed men and women, and ask them whether they will have bread and butter and a decent livelihood under State socialism, or poverty, misery and squalor under the individualism which Deputy Good champions. State socialism and State intervention in industry may be bad, but the Hatrys and the Kreugers displayed an extraordinary conception of the responsibilities of private enterprise towards the community. Sooner or later, this Government will be driven to realise that the policy of tariffs, plus capitalism, will never give us the industrial development we want. Sooner or later, they will be driven to realise that there must be State organisation of the basic and essential industries if there is going to be any hope of industrial regeneration. I hope that some of the far-seeing members of the Fianna Fáil Party, who are not wedded to capitalism as the only method of industrial activity, will, within their own Party, or without their own Party, advocate an industrial policy along the lines of State ownership and State control of basic industries, so that we may have a healthy industrial system which will not depend upon the artificial stimulus of tariffs for its existence.

I have previously referred to a necessity that is becoming more obvious every day, and that is the establishment of some body to supervise and direct tariffs, to ensure that there is behind this tariff policy, such as it is, at least the expert knowledge and the expert guidance which I believe can be got by a body constituted under the aegis of an economic council. I think if there were an economic council in existence that many of these tariffs which have been imposed, and which have been drastically changed, would not have been introduced in the original form. I believe an economic council could be the eyes, the ears, and the brains in the industrial and economic system.

An economic council on the lines that I have already advocated in this House would, I believe, obviate the necessity of these changes in tariff policy and in definitions, and would be a much better body for dealing with industrial and economic development than any Government could possibly be. I suppose I will be told that the Department of Industry and Commerce has charged itself with the special responsibility of supervising, guiding and helping these tariffed industries by supplying them with intelligent and inspired information. If that is the case that is going to be made against my proposal—and I imagine that is the only plausible case that can be made— then I want to say that that kind of economic council or economic G.H.Q. is not worth discussing; that it has not in its composition the elements which are necessary in an economic council. Nobody wants to see industrial development through the mind of civil servants; no one wants to see industrial supervision through the mind of civil servants. I say that with a high appreciation of the special qualifications which civil servants have for civil service work, but industrial and economic development are not matters of civil service policy. They are matters of industrial and economic policy, and they ought to be given to people specially trained in industrial and economic matters, who have some special national responsibility and national appreciation of the goal to be aimed at.

Aside from all the references which arise out of the Finance Bill, there is one other matter to which I want to draw the attention of the Executive Council. I am sorry the Minister for Industry and Commerce is not here to hear these remarks. It is quite clear to me from all I hear, and from letters I received, that the introduction of the Government's recent Budget has been made an excuse by wealthy elements within the country, and by employers, to cut wages and to depress the standard of living of the workers. In rural areas where there is no trade union organisation this Budget, simply because it is not a rich man's Budget, is being used by unscrupulous employers, even by Irish employers to whose interests so much consideration is given these days, to depress the standard of living of the workers. I know of one particular case where a man employed ten people at a wage of 25/- a week each. He paraded these workmen and asked them if they had voted for the Fianna Fáil Party and for the Labour Party. They said they did. The employer then said: "This is Saturday night. You have 25/- per week. Those who like can turn in on Monday morning at 15/- per week." That is the mentality and the attitude of the wealthy elements within this country. It shows how much consideration, how much nationality, and how much human feeling there is in the hearts and in the flesh and bones of some Irish employers.

