Amendments 54, 54 (a), 55, 56 and 59 will I presume be debated together.
Finance Bill, 1932—Committee (Resumed).
Debate resumed on amendment 54. To delete sub-section (2)—Deputy McGilligan).
If you are taking amendment 55 would it not be necessary also to take amendment 211?
Amendment 211 is consequential on number 55.
It seems to me that unless amendments 55 and 211 are taken together it would not be possible to discuss amendment 55.
Amendment 211 could not be moved later on?
It could not.
I submit that amendment 54 should be taken by itself.
Very well, there will be separate divisions.
We are simply dealing then with balls and dances not sports?
Sports and dances, and even the Dáil as a place of entertainment, were discussed by Deputy McGilligan on the last night.
Do not prolong the entertainment.
Will the Minister say whether ceilidhthe are included?
They are cultural.
I take it the Minister is not serious when he says that if I take part in the "Waves of Tory" I pay no tax, but if I take part in a foxtrot I do pay tax?
If you take part in the "Waves of Tory" and speak in English you are not, but if you take part in a fox-trot and speak in Irish you are. I have done both.
I agree that the Schedule may be full of anomalies but, at the same time, in its present form it is going to be productive of revenue, therefore I am defending it.
Mr. Hayes
Are we to assume that the Minister's position on the question of the tax on dances is that he wants revenue and is getting it this way?
Precisely. I have no desire to reform the world in this Bill.
Mr. Hayes
It would be difficult. Will the Minister say how precisely it is that ceilidhthe are exempt?
I should like to correct a possible misapprehension. Only ceilidhthe held under the auspices of the Gaelic League are exempt.
Again a distinction.
The Gaelic League is not mentioned in the Schedule, so far as I can see, and I would like to know exactly on what basis ceilidhthe or certain sorts of dances are being exempted.
This particular exemption enshrines the wisdom of our predecessors. Ceilidhthes were always exempted under their administration.
Is it on the basis of the object of the association? It is the point that they get exemption if they are engaged in education work?
First and foremost, I think it would be wrong to ride away with an imposition on indoor amusements, such as dances, under cover of a row in regard to the position of sports, and sub-section (2) might very well be amended and decided by itself. The Minister, apparently, does not know what exactly he proposes to do under this tax. He first tells us that ceilidhthes are exempt and now he tells us that, if they are exempt, they are exempt because they were exempt under the previous Government.
I presume that Gaelic League concerts and ceilidhthe are exempt?
This is a proposal, I understand, to tax balls or dances, no matter what kind of dances are danced at them. The Minister says he is not out for reforming things and, apparently, he ignores completely the reaction of this particular tax on anything like social conditions. He is simply considering his revenue and I would ask if he can give us any figures which will show what this would bring in in revenue, and whether it is not going to drive the normal type of dance in the City of Dublin, for which the ticket is about 5/- or so, from the hotels where they keep up a rather expensive equipment for providing people with places for social reunions, and which have considerable overhead charges and which are used only during a particular time of the year, into more or less private places, where they can be run under the guise of private social functions, rather than public dances. I understand that, in connection with this particular type of dance in the city, there is a floating staff of about 200 waiters kept continually employed during the winter period, when they would not otherwise have employment, as a result of the advantage taken by the public of the facilities provided by hotels and such places for social reunions of this kind. The percentage of dances run entirely for charity in the City of Dublin is very big, and I take it that, even if this tax is maintained, in order to get revenue, at whatever cost, these dances will still be immune and that exemption certificates can be got for them? But I would like the Minister to give us some idea as to how much money he expects to get from this particular tax and what he thinks the reaction is going to be in respect of the reduction of the number of dances held in institutions properly and fully equipped and under proper supervision, and with plenty of publicity. What percentage of these are going to be driven from these public places into less public places, where dances will be conducted as private parties, as it were, and without any of the supervision or proper equipment that these dances require.
I would like to shorten the debate on this. The Minister mentioned in regard to the exemption of certain types of dances, dances held under the auspices of the Gaelic League, but that is not mentioned here. It it the idea that they are to be exempt because they are run by an educational association?
Yes.
Mr. Hayes
Dances were not taxed before. What happened before was that concerts under the Gaelic League, for example, were exempt. I will give the Minister a simple example that occurs to me. If the University Gaelic Society runs a ceilidhe, would it be defined as an educational association? Supposing Trinity Gaelic Society wanted to run a ceilidhe, would the Minister regard the society as an educational association and exempt it? If he wants to exempt Irish dances, as such, and places where nothing is danced but Irish dances, it would be better to put in a section to that effect.
I think I see a way out of all the difficulty. We will get a lot of branches of the Gaelic League formed and we can have any sort of dances at them.
I find it very difficult to understand exactly what we are discussing at the moment.
So does the Minister.
Amendment 54.
You, Sir, were not in the Chair on the last night when we were discussing amendments 54 to 59, dealing with dances and football. What are we discussing at present?
You are in a scrum now.
May I suggest that a good deal of the confusion arises because some members of the Opposition think that the Committee Stage of a Bill is not for discussion but for cross-examination?
I would ask the Minister to divest himself altogether of his materialistic ideas and look on all these things as recreations and sports and relaxations from the every-day grind. I am afraid the Minister is becoming a bit too miserly in his hunt for revenue, and that, in that hunt, he is not going to be very careful what is going to suffer. I would make one appeal to the Minister on this matter, and particularly with regard to games of every kind. It will be remembered that when the raid was made on the Sweepstakes money, we were told that people were to be so educated in healthy practices, that there would not be so much necessity for the expenditure of money on hospitals. The Minister is nullifying that, to a terrible extent, by putting a tax on the people's amusements and recreations. I am not going to draw any distinction between football played under one code or another. They are all healthy amusements, and native to the soil, no matter what the shape of the football is——
Question!
What is the question?
All the classes of football played here are not native to the soil.
The Deputy only dances Gaelic dances.
I do not dance at all, no matter what kind of dances they are.
I will admit that there is only one national game, and that is hurling, but I am not going into any further controversy. I would make one appeal to the Minister. I would ask him to be a sport. We are a sporting people and we pride ourselves on our prowess on the athletic field at home and internationally, and I think that anything that will interfere with our development in that respect should not appeal to the Minister. I would sum up all the appeals I can make in that one phrase "Be a sport."
Let the Minister try. He may convert it into a goal.
I will appeal to the Minister to remit this tax, and, especially, the tax on Soccer football. The levy of this tax on Soccer football is (1) a vindictive levy, (2) a discriminatory levy, and (3) a levy on the healthy outdoor amusements of the people. I think this tax has been deliberately framed for one object, and one object only—to wipe out the playing of Soccer football in the Irish Free State. I noticed, some time ago, that Deputy Norton was particularly successful in obtaining a remission of taxation on horse racing, and I wonder will Deputy Norton intervene in this debate, and use the undoubted influence that he alone in this House possesses, to ensure that the amusements of the poor man, and these are poor men's amusements, are freed from the tax as the amusements of the rich man are freed. There can be no mistake about it. This tax is imposed against Soccer football particularly.
Deputy Curran intervenes with some remark with regard to shareholders or something of that sort. With regard to the shareholders, I should like to tell the House this and I hope it will impress the Minister for Finance in coming to whatever conclusion he finally comes to in this matter, that as far as the Soccer football associations are concerned, all of them, with possibly one or two exceptions, are in a serious financial position. They are not able to pay any dividend or to bring forward any balance from year to year on their balance sheets. That shows that Soccer football is not a dividend-paying concern. In justice to those who have put their money into it I would like to say that they have not done so with any hope of gain but absolutely in the interests of sport. I want to remind the House that there are some 60,000 people who go to witness Soccer football matches every week and that they come from the masses of the people, the ordinary every-day working people who manage to scrape up 6d. each with the necessary few extra pence to pay their bus or tram fares to get to a football match. They spend a few hours out in the open air, a thing which I think the Minister will admit is very desirable and beneficial. I will go further and say that the playing of Soccer has a very healthy effect in keeping men from spending money on Saturday afternoons in licensed premises, money which they cannot afford to spend. That is a moral aspect of the question that should not be forgotten.
You did not say that last week when they were extending the hours for licensed premises.
Mr. Byrne
I think if anybody in this House should look after the interests of the working class it is Deputy Curran. I know that the people of County Dublin are a sport-loving people, and I know that a great many of them go to attend Soccer football matches when they have the opportunity. The leader of the Labour Party on a previous occasion brought his whole party into the Division Lobby when there was a question of the imposition of similar taxation.
He did not.
Mr. Byrne
He brought his men into the Division Lobby on the question of the remission of taxation of some kind.
Mr. Hogan
Not his whole Party.
You said his whole Party.
Mr. Byrne
Well, I suppose Deputy Hogan was the one notable exception.
No, there was another one too.
Mr. Byrne
There were two exceptions.
And they were not expelled.
Because they did not deserve it.
Mr. Byrne
Well let us hope that Deputy Norton will exercise his influence on his Party now and bring as many as he possibly can without applying the whip too drastically in supporting an amendment that undoubtedly is in the interests of the working man. I somehow or other never feel so sympathetic when it comes to Rugger football, for I always think that people who play Rugger football are people with means at their disposal, and that a half-crown or two shillings admission fee makes no difference whatever.
Nonsense.
Nonsense.
Mr. Byrne
Perhaps those followers of Rugby in the House will not agree with me, but I am sure they will admit that followers of that game are the wealthier section of the community.
No.
Mr. Byrne
I have been on both football pitches.
Pitches?
Mr. Byrne
And from my observation I can say this, that the men who go to Rugby football, as far as external appearances are concerned, motorcars being parked outside the enclosure and all that sort of thing, appear to be a much more prosperous section of the community than the ordinary workingman, who can just afford to pay 6d. to attend a Soccer match. I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that if this tax is imposed there is no doubt that you are going to put out of action five or six clubs under the Soccer code. You have two very fine provincial clubs—Dundalk and Cork. Both of these are in an extremely precarious condition financially. We have three clubs in Dublin in a similar position— Dolphin, Drumcondra and Jacobs. The gates that these clubs are getting under existing circumstances are not sufficient to pay working expenses. How will these gates be affected if the tax is imposed? I want to say that in my opinion there can be no possibility or hope of carrying on Soccer football if the tax is imposed. I do not see why there should be discrimination against one form of outdoor sport in preference to another.
I think it has been admitted generally by the House that the Gaelic code, which a large proportion of Deputies claim to be the true national pastime, is in a very flourishing position. I think that the code which is merely struggling for existence should be encouraged in the interests of its followers and in the interests of sport. I think there will be a tremendous blank in the lives of many working people if they are unable to witness a game of soccer at each week-end. If three or four clubs disappear from the present list Soccer football will not be worth witnessing. I think the Minister should also take into consideration that there will be serious financial loss arising in other ways. Tramway companies, bus companies, and trains all draw a fairly lucrative revenue from the playing of football. If Soccer football is put out of existence, as I believe this tax will put it out of existence, all these pecuniary losses will arise. I would like further to tell the Minister that this money is spent reproductively in giving employment, and every penny of it is spent locally, in players' wages and fees for referees, linesmen and groundsmen.
I would ask the Minister to say what amount he hopes to gain by the imposition of this tax. I see sitting behind the Minister an ardent follower of Soccer who might join his voice with mine in this appeal before the debate closes. I think everybody in the House will admit the vital necessity for an improvement in the physique of our people. If there is one thing that conduces to that very beneficial result it is outdoor sports, especially an outdoor sport like Soccer football. I need not remind the House that outdoor sports generally receive the support of several Governments. The Governments of France, Germany, England and many other countries not alone associate themselves very intimately with the development of outdoor games but do everything possible to encourage them. I do not know why we, a sport-loving people, should impose a tax of this kind. I know that we have in our midst a certain small, bigoted, narrow-minded section who believe that we can only play one game without violating our national feelings. I do believe that the bulk of the people are not behind that outlook. I do believe that the Gaelic players themselves do not want to see Soccer football penalised nor have they any hope of gaining anything by it. I want to remind the Minister that there is not a single manager in a Soccer club who does not say—most of the Deputies have received the circular as well as I have —that they see no hope of carrying on if this taxation is imposed. I want to repeat that no profit has been derived from the running of Association football. It is run, as I have already said, purely for the love of the sport, and the working bodies in clubs believe that if this tax is imposed it will have such serious effects on the gates that they cannot possibly hope to continue in existence. On the last occasion, there was a somewhat similar Vote in the House and the Deputies on these benches who were then the Government of the country left the matter to an open vote. I want to ask the Minister for Finance is it his intention to leave this question to an open vote to-day? If he does not, I suppose it is pure futility appealing to the opposite benches and the only hope that now remains to me is again to appeal to Deputy Norton, the man who can crack the whip if he likes.
Discussion on the last day ranged over amendments 54, 54a, 55 and 56. A similar procedure is being followed to-day. Amendment 54 might be disposed of now.
I suggest that the Independent Deputies might have something to say on the subject. They will not take long.
They have an opportunity of saying anything they like now.
I know time is precious, and I do not want to obstruct the Minister. I would ask that he should remove this tariff altogether. I know his heart is not in it. I have sympathy with him in the necessity that he has to find revenue, but I hope he will find it in some other direction. I would like to have a few spots left in our life where we will not be harassed by tariffs, and I suggest that we should have our games at any rate without tariffs. I beg of the Minister to think of that, and also, in the interests of fair play, I would appeal to the Gaelic football players, who are sportsmen, too.
What appeal did you make to the British military in 1920, when Gaelic games were banned?
The Deputy is frequently off-side. There is one game that is a national game, and that is hurley, but I do contend that Gaelic football is not a bit more of a national game than is Rugby, especially Irish Rugby, and it has not as long a history in this country. That may seem a strange thing to say, but it is none the less true. However, I do appeal to the Gaelic players as sportsmen themselves to give us their support and get behind us in this, just as I would take off my coat for them if I thought they were being treated unfairly. I will not stress the educational or moral aspects, as that would mean delay, but I would stress again that these games which are now penalised are games upon which we as Irishmen and sportsmen should realise we may build very important structures in view of the common interests involved. It is a pity to break or destroy these ties and these smaller points of community with people all over Ireland, and I do suggest to the Minister that if he will think about it he will see the value of the suggestion. Let us say that the President had to meet Lord Craigavon to-morrow. There might be a little difficulty in breaking the ice at first, but after indulging in a little of their Rugby reminiscences a friendly atmosphere could be created. I appeal to the Minister to treat the matter in a sporting spirit, and I also appeal to the Gaelic footballers in this House as well as the Rugby footballers. Rugby football, at any rate, has one strong point that ought to appeal to Gaelic players—it is absolutely amateur; it is a fine, clean, sporting game. I do not want to make any comparisons, which are odious and invidious, but I think that that will be agreed to.
I would like that the House would approach this measure in a generous spirit, and not perhaps in the selfish spirit in which some Deputies have spoken during the debate. We all ought to recognise that engaging in any kind of sport is for the welfare of the country in general and for the welfare of the people who engage in them. Other countries offer pecuniary help to various forms of sport, and in my opinion we ought not to inflict a pecuniary disadvantage on them. We ought not to discriminate in sport. What we give to one sport we should give to another. There are sports which some members might not regard as being as national as others, but which have become international in character and which permit Irishmen in various parts of the world to show their prowess and to defeat the foreigner. It should be our object to help rather than to diminish the objects of our people for engaging in such sports.
Many years ago, various of the older Deputies here engaged in various sports which members on the opposite side now deride. The President of the Executive Council and myself included, and probably other Deputies, did so, and I do not believe it made either him or me or any other Deputy engaging in these sports less of an Irishman. I would appeal, if not to the Minister, to the Deputies in the House, as Deputy Alton pointed out, not to look on this in a selfish spirit but in a generous spirit, and to say that they are glad that the people of this State play any game and that the young men, and the young women, too, are good enough to play and excel over other nations in the various games, and particularly to take part in those games of an international character that have enabled Irishmen to show their prowess all over the world.
In amendment 56, in the name of Deputy Patrick McGilligan, amongst other associations he proposes to exempt from tax is the Irish Amateur Rowing Union. As one who has been actively identified with Irish rowing for a very long period— some 20 years—and who is still identified with rowing, and one who has been a captain of a rowing club for some years, I want to tell the Minister that if there is one sport more than another, in this country, which is known as a pure form of sport, it is rowing. It is a sport in which we get a lot of team-work. Now, we have roughly, say, about a dozen regattas in the year in Ireland—and in the world "Ireland" I include what has come to be regarded as Northern Ireland, but I do not recognise any boundary in sport and no sportsman recognises any boundary. We have regattas on the Bann and on the Lee—the most famous regattas in the world, of course are held on the Lee. I suggest that the reward of several months training to the oarsmen in this country is frequently expressed in a gold medal or in a replica of a cup. Anyone who is conversant with the training and equipment of rowing clubs in this country can appreciate what that means. There are two or three months of strenuous training and at the end of all that, where you have one or two clubs dominating the others, in other words where you have a senior rowing four and a senior eight, a junior rowing four or a junior rowing eight, which leads the others and it is a matter of a procession, and at the end of it all there is very little reward. The reward, as I have suggested, is very little at the end of it all. These twelve, sixteen, eighteen or twenty men go into training; and I suggest there is a great deal to be said in favour of that kind of training. It builds up character and discipline and above all it develops what I consider a most important factor in relation to things in this country, that glorious thing known as team work. If we had a little more team work, in the political life of this country, it would be a good job. There is no form of athletics that I know of, and I have gone in for most of them, that has a greater tendency to build up character than rowing. It is known as the purest form of athletics because, unless you are carrying a passenger, in a four, or an eight, every man is doing his best, there can be no such thing as doping, or selling a race.
In addition to exempting Rugby and Association football the other sports mentioned—lawn tennis, the Irish Amateur Swimming Association, the Golfing Union, the Ladies Golfing Union, Irish Amateur Rowing—should be exempted. If that were done it would be a decent gesture to people who want to lead pure lives. It would be a good job for the country if we had a larger number of athletic clubs, and young people devoting themselves to sport, instead of to other activities dangerous to the country as well as to themselves.
I would ask the Minister to consider well before he puts a tax on Rugby. I am connected with Rugby in Munster, and indeed in every part of Ireland. There is no better or more purely amateur game. The young boys who play procure everything for themselves, buy their own athletic outfits, etc. For the last couple of years the gates are very bad so that the clubs cannot stand this extra tax. That is the case in connection with amateur matches whatever may happen in connection with international matches here in Dublin. They of course bring a bix influx of visitors. We in Cork can hold our own with any Rugby club in Ireland. We win two out of every three matches we play, and we are known all over the world. I ask the Minister to think well before he puts a tax on these amateur games.