I want to say that in my view that attempt at wage reduction, accompanied by a declaration that that is what workers get for voting for Fianna Fáil and for voting for Labour, is an attempt by the wealthy elements to sabotage the new Government, and to undermine the strength and the stability of a Government which is not a rich man's Government. I want to say to the Executive Council that they will have failed completely in their duty if, during their period of office, they allow the standard of living of the workers to be attacked in that ruthless fashion. They will have failed in their duty during their period of office if the workers are to be steamrolled into poverty and misery, and the Government's period of office will be a dismal period so far as the workers are concerned. I want to appeal to the Executive Council to take powers to deal with that kind of mentality. It is their bounden duty to protect the standard of living of our people and to ensure that, within or without the social system, the standard of living of the people is not made the plaything of the wealthy elements. Above all the Executive Council have responsibility for ensuring that the plain people have a perfect right to exercise their natural rights, and to change any Government, without any fear of economic reprisals or economic vengeance being meted out to them, because they parted with the rich man's Government that we had for ten years. If the Executive Council do not face up to their responsibilities in that connection, thousands of working class people in the country will be disappointed. Having broken with preference to the rich, and having broken with the tradition established for ten years of being a rubber stamp in the interests of the rich, I hope this Government will show that it is prepared, at all costs, to maintain the standard of living of our people, and to protect them from that kind of economic vengeance, by taking powers to ensure that, as far as the plain people are concerned, they will be numbered as the greatest assets of the nation, and that everything that can be done will be done to ensure that these assets are retained for it, so that they may add to the nation's wealth, economic and cultural greatness, and that they may be pioneers of the new social and economic order, which will give to the plain people a better standard of living and a higher conception of life than the existing social and industrial system has given them.

An Ceann Comhairle

I understand it has been agreed that the Finance Bill will be given a Second Reading to-day. In consonance with that agreement I presume that the Minister for Finance will be afforded time to reply and to conclude the debate by 10.20 p.m.

Mr. Dillon

Who made that arrangement?

Professor Thrift

It is the first time I heard it.

Mr. MacEntee

I understand agreement was made in the usual way with the Whips of the Parties.

Sir James Craig

I heard nothing whatever about it.

Mr. O'Hanlon

I heard nothing about it.

Mr. Good

I do not think it is fair to close an important debate in this way.

Mr. Coburn

More especially in view of the last speech, to which I would like to reply.

Mr. MacEntee

I must say that the position is rapidly becoming impossible. We are given to understand that the Official Opposition, on occasions, can speak for a considerable number of Independents in the House.

General Mulcahy

That is not so.

Sir James Craig

I protest against any arrangement being made in which we are not consulted. We are absolutely independent of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party.

Mr. Corry

You kept them there for years.

Mr. MacEntee

In that case, I suggest Deputy Sir James Craig should address his remonstrances to whoever in the Cumann na nGaedheal Party can make an arrangement with any other Party in the House.

General Mulcahy

So far as arrangements in connection with the time of the House are concerned, we have from time to time had discussions with the Whips of the Government Party. These discussions have always arisen very late in the day. We realise the necessity for getting Government business through and we are prepared to facilitate in every possible way. We have given evidence of that preparedness on many occasions. So far as the business before the House is concerned, the arrangement, I understand, was entered into to have this measure, and also the Committee Stage of the Finance (Customs Duties) (No. 2) Bill dealt with by 2 o'clock on Friday next. So far as this Party is concerned, we are of opinion that normally it would be more essential to have time for the Committee Stage of the Finance (Customs Duties) Bill than to have any very prolonged discussion on this measure.

We have never undertaken to speak for any other Party in the House. I suggest that both the Government Party and members of the Independent Party, in the course of such discussions as have taken place from time to time, have indicated that very clearly. The Government Party have had it communicated to them on more than one occasion that the different Independent groups require to be separately approached in the matter. So far as we are concerned, we would have been prepared to see the Minister for Finance getting into possession to conclude the debate to-night. We are prepared to facilitate in every possible way in order to get this discussion and the Committee Stage of the next Bill finished by 2 o'clock on Friday. We appreciate that the amendments to the Finance (Customs Duties) Bill are of considerable importance and may require time to consider.

Mr. MacEntee

Once more the Deputy is evading the spirit of whatever arrangement was made. The arrangement was that the Second Stage would be concluded at 10.30 to-night. The Minister in charge of the Bill is entitled to a fair opportunity of replying.