I would like to make an appeal on behalf of swimming, but although I talk particularly about swimming, I wish to associate myself with all other forms of outdoor sports. I do not wish to go into the question whether swimming is a rich man's game or a poor man's game; at any rate, it requires less equipment than any other form of sport. The Minister has said that this is a revenue tax. I would like to take him at his word and ask him to consider whether, on balance, the country will gain or lose by the imposition of this tax. Some other sports are in a different category from this. The governing body in the case of swimming, and there are other sports in the same position, has jurisdiction over the whole of Ireland. I do not know what the proposed tax would work out at, but I suppose at something like 20 per cent. on the gate receipts. Then you come to this position: that an entertainment, or whatever you might call it—we call it a gala—held in Northern Ireland would be held at a 20 per cent. less expenditure than one run in the Free State, so that a very serious position will have arisen. You would find that a whole lot of matches, normally played in the Free State, will automatically go to Ulster. I would like the Minister to consider that aspect of the question.
There are a couple of other considerations that arise out of that as well. Other speakers have stressed the fact that all the money collected goes back into the promoting of the sport. All the services are voluntary—handicapping, judging, stewards, etc. I would like to point out that teams leave this country at various times of the year and go to England, Scotland and Wales and at other times teams come back here. If their entertainments cannot be held here, in the same way as in the past, we will be doing away with our amenities. I am sure the Minister will recognise that the social amenities of every district have a profound influence upon tourists when visiting a particular place. We all hear people remarking from time to time: "Oh, we would not go to such and such a place. There is no entertainment, no amusement, nothing to do." I would urge upon the Minister, even from a purely materialistic point of view, considering all the aspects and all the ramifications of this class, to ask himself is it worth it?
The Minister, since the introduction of his Budget, made some remissions in regard to the national games. I desire to say I very much appreciate his action in that particular direction, but on this particular amendment I desire to join with other Deputies in protesting against the imposition of this tax. I think it is a monstrous course to take, having regard to the amount of hardship which will undoubtedly be inflicted upon the working and artisan classes who partake in this form of recreation during their week ends. I do not want to occupy time in referring to the number of games, indoor and outdoor, covered by the amendment we are now discussing. Neither do I want to enter into a discussion that might arouse some kind of acrimonious feeling in regard to the different football codes. As I said already, I appreciate what the Minister has done in regard to the national game of hurling, but I think he should give further thought and consideration to all these taxes on outdoor sports. Outdoor sports comprise a number of games that it takes a good deal of money to keep going. It takes good sport, and sportsmanlike effort, on the part of those who are engaged in them, to provide healthy recreation for themselves and for those who witness them. I would like to refer briefly to one or two points. Football, I think, has already been fully dealt with by other speakers. Rowing is one of the pastimes which will come under this tax, because of the takings at the gates. All kinds of outdoor games are subject to weather conditions if they are to be a success. Even under the best conditions, it is not possible for those running these fixtures to recoup themselves for the expense they incur. Prizes and other equipment are very expensive items. When rowing clubs require a new boat it costs between £100 and £150, and there is no means of meeting that expense except by voluntary subscriptions. I think that sport in place of being hindered, as it undoubtedly will be by this tax should get every encouragement. I do not suggest a subsidy, but I think it is not right that this form of sport should be hindered by a tax such as this. I join with other Deputies in offering a protest against entertainments tax being imposed on outdoor sports.
I join in the appeal to the Minister to remove the tax. I have been teaching students for many years, and my experience has been that the best in the class rooms are, generally speaking, the best in the playing fields. I have told them over and over again that I have no use for any fellow who sits in on Saturday afternoons and smokes in preference to going out on the playing fields. The reason for that is that sport engenders the spirit of fair play; it engenders something that we cannot provide in other ways, a spirit of discipline, a spirit of recognition, a spirit of keeping one's temper. There are certain Deputies here who would be very much better if they had played some game, as they would have learned how to control themselves, which is really one of the essences of outdoor sports. I would like to relate one instance that comes to my memory. I was playing a game of golf some years ago, in a fourball match, and when coming down the first green one of my opponents said to me "That is an extraordinary thing I heard.""What is it?" I asked. He said "I understand you are a Professor in Trinity College and that your partner is a Professor in the National University.""He is," I replied, "what of that?" My friend then remarked "I thought you would not speak to one another." My reply was: "That is what sport means." Sport has no limitations. It brings us together and in that way we see the best in one another. For that reason I appeal to the Minister to do nothing that will in any way lessen the encouragement of outdoor sports. There is no doubt whatever about the improvement to the general health and to the physical well-being of people who engage in outdoor sports. I did not like the attitude that certain Deputies took when they advocated that one form of sport should be taken account of more than another. I do not see why one should make an appeal on behalf of Soccer football more than Rugby football or rowing. All these have their good points and that fact should be recognised. My last word on this question is that I do not think it is a good thing to make discrimination between outdoor sports. I have no objection to people playing hurling. I have gone to hurling matches and enjoyed them. I would encourage hurling, Gaelic football and every sport that would bring young men and women into the playing fields, in order that they should learn to conduct themselves, because sport engenders a spirit of fair play on all sides.
I think the idea of taxing sport of any kind is bad, and I am glad that the Minister, having come to that decision, has decided not to tax hurling and Gaelic football. But I think a tax upon Soccer football is, as far as I know the City of Dublin, a tax on the amusement of the working classes. I will deal with it from that point of view. I cannot be taken as a partisan of foreign games. Very few people can say what I can say. I have never seen a Soccer match, I have never seen a Rugby match, a cricket match or a hockey match. I am really one hundred per cent. Gaelic from that point of view. The only games I saw were hurling and Gaelic football. I live at present near a place at Harold's Cross where they play Soccer football, and the question that I often ask when I see the crowds coming out is: "Are they not Irish? Are they not full citizens? Are they not one hundred per cent. Irish? Are they not voters? Are they not nationalists? Are some of them not supporters of Fianna Fáil Party?" I think they are. I know a number of them who did extremely good national work of various kinds who follow up Soccer football and who will not go to any other kind of football. It seems to me that it is not the particular business of this Government or of any Government to coerce people because the differentiation in this section contains that element of coercion. It is not any part of our business to coerce people and tell them what kind of game they are going to play and what kind of game they are going to look at. When joining the Volunteers a man was not asked if he played Soccer football, or if he played hurling. If that question was asked some very notable figures in that organisation would never have come before the public. When joining the Fianna Fáil Party the question is not asked: "Are you a player of Soccer football?" because some of those in that Party do so and got votes on that basis. Even when joining the Government that question is not asked. If my recollection serves me right one of the best known Soccer football players in University College when I was a student was Con Ward, and surely there could be nothing wrong with his nationality. Surely there was no one more national than he was or ever will be. On that basis, and without making any discrimination between games, I do not think this particular tax on Soccer football, which is the game that the working classes in Dublin go to see, and want to go to see, will help Gaelic football. It strikes me that those who go to see other games cannot be so anti-national. I have some friends who speak Irish, where Irish is used in the households, who rear their children to speak Irish—a very difficult process—and they go to Rugby games and talk Irish to their children there. I wonder are they anti-national. Why should they be taxed? Surely it is more Irish to go to Lansdowne Road and talk Irish than to go to Croke Park and talk English. While giving every assistance to Irish games, particularly hurling, I think such a wide differentiation is a wrong idea. But that is the basis of a good deal of the Fianna Fáil policy. This tax shows differentiation between sections of the community just as the Party opposite differentiates between the morning and the evening. You can wear evening dress but cannot wear a tall hat. Are not those who play Soccer football full citizens, one hundred per cent. Irishmen, good nationalists, people who, in various ways, made sacrifices for the Irish national cause and certainly should not be taxed?
I would like to echo the remarks of Deputy Anthony in connection with the various rowing clubs, not only on the River Lee, but in Cork Harbour. I think there must be, from the outset, a public spirit in connection with rowing. We can look back with pride on the work done by our various rowing clubs and the spirit it engendered amongst Irishmen generally. I would like to call the attention of the House to the fact that the Minister has deliberately taxed the amusements of some of the poorest people in country districts. Football and other games are their sole amusement. Those who are playing Gaelic football and hurling also play Rugby. Young men in country towns play Rugby, and if that game is taxed they certainly will cut out the expense. I would appeal very strongly indeed to the Minister to withdraw the imposition he is placing upon this amusement. It is the only amusement of many people in the remote country districts, and I feel this tax is seriously striking at a national spirit amongst the people.
I rise to deal with this question from a different angle from most of the Deputies who have spoken. I consider that a tax on sport is a tax on health and physical development. I think that this is a tax on fresh air and national health. We cannot get away from the fact that the economic position of the people who support these games is very low and is going to be lower. For that, neither this Government nor any other Government is responsible. If we are to have games, we must have a certain amount of revenue to keep them going. I refer particularly to the games played by the young people, especially the games played by ladies. When one contrasts the period about 1922, when I came to Dublin—I had been, of course, in Dublin in connection with Gaelic matters before—with 1932, one is struck by the improvement in the appearance and physique of the young ladies of the city. That is apparent to anybody coming up from the country, while it may not be so apparent to those living here permanently. I have heard everybody comment on it—the robust health, the physique and the excellent physical development of the young ladies of the city. Anything which puts a tax on national health, physical development and fresh air is not sound. The cheapest way to preserve national health is by the practice of outdoor games. That does more than all your schools of medicine. It builds up the physique, and when people have contracted disease or are suffering from weaknesses is not the time to tackle the problem of health. The physical health of the children should be built up from the ground. Every medical man in the State will agree that outdoor exercise is essential to the development of our race. I am not one of those people who believe that any special brand of patriotism attaches to any game. The Minister has thought well to exempt a particular form of sport from this entertainments tax. I might perhaps take that as a tribute to myself and the people with whom I was associated in building up Gaelic games. I was at the second or third convention held in connection with Gaelic games when I was a boy of eighteen, and there was not a convention held to formulate rules up to the time I was 34 or 35 years of age at which I was not present. Having said that, this exemption might be taken as a tribute to me and to the people I was associated with, but I do think it is too narrow. At one time, we deliberately went out and made restrictions with regard to games and to the people who played them. We knew why we were doing that, and nobody did more than I did to break up every other class of game in my area. I went out deliberately at one time to break up all games except Gaelic games. We knew why we were doing that, and we achieved our object. I spent night and day endeavouring to prevent the playing of any other games than Gaelic games in my own area. Nevertheless, I think that this tax is altogether wrong.
I want to get down to more detail than did the other speakers. I want to know how much the Minister expects from the tax on all the games and how much he expects from the tax upon any particular game. If we had the figures before us, we would be better able to strike a balance as between the gain to the national revenue, on the one hand, and the gain to national health, on the other hand. Could the Minister tell us what he hopes to get in revenue from this tax?
The total amount which the entertainment tax, in its present form, is expected to yield this year is £59,000.
That sum is very small when placed in the balance against national health and physical development. I do not believe that the receipts will reach anything like that figure, because there will be evasion. The Minister may be right but, in my opinion, the "gates" in the future will not be anything like what they were in the past. The war days are gone and the money of the war days is gone. The "gates" of the war days are also gone.
Does the Minister's figure cover all entertainment tax?
It represents the additional amount which we expect to receive from the withdrawal of exemptions and the reconstruction of the scale.
How much of that will come from dances?
Not less than £25,000 this year.
My question referred only to outdoor sports. I did not intend to include any other entertainment. What will be the yield from the tax on outdoor sports?
About £25,000.
That is a very small amount. I should be very much surprised if people who are advocates of Gaelic games in this country were small-minded enough to make a claim for themselves and to oppose exemption of other games. Hurling is out on its own. There is no doubt about its traditions. It is as Gaelic here as shinty is Gaelic in Scotland. The same claim can be made, in my opinion, for the game known at present as Rugby. I did not see a Rugby match until 1922, when I happened to be here, and I never saw a Soccer match.
You have missed a lot.
Perhaps I have. I have nothing to say against any of the games. I talk only about the things I know. I am not going to make a case for Rugby or any other game against other games. I am arguing the same case for all of them. I was amazed, when I saw a Rugby match at Lansdowne Road in 1922, to notice that it was the same game which I saw as a boy of nine played in my own county between the two sides of the King's River. Tipperary and Kilkenny were interested in that match.
A few years ago I saw an announcement made that a game known as Rugby was introduced into the college of Rugby by a Tipperary student and I was not surprised because that is the game I saw played in my youth. If I have any regrets in this matter of games it is a regret that Gaelic football went away from its original lines in the direction more approaching Soccer. Soccer is a good game, but I am sorry that when we went away from what was the old Gaelic football we made an approach to Soccer. If the game of Rugby were called Rockwell instead of Rugby it would be more appropriate. In addition it would have a better title to that name than it has to Rugby and there would not now be any question at all about its being a foreign game. People who want to lead a healthy life want to play outdoor games. I never, in the old G.A.A. days, had any use for the fellow who is only the hurler on the ditch. He was the greatest nuisance we had. The man who played the game was always the best man, but the hurler on the ditch was only a nuisance.
He was often carrying the bag.
I think that is a very improper remark for Deputy Coburn. He suggests something that is quite unworthy of any Deputy in this House.
I do not know what has been said.
Deputy Gorey did not lose much.
I have not much sympathy either with the man who speaks about a particular way in which you hit the football or the particular shape of the football. I do not see how these things make any difference at all. In the old days the insides of the ball were not made of rubber. The inside was got from the local butcher or from the local horse-knacker. I remember the time when we got rubber insides first. (Deputies: Oh!) I mean rubber insides for the footballs. The shape of the ball has nothing to do with the game. To my mind there is no doubt at all where the shape of the football came from. It came from the shape of the bladder of two useful animals. It makes no difference at all whether a man hits the ball with his foot or his hands or his head. Rules about these things are just a joke, and nothing else but a joke to my mind. I have no use for the Pharisee in connection with the playing of a certain game. The man who sees a difference in these matters is really only a joke and a Pharisee.
Gaelic hurling is able to stand on its own. There is no other game in the world like it. I have never seen its equal anywhere. Gaelic hurling will live without any assistance. In this matter of outdoor sports, I would appeal to the Minister to consider the relatively small amount of money involved. Outdoor sports are a great factor in national health and in fact the State should aid in the development of outdoor sports instead of putting a tax on them. What the Minister and the Government are now asked to do is the cheapest thing that could be done for the preservation of the race. The Minister should aid these games instead of taxing the intelligence and health of the people as he is doing when he is putting on this tax. I would appeal to the Minister in the interests of outdoor games and considering the relatively small amount this tax will bring in to do the big thing and to do the right thing about it and to remit this tax.
I agree with the last speaker that the two best games in the world are hurling and Rugby football. I would like to make this appeal for Rugby football if it has not been made before in my absence from the House and that is that there is no game that brings this country more prestige in England, Wales and Scotland than Rugby football does and this despite the very limited number in this country who play that game. That is the surprising thing about it, that we produce great teams of Rugby players in this country even though the number who play it is not large. I think everything about the game of Rugby football goes to show that it is a game that consorts well with Irish genius and that it is native to this country. There is something in the game that appeals to the Irishman. Everything should be done to encourage the game instead of discouraging it.
I should like to join in the appeal to the Minister to drop this tax on outdoor sports and if he wants to make up the money he can do it very effectively by putting a higher tax on indoor entertainments. It is to my mind deliberately shocking to see the rubbish that is served up at indoor entertainments. People rot their minds while spending their time watching such stuff as is given at these variety entertainments that have been introduced into the cinemas. I invite the Minister to put larger taxes on the things that rot the intellect of this country and on the things that really fight against our Gaelic civilisation, and to take off the tax on outdoor sports.
I, too, join with the Deputies who have already spoken in making a very earnest appeal to the Minister to remove the tax on outdoor sports. I rather think that the Minister must himself feel that in putting on this tax on outdoor sports he is not playing the game. At the moment I do not see that wellsatisfied smile on the Minister's face. He is holding down his head. Is it in shame because of his putting a tax on open air entertainment? While Deputy Gorey spoke of his admiration for the beauty and physique of the ladies of Dublin, he did not say a single word in support of the games they play. The Minister has a great many admirers amongst the young ladies of Dublin.
Perhaps I may be permitted to tell a little story of something that happened at an international hockey match about the time of the General Election. There were certain advertisements appearing on the hoardings at the time, not the advertisements that Deputy McGilligan has been reading for us here lately. These advertisements carried photographs of a certain group of candidates. These photographs were distributed amongst some of the ladies who attended the international hockey match. Whether this is now casting a reflection on their standard of intelligence may be another matter, but some of these young ladies on being shown the photographs of this particular group said: "We will vote for Deputy MacEntee because he is the best looking of the lot." And now this is how Deputy MacEntee rewards his admirers by putting on taxes on lawn tennis and hockey. I am glad to know that he has excluded hurling, because several of the young ladies of Dublin play hurling.
If the Minister for Finance lived where I do, on the north side, near the Dalymount Soccer grounds, he would at once realise that in putting a tax on Soccer football he is penalising tens of thousands of the working people of Dublin. There are as many as three or four matches there each month. Sometimes when one sees the spectators coming away from the Dalymount grounds one really wonders where they have all come from, the crowd is so large. I would appeal to the Minister, if he does not see his way to remove the tax on the higher-priced seats, that he would at least take the tax off the sixpenny seats. The same thing applies to Rugby. We have to look at things as they are and not as some of us would like them to be. We might wish everybody in the country to play Gaelic football, but everyone who sees the very large attendances at the Soccer and Rugby matches will see how large is the hold these games have amongst the people.
I might mention that the Christian Brothers, who might be regarded by some people as real die-hards in the matter of Gaelic games and who at one time would not touch anything but Gaelic games, have now some of the best Rugby football teams in the country. The Minister will be doing the big thing, the decent and the generous thing, and he will be playing the game if he remits this tax on outdoor sports.
I am not going to enter now into a dissertation on games and the talk about the great advantage of developing a sound mind in a sound body, but if the Minister wishes to fall into line with the general feelings of everybody in the House as well as the general feelings of the people outside, he will remit this tax and forego the relatively small amount that he will get from it in the end.
I am quite sure if some of the games are not safe those that are played by ladies are now safe after Deputy Mrs. Collins-O'Driscoll's appeal to the pretty Minister.
I said the good-looking Minister.
Very well, good-looking. I am very glad that we are discussing only portion of the tax that was originally imposed. Very important concessions have been given to a large number of people in this country, both people who indulge in games and people who content themselves by looking on at games. I wish the Government could see their way to make further concessions so far as the other games that still remain under the tax are concerned. If they did make concessions they would at least have it to their credit that on one occasion, at any rate, they gave way to arguments put up by different portions of the House and did not succumb merely to the pressure of big battalions organised from outside. The concessions given by the Government, possibly after a considerable amount of pressure, are important concessions. With the other Deputies who have spoken on this matter I would like to make an appeal to the Government to make further concessions so far as all classes of outside amusements are concerned.