General Mulcahy

As a Party we are prepared to meet the Minister in every possible way, but we are not in the position, and have never been asked by any section of the House, to speak for other groups. I suggest that even at this eleventh hour the Government Party might realise there are other groups to be consulted besides Cumann na nGaedheal.

Mr. Morrissey

I am not going to intervene in the debate on this measure. I agree the Minister ought to get adequate time to reply, but I must protest against the attitude of the Government in this matter. This is the second time an incident of this sort has arisen within the last fortnight. There are fourteen or sixteen Deputies not attached to either of the two large Parties. They were elected by the people and they have a certain responsibility towards their constituents. I am one of those Deputies and I contend that we have a right, if we so desire, to speak and, if arrangements are being entered into, we should be consulted.

Professor Thrift

The very same thing took place on the Budget debate. I was anxious to ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes; then came news of an arrangement of which we knew nothing, but yet we gave way. To-night I was also anxious to ask the indulgence of the House for a few minutes, and now, at 9.45, we are faced with the statement that the debate has to be closed and, of course, the Minister must have proper time to reply. I am prepared to agree that everything possible should be done to finish this debate, and also the Committee Stage of the Finance (Customs Duties) Bill, by Friday afternoon. That is an assurance only from me personally. I think the Minister ought to agree to permit this debate to continue into to-morrow. We are discussing a thing of vital importance for the country, and there should not be an attempt to closure or shorten the discussion in this way.

Mr. Hayes

I think the arrangement entered into was that certain business would be concluded this week—the Control of Manufactures Bill, which was not concluded yesterday evening, the Finance Bill, and the Finance (Customs Duties) (No. 2) Bill. There is one point which is important. The Government naturally consults the main Opposition Party. Having consulted it, it is the duty of the Government, and not the duty of the main Opposition Party, to convey the information of whatever arrangement has been made to other Parties in the House. I suggest it is hardly fair to the other people that it is only now they are told of an arrangement which was made to-day at 1.30.

I suggest to the Minister that smiles would get him through this thing much more easily than getting up and telling us he is wronged or injured. There is no one hurting him at all. He has got, on all stages of the Budget, more consideration than any other Minister for Finance ever got. Deputy Norton's speech was a perfectly relevant speech, and there is no other occasion on which the Deputy could make it.

Mr. MacEntee

I have not suggested that Deputy Norton's speech was not a perfectly relevant one. I am merely asking that I should be given an opportunity to make an equally relevant speech.

Mr. Hayes

Certainly.

Mr. MacEntee

In view of the existing position, could we, I wonder, get some agreement that the Second Stage of this Bill will be concluded at an early hour to-morrow so as to enable the Finance (Customs Duties) (No. 2) Bill to be taken afterwards? If so, I am quite prepared to accept that course.

General Mulcahy

The Minister will find this Party desirous of giving him every facility.

Mr. Dillon

So far as I am aware, the procedure of the House prohibits no Independent member from breaking through any arrangements made between the two big Parties. For the sake of convenience, and in deference to the procedure of the House, most Independent members would hesitate a long time before doing so. So far as I am concerned, and I think I can speak for at least five other Deputies, we will fall in with any arrangement that Deputy Boland conveys to Deputy O'Hanlon. Deputy Sir James Craig can speak for a large number of other Independent Deputies. There is not the slightest desire on these benches to cause any inconvenience. In ordinary courtesy, when one of us rises to speak we should not be told to sit down as the Minister has made arrangements and he is to be given leave to conclude the debate. I have not the slightest desire to be provocative, but I may assure the Government that if that attitude is to be taken up we will be driven to take such steps as we think necessary to compel the Government to use the closure. That will be the position if they continue to treat the Independent members in this way.

Mr. MacEntee

So far as I am concerned, I had not any desire to be discourteous. The only thing I was afraid of was, in view of the arrangement which I understood was universal, that I should find myself at 10.30 prevented from replying to some of the points made. I find now that the arrangement was not common to all sections of the House and, in the circumstances, I am perfectly prepared to allow the debate to go on. I will merely express the hope that an arrangement will be made which will enable us to conclude the Second Stage at a reasonably early hour to-morrow.