I thoroughly agree with what Deputy Sir James Craig and Deputy Hayes said. You are really doing damage to the country by raising money in this way. I remember the relief it was to a good many people, myself included, when, after certain, very troubled and disturbed times in Europe and in this country we saw for the first time on the placards of the evening papers, not such and such a disaster or outrage, but references to the results of certain sports and games. It was a tremendous relief, because it at least meant that the country was interesting itself in matters other than mere politics. Of course, the question of politics is very important, and no one can deny it; but it is equally important that the people should interest themselves in ordinary health matters.
I know of a number of countries in which, during recent years, they have made very determined efforts—and it did require a great deal of organisation—to organise sports. I daresay they had such a thing as gymnastic instruction in schools to the full, perhaps too much of it. It was evident, however, that they were beginning to realise the value of outdoor sports from a national point of view. They realised the value, not alone to the people who indulged in these sports, but to those people who desired to look on. They made every effort to promote outdoor games. In those countries they had not the tradition that exists here, and it did require a great effort on their part to establish outdoor games.
I think the Minister should seriously consider whether it would not be advisable to grant the concessions asked for in the various amendments that have been submitted. I know pretty well that discrimination is now almost the life-blood of the present Ministry. They can hardly breathe in the purer air of fair treatment for everybody. I think they should make an effort on this occasion, because there is no question of politics involved, to show that they do not want discrimination in the matter of outdoor games.
Deputy Hayes has pointed out the extraordinary subtleties in which the Ministry can indulge where fundamental principles are concerned. We have had evidence that at the most solemn morning functions certain fundamental principles stood in the way of Ministers in order to prevent them donning normal European dress. In the darkness of the night, however, there appears to be no objection, and no one can be more resplendent than the Minister for Finance and other Ministers.
What relation has this splendour to playing football of any type?
At the moment I am dealing with the principle of discrimination which is so engraved in the minds of the Ministry that it comes in almost everywhere; it comes in even in all those amendments we are now discussing. I quite admit I have not seen the Minister for Finance playing football, or any other game; I doubt if he ever did play. The matter, however, is a serious one. Concessions have already been made in the case of Gaelic football. That was a tremendous relief to those interested in that particular game all over the country. Everybody was delighted that the Ministry made that concession. Similarly, everyone was glad when the concession on horse-racing was granted. Again, that was granted after considerable pressure organised from the outside. It amazed a good many people that such a tax should have been put on in the first instance. Even when the Ministry did give way, for some subtle reason which was never made quite clear, they put the tax on again in order to take it off. If you examine the Bill and the Schedule you will observe that is the method in which they did do it.
References have been made to ancient games in this country. Deputy Gorey was very reticent in one particular respect. He did not refer to a sport for which he pleaded earnestly on other occasions. I refer to coursing. That certainly can claim to be as ancient a sport as any in this country. The value of outdoor sports from the point of view of health cannot be over-estimated. There are many reasons why the Ministry should make a generous concession. They should remember that if they penalise those who look on at outdoor sports, they really penalise the sports. They will penalise them to the extent of depriving them of the public interest, which, to a certain extent, forms their very breath of life. A tax on the attendance would be quite as injurious as a direct tax on the people who indulge in sport.
I will appeal to the Ministry to give way on this one occasion, and leave aside the policy of discrimination. From various portions of the House, from this side, at all events, and from the Independent Benches, appeals have been made on the grounds of the creation of a good, sound, public spirit, and on the grounds of public health. I believe that by the imposition of any tax of this sort the Government are indirectly doing a great deal more damage to public health than can be counterbalanced by even double or treble the contributions they may make to hospitals and various other things.
I want to add only one remark to what I said on another occasion. I want to get part of the Minister to appeal to himself. I fancy the idea that will appeal to him most is the idea of a united, national Ireland. I do not know whether he has ever been to Lansdowne Road when Ireland has been beating a visiting team. If he has not I wish he would go on some such occasion and hear 50,000 people shout for Ireland when Ireland scores a try. If he could experience that I do not think he would put this tax on outdoor games.
A few evenings ago in the Dáil, in discussing the Finance Bill generally, Deputy Dillon elicited an interjection from me to the effect that the tax on outdoor amusements would be properly before the Dáil on the Committee Stage, I should try to convince him that the G.A.A. was really a national movement, an absolutely national organisation, and that consequently it was exempted from taxation by the Minister for Finance. It was exempted on national and cultural grounds. The Dáil will pardon me, I hope, if I refer in detail to some of the activities of the G.A.A. It must have been a great revelation to the Soccer and Rugby people who visited Croke Park on the occasion of the last all-Ireland final, when they saw revealed to them the heart of Ireland for the first time. They must have been delighted and I hope converted. The G.A.A. is a national movement inas-much as it promotes those games which preserve a continuing sense of integral national existence; and cultural because it actually supports the language and the liberation of the Gael. It is really in terms of athleticism an expression of our distinctive nationality. On these grounds, thus broadly stated, the G.A.A. has hitherto succeeded in making good its claim for exemption from the provisions of taxation on outdoor games and amusements. In a debate in the Dáil, which was somewhat differently constituted, I think last July— the Official Reports may be referred to —there was a Vote taken here in which a discrimination was made in favour of Gaelic games by a majority of the House. If discrimination was justifiable then, surely it is justifiable now. Deputy Blythe who took a prominent part in the debate on that occasion. and who justified the preferential treatment for the G.A.A., is certainly unconvincing and inconsistent when he states now that the discrimination of the present Minister for Finance is excessive. The G.A.A. resisted attempted impositions of similar taxation in the days of the British regime and they were not enforced during the term of office of the last Government. Surely it is not expected that a Fianna Fáil Government is now going to tax the principle of Irish nationality that is embodied in the work of the G.A.A.
Nobody said a word against it.
Therefore the Minister is justified in exempting it on national and cultural grounds.
Certainly.
There are other considerations which single out the G.A.A. from other athletic-promoting bodies in the country. It should be clearly understood that whilst being absolutely and essentially national, it is a purely amateur athletic organisation. Professionalism, it cannot be denied, is a feature of Soccer football in Ireland and the superiority complex is very much associated with Rugby.
That is absolutely untrue.
I believe it is, and I have as much experience as the Deputy. That is the general feeling of the plain people. Otherwise why do you not associate yourselves with the plain people and play the national games? Are they not as good intrinsically as imported games?
They will not be let.
They will be let. There is nothing to prevent them.
Members of the Gaelic Athletic Association are not allowed to play foreign games.
What is preventing them?
The ban.
Membership of the G.A.A. is open to every Irish national, exclusive of class, creed or political affiliations.
It is known to everybody.
Is it not a fact that if a Gaelic player plays Soccer he is expelled?
We are not now discussing the rules of any organisation.
The G.A.A. is open to any Irishman. We have no divided allegiance in the G.A.A. They accept wholeheartedly loyalty to the ideal of Irish nationality when they enter there. As you mentioned bans, I know places where Irish games are not promoted in any circumstances. Why do not the devotees of Rugby, who say that hurling, being a traditional national game, is one of the finest games in the world, go in for hurling? There are a sufficiently large number of clubs to have a good competition. If they are sincere in their statement regarding the worth of hurling as a game, why do they not promote hurling bodies amongst themselves? Let them ask themselves that question. Professionalism or snobbery may be a good lure for the boy or man who can dexterously kick or head a ball, but the G.A.A. has to rely on the national appeal and the innate value of Gaelic games for the purpose of attracting patronage. The revenue of the G.A.A. is derived from those who patronise the games. So as to ensure that the games for which the G.A.A. caters shall be free from contamination, it prohibits all forms of gambling. The rules in respect of gambling are rigidly enforced.
Does the Deputy believe that?
I do.
That is nonsense.
At every Gaelic match the bookmaker is conspicuous by his absence.
Even so, the money is on.
No foreign dances are permitted, so that the dangerous or demoralising influences which Deputy MacDermot has referred to are absent from the G.A.A. No foreign dances are permitted on penalty of automatic suspension, thereby forbidding re-course to a generally recognised source of revenue associated with the activity of other athletic bodies. On the contrary, all G.A.A. clubs are exhorted and encouraged to promote and popularise the Ceilidhe and other distinctively Irish forms of entertainment, and its efforts in this direction are gratifyingly successful. The G.A.A. also shows its practical patriotism by supporting native manufactures. All paper officially used must bear the Irish watermark and all official "toggery" must, too, be of home manufacture. I should like to know how the promoters of non-native games stand in this regard. There is nothing compulsory about Irish goods in their programme. Some of them even import their players and referees and pay them handsomely. The G.A.A. also finances a monthly paper devoted to the propagation of Irish-Ireland ideas. This is now being converted into a weekly organ, absorbing amongst other organs "An Claidheam Soluis," the official organ of the Gaelic League. This national enterprise was guaranteed financially by the G.A.A., and its members are amongst the foremost contributors to its columns, showing the widespread activity of the association in its national work.
The Association is also preparing a scheme of scholarships, tenable at a well-known Irish-Ireland college, which will involve very large financial commitments. It also promotes the Irish language by having it mandatory that all its correspondence shall be addressed in Irish. No communication receives official recognition unless it is addressed in Irish, and an increasing amount of Irish is used at all its congresses and conventions, and on the playing fields, particularly in the schools' and colleges' minor and juvenile competitions. In many of these competitions, Irish is the language entirely used, and I am glad to say that that is progressively so. All the moneys received by the Association are utilised for the promotion and development of the games and in purchasing clothing and playing fields, and financing first-class teams to give exhibitions outside the country annually. The visits of our teams to Great Britain and to America are known to all the members of the Dáil. They are sent outside the country, at the expense of the Association here, to give first-class exhibitions of the game, in order to sustain and encourage our exiled kith and kin, who show magnificent loyalty to the games and to the ideals of the motherland.