General Mulcahy

Before we leave the subject, and as we have representatives from all Parties here now, perhaps we could avoid further misunderstandings by suggesting a definite time at which the Minister could get into possession to-morrow.

Mr. MacEntee

Possibly an arrangement might be made to-morrow morning much better than across the floor of the House.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

But for this digression I think I would have been nearly half-way through the remarks I intend to make. The Budget embodied in this Bill is in some ways very remarkable and in some ways a very commonplace Budget indeed. It is remarkable for the childish faith and simplicity which seem to animate the occupants of the Government Front Bench. They seem to consider that the government of a country is the easiest thing on earth. They seem to consider that the drawing up of a policy which must have serious results upon the economic future of the country is a thing that can be done without care, without thought, and without deliberation of any kind. They seem to consider that the one thing necessary for any body of persons governing a State is simply to clap on as may tariffs as you can and it must follow as the night the day that industrial prosperity will visit the shores of your country. I am afraid that these Statesmen who consider that it is unnecessary to give any thought or care to the preparation of a Budget will not only find out the grave mistake which they are making but that the whole of this unfortunate State will have to suffer for their vanity.

Mr. Corry

They suffered a long time under you.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

The Budget in itself shows neither imagination nor work. It shows no imagination because, except for one thing and one thing only, there is nothing new or striking in it. Tariffs have been in existence in this State before. The increasing of tariffs, though it may be very foolish, as it is very foolish, does not show any great care, any great thought, or any great imagination. The only thing which the Minister for Finance can point to as novel in this Budget is this new idea of eking out the finances of the State by means of a State lottery. Heretofore, we have held our heads high. Heretofore, the finances of our country have been properly managed. Heretofore, in the financial world, our State has been looked up to and respected. What position are we going to stand in now when it is discovered that our Budget can only be balanced because we are about to be made the participants in the proceeds of a State lottery? Resource must be bankrupt when it is found necessary to finance this State out of the proceeds of a lottery.

When I turn to Section 39 of the Bill I see that there is some attempt made to camouflage this matter. The Government say that there is to be payable as a stamp duty certain proceeds of the Sweepstakes. I should like to know from the Minister what precisely he means by a stamp duty. To my mind a stamp is a thing which is impressed upon some document. Sometimes we call a thing a stamp which is merely affixed to a document. But where is any stamp to be purchased, or what is it to be affixed to in this particular case?

Mr. McMenamin

Tickets.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

There are no tickets to be stamped. It is the very opposite. I should like to know what the stamp is going to be affixed to. It seems to me that there is to be an endeavour to stamp the empty air. What is the meaning of calling this a stamp duty? This is, in effect, taking one-sixteenth of the proceeds of these Hospitals Sweepstakes, as they are now falsely called, and putting it in the coffers of the State, giving two-sixteenths to the voluntary hospitals, and one-sixteenth to the rate-aided hospitals. It is no longer right, it is no longer true, to send out Sweepstake tickets to the world at large, and say that the Sweepstake is in aid of Irish hospitals. What you should do, to be straight and fair, would be to say, "In aid of Irish hospitals and in aid of the finances of the Irish Free State." You think by calling it a stamp duty, when it is not a stamp duty, that you will succeed in deluding and humbugging the world. I do not think you will succeed. Even if you do it will be a still more unworthy thing than to fail in your endeavour.

If the Minister wishes to make available for purposes other than the hospitals the proceeds of these sweepstakes he could have taken a completely different way. If he had given any time or thought to this Budget he probably would have taken a different way. He might have brought in a Bill amending the Charitable Hospitals (Sweepstakes) Act, and stated that the proceeds would go not merely to hospitals but to housing or something of that kind. Then he could have allowed tickets to have been sent out to the world which would bear the truth and not a lie upon their face. They would be tickets which would say "In aid of the Irish hospitals and other charitable purposes in the Irish Free State," and they would be telling the truth. Now we are sending out tickets with a lie upon their face in order that the Minister for Finance may be able to bolster up, by the proceeds of a lottery, the bad finance embodied in the Budget.

I said that there is no work behind this Budget. That is perfectly plain and obvious. Anybody who has listened to the discussion upon the Budget Resolutions and the kindred Bills before the House must have been struck by the complete ignorance of the provisions of the Bills which they were advocating shown by the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, an ignorance only equalled by their want of care and thought. Take a question which has been debated very considerably, and which I shall only deal with shortly. Take Section 22 and the tax on sports and the exemptions of the tax on sports. Here is a thing which is brought in in a certain form. It is chopped and changed and gets into an entirely illogical form. Personally, I am of the opinion that there should be no tax upon any form of outdoor athletics, certainly upon no form of amateur athletics. Amateur athletics of all kinds should be encouraged and not discouraged by the State.

I would like to know how the Minister reconciles the bringing in of a Vote to this House for £1,000 for the Tailteann Games and the bringing in of another Vote for the Olympic Games both of which I entirely approve of, with the taxing of games which these teams play at home. I would like to know why it is that running 100 yards or jumping a high jump or swinging a weight should be regarded as a particular form of sport which should not be taxed while at the same time boxing and swimming are taxed? I would like to know if the Minister has gone into this matter, and if he has given any thought at all to this section, how does he explain the discrimination which he draws, let me say, between boxing and swimming and, say, the high jump and running? Why make that differentiation? Why make boxing and swimming objects for taxation when you do not make other forms of athletic sports objects of taxation? It is simply, I suppose, because the Minister has given no thought, care or consideration to the matter. The Minister's levity is really in accordance with the Minister's want of thought in the bringing in of these taxes.

We have a tax upon tea. It has been pointed out to the Minister that tea is a necessity for the poor. "Oh, no," he says, "it is not a necessity, it is merely a beverage." The Minister takes no interest in whether the poor have or have not what they themselves consider to be a necessity and not a luxury. There was an old story of the period of the French Revolution which I am tempted to refer to in this connection. I am very glad that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is not here, because it would be very tactless to mention anything about the French Revolution in his presence. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is the learned historian who thought that the Jacobins were the monarchists at the time of the French Revolution; that Robespierre and Marat were the supporters of the King. At the time of the French Revolution it was stated that Marie Antoinette was informed by somebody that the people had no bread, and her answer to that was: "Why cannot they eat cake?" And it is precisely in the same spirit of levity that the Minister for Finance, when he is told that the people cannot afford tea owing to the tax, answers in effect that his Government has taken the tax off sugar and "let them eat Urney chocolates" when they cannot afford tea.

That is the way in which the Minister endeavours to brush aside a serious argument. Really the Minister for Industry and Commerce came to this House to-day, and when he came to the long schedule and the long list of alterations to that schedule he showed how the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce had been floundering about and did not know where they were. They found it perfectly impossible to extricate themselves from the mess into which they had got themselves and the Government. That was the position that was evident to the House when they produced this very precious schedule. Deputy Bennett to-day quoted the words of a song, and when I came to consider the Minister's attitude I must say that a certain old song came into my mind also, with the chorus of which perhaps you, a Leas-Chinn Comhairle, are familiar. The chorus of that old song runs, I think, something as follows:—

"Down fell McGinty to the bottom of the well,

He must be very wet, for he is in it yet,

Dressed in his best Sunday clothes."

That seems to me to be the unhappy position in which the Minister for Finance is at the present moment. He is floundering about in difficulties in the schedule which he does not understand and which he has to alter from day to day. And he is not out yet, and seemingly he never will be out.