We have had references made here to the international aspect of foreign games in this country. Anyone who was present at Croke Park last Sunday saw four countries competing in the national game of hurling. There were representative teams there from South Africa, America, Great Britain and Ireland, and, on the opening day of the Tailteann Games, there was the Scottish shinty team, playing the old traditional game of hurling. There are new lines of advance about to be embarked upon by the G.A.A. which will give an international character to these games, which will, perhaps, be of much greater value to the country than that which Rugby enjoys at the moment.
Reference was also made by Deputy J.J. Byrne to the huge crowds that patronise our finals at Croke Park, but that gives an exaggerated idea of our financial position. Until this year, we were working against a very heavy bank overdraft, but two draws in the all-Ireland hurling final this year strengthened our finances, so that we got out of debt. We have commitments, at the moment, that have placed us on the wrong side of the account, and the earlier matches in the championship, and particularly those in the junior and minor competitions, are usually run at a loss and have to be recouped later on when the semi-finals and finals are reached.
The House is at present discussing the exemption of certain games from a tax and the Deputy should cut short the history of the G.A.A. and deal with the matter before the House.
The G.A.A. has been mentioned here by several speakers, who said that there should not have been discrimination in favour of Gaelic games as against other forms of outdoor sports in the country. The Minister has exempted Gaelic games on national and cultural grounds and I was countering, perhaps somewhat negatively, the statements made from the other side against the inclusion of the other games in the provisions for taxation.
The Deputy was arguing that other games should be taxed as against Gaelic games.
Might I put this question to the Deputy?
With the Deputy's permission.
With the Deputy's permission, I would like to ask him is it really necessary to the success of the G.A.A. that it should be a tyrannical monopoly? Is it necessary that other games should be crushed out? May I also put this question to him? Does he seriously argue that there is more cultural value in the playing of one particular kind of football than in the playing of another?
We are playing Irish games from the point of view of nationality and Irish culture.
I was rather amused when I heard Deputy Hayes make a most extraordinary statement, coming from the Party he represents. He said it was no business of any Government to coerce. I hope it will sink in. Deputy Brasier told us about the country boys who played Rugby. I never saw any of them.
I did.
It must have been across the water the Deputy saw them. I asked Deputy Alton a question, and I repeat the question to Deputy MacDermot. I would like to know what protest they made in 1920 and 1921 when Gaelic games were banned?
I am afraid that I was in America at the time.
A lot of people like the Deputy are coming along now. I would like to know what action Deputy Alton took?
An t-uan agus an mac-tire.
Is it in order for a Deputy to go back to before 1922?
No, it is not in order, nor is the history of 1922.
We will have some order when we hear something about Irish culture.
We will hear that from you, surely. The Deputy talks a lot about playing the game. I wonder what kind of game he played when he threw the wooden gun over the bridge?
This is Gaelic culture with a "K" in it.
I would also like to know, when we hear so much about this national game of Rugby, why they refused to fly the national flag at Lansdowne Road this year. It is good enough for those who claim exemption on the ground of nationality or on the ground of sport. These are a few little matters we would like to have some information about. Deputy the Lord Mayor of Dublin, when speaking here last evening, told us that some 60,000 people attend Soccer matches every week. With a sixpenny gate, that would mean £1,500 and I do not think they can be so badly off as we are told they are. If there are 60,000 attending them, and I am sure they charge more than 6d., but with a sixpenny admission fee, it would amount to £1,500 a week. I do not think there is any occasion for Fianna Fáil to make any apology whatever for exempting Gaelic games and for making an exception in favour of the G.A.A. as against the games which flourished when the G.A.A. was banned—the only games that were allowed to be played in 1920 and 1921 when it was illegal to carry a hurley.
That is not so.
The Deputy has been told that references to 1920 and 1921 on this issue are out of order. If he cannot keep within the rules of order, he will sit down.
Quite all right. I would like to know, in reference to the statement made by the Lord Mayor of Dublin, that 60,000 people attend Soccer matches and pay £1,500 a week at 6d. a head admission fee, how that particular Soccer club can be so badly off?
On a point of order, surely the Deputy must be aware that Soccer, like every other football game, is a seasonal game and that that number of persons do not attend every week but during the season.
That is not a point of order.
Well, a point of explanation.
I said that 60,000 people a week attended Soccer matches. There are twelve clubs, some of them being in Cork, Waterford and Dundalk, and that number of 60,000 was divided over the whole twelve clubs. Surely the Deputy knows that no 60,000 people paid the sum he mentioned to one club.
And only for a period of the year.
At 6d. a head, even for the six or eight weeks they are playing, they pay £1,500 a week.
Mr. Byrne
Divided between twelve clubs.
Divided anyway you like, but the money is there. If those people want to claim exemption on any special grounds, surely they should not have any particular objection to flying the flag which is recognised as the national flag, and if the Rugby Association in this country refuse to fly the national flag of this country, they cannot very well growl if they pay a little for the particular brand of nationality they possess.
Deputy Gibbons has run away from the challenge by Deputy MacDermot as to whether the culture and the athleticism of the Gaelic Athletic Association would be wiped off the map if other games were not discriminated against. He has made no answer to that and I would like the Deputy, who is apparently the spokesman of the Gaelic Athletic Association here, to say on behalf of any man who ever swung a hurley in Tipperary that it would not and the Deputy can throw in the Mooncoin and Tullaroan men as well. The Gaelic games do not depend for their existence on the penalisation of other outdoor sports.
Let the Deputy not be under the impression that I was afraid or shirked a reply to Deputy MacDermot in the form which he wished that reply should take. The Gaelic Athletic Association is quite well able to look after itself. Irish nationality waxes as strong at the moment as ever it did and will continue to do so.
The Deputy was leaving the Gaelic Athletic Association under this stigma, that it was asking for the penalisation of other outdoor games in order that it might live but the Gaelic Athletic Association does not want that.
The conciliatory spirit of the last two speeches, I think, will have demonstrated to the Minister the danger which I have mentioned at an earlier stage in the Bill. The speech which I made on an earlier stage of the Bill was referred to to-day as a challenge to someone. So far as I intended, or so far as I am aware, I have not challenged anybody about anything at any juncture of this Bill. What I did say to the Minister earlier was this: I asked him to remember that wounds inflicted by weapons heal and wounds of another character often remain to fester. It was the original intention of the Minister when he introduced this Bill to tax all meetings of this character, dances and other amusements. Deputy Murphy in his speech at an earlier stage said he would support the Minister in that course, that he would be no party to an agitation to relieve amusements or sports from taxation so long as social services were still required and not yet available. I think Deputy Murphy's view is a short-sighted view. It is very easy to allow one's sentimentality to run away with one and to take the view that until all social services are available for the public you should tax everything that is not at first glance of vital necessity, but I think this debate will have impressed upon the Minister that on mature reflection sports or athletics of any kind are eminently desirable. I do not think I exaggerate when I say that those who organise healthy sports of any kind are engaged in a most valuable social service and far from withholding money from social services as a whole by remitting taxation on sport, I would submit to the Minister that by remitting taxation on sports he is by that remission assisting most valuable social services that the people of the country are prepared to promote without any Government assistance at all.
I join most cordially with some Deputies who have deprecated spoon-feeding for one game in particular. I do earnestly submit to the Minister that any decent athletic occupation for young boys or girls is desirable and that any athletic amusement which engages the interest and the enthusiasm of young people in friendly rivalry is invaluable and provides a training which I must say I think is evidently lacking in some members of this House on occasions. I think sports are the very occupation which trains one to join in games, in a debate or anything else, to allow one's opponent to do his best and to do the best one's self without having any ill-feeling afterwards. It avoids that deplorable tendency to feel injury and insult that is sometimes manifest amongst some members of this House. As I have said, the observations I made at an earlier stage of the debate brought Deputy Curran to his feet. He felt that I was saying something calculated to disparage one particular branch of sport in this country. Another Deputy on my right felt that I was challenging him to demonstrate that one particular branch of sport in this country was a good branch of sport and in keeping with the best national traditions of the country. Nothing I said could be reasonably so interpreted. Nothing I said was intended in any way to produce that reaction.
I think if my friends on my right had engaged in all sports they might realise that I had no desire to engage in a discussion into which any acrimony had to be imported at all. I pointed out to the Minister that the very touch of acrimony that has entered into the debate is a warning of the very deep feeling that will inevitably be stirred up if the public at large believe that the Minister is discriminating between different sections of the community who are only divided by their allegiance to a particular game. As has been emphasised again and again, the President has played Rugby in his day and played it well. My experience is that I played Rugby and Gaelic football, and when I was playing both I do not think it ever occurred to me that there was any particularly vital or desperate difference between the two, and I do not think whatever aptitude I had for either was impaired by my engaging in the other.
I should like to say in conclusion that the suggestion has been made that some of these sports are rolling in money and are well able to pay the tax. I wonder is the Minister aware of the fact that at least one branch of sport, which staged a particular event in the Tailteann Games, where the very best talent was displayed and where everything was done by way of producing good talent to make it an attractive event, lost £100 on a three days' display. They lost it because people did not turn out and people would not pay the entrance fee. I can only assume they did not pay the entrance fee because they found it was a tax on their pockets. I submit to the Minister that it is very undesirable to proceed in this way. I appreciate fully the difficulty in which the Minister finds himself when it becomes a question of abandoning one item of taxation altogether, but I believe that the Minister should take our view that differentiation between one form of sport and another in principle is undesirable. If with generosity he could meet that view and withdraw this tax I believe the withdrawal would be accepted in the spirit in which he would offer it. I think the withdrawal or the remission of this amusement tax would be accepted in the spirit in which he offered it, and, if I might say so with great respect, if he took up that attitude it would raise him still further, if that were possible, in the esteem of all of us.