There is one thing that is very interesting and remarkable and that is the attitude of the Labour Party towards this Budget. We heard the other night a very interesting speech from Deputy Norton and we heard another interesting speech from Deputy Norton to-night. There is one thing which is perfectly plain and clear and that is that in the view of the present leader of the Labour Party, this Budget is in fact a bad Budget and it is a Budget which is going to be attended by abject failure. I have Deputy Norton's actual words here. I quote from columns 845 and 846 and subsequent columns of volume 42, No. 2 of the Official Debates. Speaking here on 8th June after talking of what he calls the deplorable results which are being produced in the boot and shoe industry under nine years of tariffs he goes on to say:

I want to say here what I said before, namely, that I do not believe that tariffs in themselves are a complete and effective remedy for industrial depression, or that they will yield those Olympian results that some people imagine they will yield. I believe that a tariff policy, especially in a small, sparsely populated country of this kind, will be found to yield disappointing results, results which will disillusion people, because the sparse population in the country, the general character of the country and its isolated position in relation to Europe and the world generally, is such that a tariff policy with diversified and diffused small industries financed by private capitalists, will not, in my opinion, bring about that industrial activity that apparently the Minister relies on.

He says a little later:

I believe that the conditions existing in this country with small capitalists, a sparse population and with the main centres of population around the coast, with a relatively undeveloped central plain, in the face of existing world circumstances, any attempt to stud this country with small industries, financed by private capitalists, is bound to bring disappointment and disillusion.

And it is for this Budget, which is bound to bring disappointment and disillusion, that the Labour Party is going to vote. But Deputy Norton is not quite so foolish and not quite so illogical as persons might think, or if it be not Deputy Norton there must be somebody who takes a fairly long view behind the Labour Party and somebody who sees clearly and definitely the aim of the Labour Party and the means that they wish to adopt in order to achieve that aim. Deputy Norton is clear enough when he comes to speak about what the aims of the Labour Party are. He tells us these aims are the nationalisation of the larger interests in the State. He tells us especially that tobacco should be a State monopoly. He tells us also that there should be in the hands of the State "the matter of wool production and the woollen industry generally." The wool production I suppose is a mistake, because I think the only things that produce wool are sheep.

The Deputy goes on to mention certain other large industries which he thinks should be in the possession of the State. That is his aim, but in common with a very considerable body of socialistic thought having that aim he is anxious to see the present system broken down. In order to see the present system broken down, he is anxious to vote for a measure which he knows to be economically unsound. It is the old principle which has been advocated by socialist writers—go in the first instance for what is economically unsound, and when you have created a sufficient state of unrest, when you have held out hopes to persons and those hopes have been entirely blasted, you will bring about in the mind of the ordinary individual such a disgust for existing conditions that the time will be completely ripe for a change. You will get such a disgust for existing conditions in the minds of the ordinary individual that the time will be completely ripe for a change, and that is obviously the course which the Labour Party is following at the moment. They are voting for a Budget which they openly, on more occasions than one, through the mouth of their leader, have declared to be economically unsound, and the only motive which can influence them to vote for such a Budget is a desire to see a state of confusion in this country out of which a new social system, the system of the State ownership of all property, may arise.

I am entirely opposed to the aim of Deputy Norton and I hate his methods. I hate his idea that the present generation should be made to suffer, should be casualties, as Deputy Lemass calls them, for the carrying out of the fantastic theories of the Fianna Fáil Party or the Labour Party. I think it rather a pity that the Leader of the Labour Party should come along, adding a few more skulls to the pyramid of skulls which will mark the passage of this new Tamerlane, the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I do not like to see the Labour Party or any Party joining with the Fianna Fáil Party in bringing destruction, as they are bringing destruction, on the economic life of this country; and, as I said, I hate also, not merely the methods but the aim which the Labour Party has in view, the complete nationalisation of all the resources of the State. I think that the Labour Party in this country is exceedingly foolish, far more foolish than in other countries, because, in other countries, where the Socialists have endeavoured to follow out the same policy they, at least, were sure that they themselves were going to be in control when the alteration from the old system to the new took place. That will not be in this State, because, as everybody in this country knows, though some persons may deliberately keep their eyes shut, there are two birds of prey poised for their swoop on the ordered life of this State, and what the Labour Party are doing by supporting this Budget, which they know to be economically unsound, is strengthening the wings and sharpening the talons of these two birds of prey.