I should like to echo the remarks of the last speaker. The Minister should remember that he is not merely a Minister for Finance for Fianna Fáil. He is a Minister for Finance for all of us, and his Government is the Government of various sections of the people. We have had here for two days a discussion similar to those which we had in previous years. In these discussions there has been a continuous improvement in the broadmindedness and in the intelligence displayed by the representatives of the people. It has shown a continuous improvement on the broadmindedness and the intelligence of the representatives of the people. It is quite true that last year, when a similar motion was put down by Deputy Dr. Myles Keogh, it was defeated by an unholy combination of the Fianna Fáil Party and the Executive Council of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, all of whom voted with Fianna Fáil, I think, with the honourable exception of the then Minister for Agriculture. Deputy Gibbons is quite correct when he says that this principle of differentiation is not new and has not been invented by the present Minister. It was invented by his predecessor, if I may say so. The fact is that, as far as Soccer football is concerned, we have to fight not only against the misrepresentation of our country abroad by the Northeners, but also against the differentiation of various Northern Ministers of Finance in this part of the country.
Is it any wonder, then, that members of the Association come to believe that this is the result of some hidden hand, of some hidden red and bloody hand acting against this country. This debate, until the last half-hour or so, was conducted solely by the members on this side of the House, and it was the same also on the last occasion when the matter was discussed, and there has been a remarkable absence of comment from the Labour Party. I think it was Deputy Byrne who mentioned the fact that the first motion put down for equality amongst citizens in this matter of the taxing of sports was put down by Deputy O'Connell, who was then leader of the Labour Party. Now, however, the Labour Party, in the words of Dionysius the Areopagite, has shown itself to be "in the superluminous obscurity of sweet-sounding silence." We cannot, I suppose, hope that they will break away from their apparent subservience to what they think is the official opinion.
We are ourselves alone.
A Deputy
Be yourself.
In the old days when the Labour Party was a free Party, it was a different matter, but now, when they have reached the bellboy or the bell-hop stage, they are not in a position to give their opinion until they hear first from their masters.
We are our own masters.
I am afraid that they have become a football in Party politics. I am glad that the Gaelic Athletic Association has been relieved of any taxation by this Bill. I say so, not because of the fact that the County Wexford has made a sensational recovery in the ranks of Gaelic football in the last season, but it is certainly one commendation for the Bill.
Last year, the Minister for Finance was then Deputy MacEntee, and his remarks on the debate, which was similar to this, were reasonable. They were the kind of remarks which you would expect Deputy Blythe to make this year. He said that he would like every Irishman to play the game that most appeals to him. He had no sympathy with the policy of exclusion of the Gaelic Athletic Association. The President, on the same occasion, made perhaps the most sensible speech in the debate. He said: "If I had my way I would not tax any game. But there is a case for giving special encouragement to hurling, for example. I would prefer to see encouragement given in a positive way, rather than by exclusion from tax. I dislike very much taxing outdoor sports as we have not enough of them." The President said: "If I had my way I would not tax any game." Apparently, not even Presidents have their way when they have to deal with the Department of Finance. Not only in this House was that the case, but representative opinion of the Government Party outside has not been hostile to sports which are condemned here as being foreign in the sense that they were of foreign origin. On the contrary, the Government organ has given very excellent accounts of these sports, and, in fact, the sports section of the Government organ compares favourably with that of other papers.
Especially the tips.
For instance, last December, when there were two representative teams here representing South Africa and Spain, the leading article of "The Irish Press" said that "Ireland welcomes these foreign teams—that it was good for Ireland to renew its contact with the Continent and other countries in the field of sports." If the international influences of sport are to be discouraged and taxed out of existence by the action of the Government, it will make it almost impossible for Ireland to be adequately and properly represented in international contests. I think the Minister was misinformed in the actual figures put before him by his subordinate as to the possibilities of taxation from sports. He has mentioned the sum of, I think, £29,000 out of outdoor sports —or perhaps it was £24,000. As far as I know, the amount he would get from Association football would be at the very most £6,000, and very probably less than £4,000, this year, on the present basis, because we cannot expect that people will be in the position to attend matches with the same regularity as formerly in face of the ordinary depression which is upon us, and in face of the extraordinary depression which is almost bound to come upon us now. I think the Minister will find that he has made a gross over-estimate as regards the money he will receive from this tax, so that if he agreed to forego it the sacrifice will not be so great as he thinks it will be. I hope the Minister will give consideration to the arguments laid before him from all parts of the House, and that he will realise that by making this concession to so widespread a demand, he will be winding up the session in a sportsman like manner, and will be sending Deputies home in a pleasant frame of mind.
I shall be very brief in what I have to say, and I am not driven to speak because of the invitation given by Deputy Esmonde. I am expressing my own point of view, and not that of anybody else, in this matter. There has been a good deal of talk in this debate about discrimination. We are told that it is discrimination against; everyone used that phrase. But surely it is generally accepted that the genius of a nation finds expression in many ways, in music, sport, games, etc. It cannot be said that we are discriminating against the cultural value of French or German because we discriminate in favour of Irish. If the genius of our people has found expression in a particular kind of game we are entitled to support it. But to state that we are discriminating against other forms of sport by discriminating in favour of another, is not right. We are not discriminating, against any other form of game. We are discriminating in favour of our own. It may be a negative form of discrimination, but we are not in a position to adopt a positive form of discrimination. If people argued the other way it would be that they wanted to put every game on the same level, and, therefore, they are arguing that this is a discrimination against, when it is a discrimination in favour of the Irish game. How are you to discriminate in favour of Irish games? You must either say you have no Irish games or you have. Other people can play what games they like and are quite entitled to do so. They have a cultural value, a physical value and an athletic value, but how discriminate with regard to the peculiar Irish form of sport?
It is not a peculiarly Irish form of sport. Hurling is, but football is not.
Mr. Hogan
I am not qualified to go back so far as Deputy Gorey is, but certain games are accepted as a peculiar kind of Irish sport for a long time. There is no use trying to argue the matter on the Deputy's basis. The point I make is: This is a discrimination against no form of sport; it is a discrimination in favour of the kind of sport peculiar to ourselves, and that is the reason I am in favour of supporting this tax.
I must confess, at the start, that I could not follow the particular line of argument advanced by Deputy Hogan that a tax on games or commodities is not discrimination against a particular game or commodity. We have a tax imposed on imports into this country and these taxes have been defended here for many weeks, and the defence was that they are a discriminating tax against particular imports——
Mr. Hogan
In favour of the home products.
I do not know what they are in favour of, but what I am pointing out is that no one would argue that there is not a discrimination against certain games in this section. It is quite inaccurate for anyone to assume that because an individual stands up here and advocates that certain forms of athletics should not be penalised that that individual is necessarily against any other form of athletics. I heartily welcome the Minister's exemption of the G.A.A. in all its branches. I think it would be a shame if such a tax were imposed, and I think that followers of Rugby and Soccer, and other games, would equally welcome G.A.A. pastimes being exempt, because they are pastimes that the majority of the people regard as healthy. And why not view other games as healthy in the natural life of the country, as unifying things that go to the training of both body and mind and withdraw them altogether from the operations of these clauses of the Budget?
As Deputy the Lord Mayor of Dublin pointed out, the game that is followed with great interest by the poor in this city is the game of Soccer. To have to pay an extra penny for admission will mean a very great deal to these very poor people. It will interfere with their enjoyment of an evening's pleasure. Does the Minister for Finance, or anybody else, argue that the boys of Ringsend or Sandymount are any worse Irishmen than those living in other parts of the country, because they usually attend Soccer football matches? Down in Ringsend and Sandymount the Minister may have plenty of friends and supporters, and during the recent elections he would never have thrown it in their teeth that they were worse Irishmen because they were Soccer supporters.
I fought an election in the city and I was opposed by a very distinguished Soccer player, perhaps one of the best Dublin ever produced. The Fianna Fáil Party did not imply that he was any less patriotic because he was a Soccer player. On the contrary, a handbill was issued by his supporters with the motto, "Give it to So-and-So." He sits in this House now and is, I am sure, a friend of the Soccer players.
Yet not a word did we hear from him.
Perhaps he will now put in a word of defence of those poor deluded Soccer players. Candidly, I cannot understand this discrimination. I could understand the Government taking such an intense interest in sport that they decided to subsidise some particular form of sport. If there was a vote taken here to subsidise any sport I would be in favour of it, no matter who advanced the suggestion. But if it is impossible for the Government to subsidise sport, at any rate, they need not penalise it. There is a lot of confusion in the minds of some people as to what is Irish sport and what is non-Irish sport. Personally I think as good a Committee as could possibly decide that question is the Committee of the Tailteann Games. During the past two weeks you had very many of the sports that are penalised here recognised by the Tailteann Games. You had sports that some narrow-minded people might regard as "foreign games" played as part of the Tailteann Games. I do not want to get into the historical argument. I am not well posted in history, and I do not think it would serve a very useful purpose to go back and find out exactly whether it was a round ball or an oblong ball was kicked from village to village a couple of centuries ago. I think we might waste a considerable amount of time trying to ascertain the shape or the name of that particular ball, and having wasted all that time every one would still cling to the opinion he had before he opened a book to look it up. I think we should be big enough to do this. We should be generous enough to do so, and to recognise that, although it is a painful necessity to tax any commodity, the last things we should tax are the pleasures of the people, which lead to development of character, the development of health and a spirit of discipline inside the person.