If the Labour Party succeeds in its policy of bringing about such a state of unrest in this country that the change into nationalism, as they hope, may come about, it is not they, but the I.R.A. and Saor Eire who will take command of the new revolution, and it is worthless for them to be shutting their eyes to what is happening in this State and ignoring the forces which are at work in this State. Because this Budget is a Budget which, as the Labour Party admit, and which every single person who goes to the trouble of thinking must see to be true, is going to bring disillusionment and disappointment to the people who are being foolish enough to trust the word of Fianna Fáil. When you create that disillusionment, you are playing into the hands of the revolutionary sections in this State. You are strengthening those revolutionary bodies as far as man can strengthen them, and I believe that this Budget, if it becomes law, with the consequences that will flow from its becoming law, will prove in the main to be a great step forward to a social upheaval.

Mr. Corry

This evening when Deputy Mulcahy was speaking he challenged us as to how it came about that there was a much greater number of unemployed registered at present than there was during his period of office. I remember, close on two years ago, within a few miles of my house, there was supposed to be a relief works in progress. The number of unemployed on the register was 60 and the number of unemployed in that particular district who applied for work on that relief scheme was 87. People are, of course, flocking into the unemployment exchanges now and registering because they know that they now have a hope of getting employment. What was the position of any man who was foolish enough to expect employment under the late administration? He went to the unemployment exchange faithfully, week after week, and registered. He continued to register for 12 months, or, perhaps, two years, and then a job came along, and what happened? The young gentleman who had come, a week before, out of the National Army got the job and the poor fellow who had worn out three or four pairs of boots walking to the Labour Exchange got nothing. That was the policy and that was the reason why the unemployed saw the absolute uselessness of registering at the Labour Exchange. They are going there now because they have employment to hope for.

We heard a lot to-night about tariffs and what they will do. I will give one instance of tariffs imposed by the Opposition. They put a 20 per cent. tariff on waterproofs and a 25 per cent. tariff on the material coming in for making them. That was supposed to be a God-send to the waterproof manufacturers in this country. What was the result? These people came to the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce, and he wrote back to them saying that it would serve no useful purpose if he spent five minutes of his time listening to them. They looked, last year, for the contract for making the waterproofs for the Civic Guard and the oilskins for Postal and Local Government officials, but those three contracts were handed to an English firm for a difference of 9d. per suit, with a preferential rate of 5 per cent. working against the Irish manufacturer. This year the factory was closed down for four months before Fianna Fáil came into office, and in that particular district alone we were paying home assistance from the South Cork Board of Assistance to some 130 families each week.

These waterproof manufacturers, as a result of the protection put on by Fianna Fáil are now enabled to get contracts. The preferential rate for British waterproofs and British oilskins has gone. The Irish manufacturers have got contracts and their factories are open. At the present moment these factories are working on double shifts. The number employed there at present is something like ninety-five—ninety-five boys and girls who are no longer on the starvation list depending on eight or nine shillings home assistance for a whole family. They are now earning a decent livelihood and a decent wage. That is the difference between a Fianna Fáil Budget and a Cumann na nGaedheal Budget.

We heard the Minister of the kicking cow talking. He made the same old gramophone record that he used to make from these benches when he used to give as a reason why so-and-so had his neck broken last week was that a cow kicked him in the stall, and the reason why a poor fellow who was beaten down the country was assaulted was that somebody else hit him and that it had nothing to do with politics. We hear the same yarn and the same old gramophone record. He talked about the terrible state the country was getting into. The I.R.A. were out and Saor Eire were out. The same thing was happening again. He complained about the manner in which the Budget was introduced. I remember being over there for four long years on the opposite benches, and I believe that for two years before I came in other Deputies were there making the same attack. It took the Minister six years to bring in a Town Tenants Bill, and when the Bill appeared after six years it was not a Town Tenants Bill; it was a Landlords Bill, a Bill to protect the landlords. That is the Deputy who complained about the manner in which we introduced this Bill, and says that there is no time to give it proper consideration. He took enough time to consider the landlords' protection Bill which he brought in here for the benefit of town tenants.

Deputy Anthony said to-night that it would be better if this rebate which is given to the small breweries were given to the consumers. I should prefer to see that rebate given to brewers who produced their malt and stout in this country out of barley grown in the country. I certainly should prefer if the Minister for Finance had considered that proposition. Deputy Anthony also urges a reduction in the price of stout. I gave some rather interesting figures on that matter here a few months ago. The figures show that the brewer at the present day can reduce the price of a pint of stout by 1¾d. and have the same profit he had from 1920 to 1922. From 1920 to 1922 the brewer paid 52/- per barrel for barley. The price of the pint of stout was then the same as it is to-day and the duty was also the same. Last year, in 1931, the brewer paid only 14/6 per barrel for barley, a difference of 37/6 as compared with 1922, which was not passed on to the consumer. I cannot see how Deputy Anthony can make a case for a reduction in the retail price of stout when the brewer, who can afford to reduce it by 1¾d. and have the same profit as he had from 1920 to 1922 has not reduced it. I do not believe that he increased his workers' wages in the meantime. He might have increased the dividends paid to his shareholders, and I do not think they were very small in 1922.

Deputy Norton referred to one matter, to which I am very glad he alluded, the position that here and there round the country individuals are revenging the fact that they are now made to pay a little towards the upkeep of the poor on the unfortunate labourers who have the misfortune to be their slaves, for I cannot call them anything else. I have one specific individual in my own constituency who made all the money he has out of the sweat of the unfortunate rack-rented tenants of whom he happened to have control. He called his labourers together and he dismissed six or seven of them owing to the supertax and the income tax. "Some of ye voted for Fianna Fáil. I sack seven of ye and reduce the wages of the rest to £1 per week." I can promise that gentleman and others like him that we are going to take steps to deal with him and he will not have as much loot when we are done with him out of the land as he got from Cumann na nGaedheal. We will see that the land on which those unfortunate men were working, those slaves— I cannot call them anything else—will be soon in their possession at an economic rent which will allow them to knock a livelihood out of it. That is one way to deal with the gentlemen with 1,000 acres or 1,500 acres who think it their duty at the present day, on account of the fact that the Masonic-ridden Party have been driven out of power, to reduce the wages of the workers. I am glad Deputy Norton has alluded to it lest perchance I might have forgotten it.

This Budget, despite all the bunkum and despite all the inspired articles in the Press, is a Budget that has the support of the ordinary people of this country. It has undoubtedly their support. The people of the country see that Fianna Fáil are out to protect their industries, to find money for the poor and to see that the poor get a fair chance of living. We have proved that this Budget is the poor man's Budget and will give relief to the poor at any rate. There is one other matter that I am anxious to touch on here. I would urge on the Minister that he would consider very carefully between now and the harvest, the imports of foreign barley, with the definite intention of putting a tariff on foreign barley. As I pointed out a short time ago the price of barley, owing to there being only one buyer in this country, has been reduced from 52/- to 14/6, which is for any farmer here an uneconomic price. The amount of barley imported would represent the produce of some 48,000 acres. I think that is a fact which should be very carefully considered having regard to the employment which the production of that barley would give and also the employment which would be afforded to maltsters in malting it. Another matter is that certain retailers in our towns are unduly taking advantage of the tariff for the purpose of profiteering. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate accordingly adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until Thursday, June 16th, at 3 p.m.