Mr. Lynch
I am assuming that amendment 58 is not being discussed with this group.
The Minister suggests that it should be. I understood that has not been discussed so far, and I prevented Deputy Gorey from referring to coursing on that understanding. However, the Minister says that all the amendments to Section 22 are being discussed.
Surely that is a matter for the Chair and not for the Minister.
I am leaving it to the House to decide whether it should be dealt with now.
Before Deputy Morrissey intervenes I would like to say that I understand the debate on this section, which began on Tuesday night, ranged over the whole thing, that everything was being discussed in the general discussion, and that we were to have separate divisions afterwards.
You will remember, sir, that, not having been in the House for the debate previously, I thought it unfair that the discussion was as wide as it was, and that dancing should be dragged across what was a discussion on sports. You rule, sir, on amendments 54, 54a, 55, 56, and 59.
And amendment 211.
That is consequential. I think it would shorten the debate if we finished this, and if the discussion were more vocal.
Will the House take a decision on these amendments now?
Leaving out amendment 58.
May I remind the House that there was an agreement between all sections to complete the Committee Stage to-day and to allow the Second Reading Stage of the Housing Bill to commence to-morrow. In most of the speeches we have heard, no regard whatever has been paid to that agreement, because they ranged from the robust appearance of Dublin ladies on the one hand to silk hats on the other hand.
And pretty Ministers.
Surely the Deputy will believe me when I say that I was too modest to refer to that, even though I admit that Deputy Mrs. Collins-O'Driscoll, who mentioned it, showed that she knew how to appeal to the vanity of man. I do not know what the silk hat has to do with the debate, except that possibly more than half a century ago it was regarded as the correct form of headgear for those who wanted to play cricket. It has been dragged in by the Cumann na nGaedheal Opposition, as it was dragged in in other sections of this Bill. I do not see why it should be dragged in except that they wish to erect the silk hat here as a sort of religious symbol in endeavouring to re-establish possibly the oval cult long ago vanished.
I submit that the Minister has spent more time talking about tall hats since he came here than was spent during the last three hours.
I have listened to inconsequent talk for three hours.
That is what you are doing.
If it has nothing to do with the debate, why was it brought in, except to waste time? Why mention tall hats at all except to waste time. I admit that possibly I am optimistic but the silk hat has become an obsession with Cumann na nGaedheal. It shows how flimsy the whole criticism of the Budget has been when in a debate on the Budget Resolutions they have to bring in as an argument the silk hat.
Do not mind the shape of the hat.
Most of the speeches that were made on this section seemed to me to have been made through silk hats.
In order to dispose of the matter for the last time will the Minister say what is the most recent decision of the Executive Council on the matter?
I must ask the Deputy to refrain from interrupting. He has become almost as impossible as Deputy Gorey. The whole of this debate proceeded on two misapprehensions, the first being that there was a tax on players—a tax on games—and the second was that the Exchequer had money to give away. I am not approaching this matter as the advocate of one particular game as against another. I am remembering what Deputy Esmonde reminded me of, that I am not merely the Minister for Finance for a Party. If I were Minister for Finance for a Party I would possibly concede everything that the Opposition is asking for, in order that I might get out of that concession the political capital which the Opposition are seeking to secure by making what they know to be impossible requests. I am here as Minister for Finance for the people of this State, to secure, if I can, the revenue which will permit me to finance the public services which the people of this State require. In order to do that, I have had to put a tax on entertainments, as I have had to continue the tax which the preceding Government put on the food and the clothing of the people. As I could not remit the tax on food I am not remitting the tax on entertainments. I would like to correct Deputies who do not seem to have examined this case before they put up impossible demands. I repeat again that this is not a tax upon games. It is a tax upon those who go to see games as entertainment. There is nothing in this section which will prevent Deputy Sir James Craig from going out and playing again that four-some with the professor from University College, and there is nothing which will prevent those robust young ladies to whom Deputy Gorey referred, from going out with their tennis racquets and playing their games of tennis. There is nothing which will prevent the rowing crew to whom Deputy Anthony referred—and judging from the Deputy's speech he seems to be the beau ideal of sportsmen—going out and rowing again. We are not interfering with, and we are not taxing individuals playing games. We are taxing those who go to see games as entertainment, just as we are taxing workers who go to see cinema pictures as entertainment.
It is taxing games.
Discrimination with a difference.
We have to tax them because we have to provide money to carry on the public services. To yield to the demands made by the Opposition would cost us this year not less than £59,000. If I yielded to them I should have to give up some essential services. For instance, I would have to withdraw the Vote for Forestry for which service we have to provide £66,000. I would have to withdraw the item for the Development of Marine Industries in Vote 54, amounting to £60,000. I would have to withdraw the item of £56,000 which appears against the railway Vote. I would like to direct the attention of the former Minister for Defence, and I believe a former Chief-of-Staff, to the fact that I would have to withdraw from Vote 65, subheads A and B, which provide for wound and disability pensions for ex-members of the forces, and allowances and gratuities to deceased members' relatives and to the dependents of ex-members of the forces. I should have to do one of these things if I yielded to the demands which have been put up by the Opposition. Now, they can choose. Do they want me to withdraw subheads A and B of Vote 65? Do they want me to discontinue paying wound and disability pensions or allowances to dependents of their old comrades? We have got to look at the matter on that basis and on no other. I have given away on this section every possible concession I can and I have got to stand fast for the rest of the money. There is no answer to that and there can be no answer to it. I have got to stand fast, not because I am Minister for Finance for a Fianna Fáil Party only, but because I am Minister for Finance charged to serve the whole people of this country and to procure on their behalf the moneys to carry on the public services which they deem necessary.
I should like to say a few words on this question——
The understanding was that the Minister rose to conclude the debate on some six amendments.
I do not think so.
The Chair thinks so. The House is with me in that opinion.
Do I understand that all the other amendments are being dealt with now?
A division is about to be taken to cover amendments 54, 54a, 55, 56, 59 and 211.
I should like to put a question to the Minister. Is it not a fact that when he introduced his Budget he had incorporated in it proposals for the taxation of all games? I feel that the Minister is not acting fairly in putting a tax on certain games and not putting a tax on other games. It is not a question of losing £60,000 or giving pensions to wounded soldiers. It is a question of differentiation.
Amendment 54, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 54a not moved.
I move amendment 55:—
To delete sub-section (3) and substitute the following—
(3) On and after the 30th day of May, 1932, entertainments duty shall not be charged or levied on any entertainment as respects which it is proved to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners that the entertainment consists solely of an exhibition of all or any of the following games or sports, that is to say:—
(a) games of football;
(b) games of badminton;
(c) gymnastic displays not involving the use or participation of horses, dogs, or other animals or the use of mechanically propelled vehicles;
(d) boxing contests at or in connection with which no money is awarded or paid to any of the contestants whether as prizes, remuneration or otherwise;
(e) any games or sports which are ordinarily played or contested out-of-doors by two or more persons or by two or more groups of persons and do not involve the use or participation of horses, dogs, or other animals or the use of mechanically propelled vehicles.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 58.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Clery, Micheál.
- Colbert, James.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Curran, Patrick Joseph.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Everett, James.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Gormley, Francis.
- Gorry, Patrick Joseph.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- Norton, William.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas J.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brasier, Brooke.
- Broderick, William Jos.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Coburn, James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Davis, Michael.
- Desmond, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Gorey, Denis John.
- Hassett, John J.
- Hayes, Michael.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Keating, John.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Kiersey, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McDonogh, Fred.
- MacEoin, Seán.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Brien, Eugene P.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Reilly, John Joseph.
- O'Shaughnessy, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Mrs. Mary.
- Roddy, Martin.
- White, John.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.
Question declared carried.
Amendment 56 not moved.
I move amendment 57:—
To delete sub-section (4) of Section 22.—(Earnán de Blaghd).
This is a drafting amendment, and I think the Minister might accept it.
Yes, it is a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 58:—
At the end of sub-section (4) to add the words "or on payments for admission to any entertainment as respects which it is proved to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners that the entertainment consists solely of one or more courses between greyhounds."—(Fionán O Loingsigh; John M. O'Sullivan; Daniel Morrissey.)
Mr. Lynch
This is in addition to the sub-sections which have been deleted. The subject can be raised on my amendment 212 on the Schedule. It is really not so much a matter of entertainment. It is a commercial matter.
Does the Deputy desire to have the amendment postponed?
Mr. Lynch
I think it would be more advisable. If you like we will take it now.
There is one advantage in the suggestion which Deputy Lynch made at the beginning. It was agreed that it would be desirable to discuss the Schedules in as great detail as possible to-day in the presence of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and his advisers most of whom will be away to-morrow.
I think the amendment can be raised on the Schedule.
Amendment not moved.
Amendment 59 not moved.
Do I understand the Minister to say that he will take amendments in the Schedule?
Yes.
At what hour?
Immediately.
Amendment 60 not moved.
Question—"That Section 22, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 23.
Where the poor law valuation of the premises in respect of which a licence under Section 2 of the Excise Licences Act, 1826, is taken out or held by a dealer in or seller of tobacco and snuff equals or exceeds ten pounds, there shall be charged, levied and paid, as on and from the 6th day of July, 1932, and in addition to the excise duty now payable on such licence, an excise duty of an amount equal to one per cent. of the poor law valuation of such premises.
I move amendment 62:—
To add at the end of the section, line 29, the words "but not in any case exceeding the sum of five pounds.
If it would meet the case in regard to Section 23, there is an amendment down by Deputy Mulcahy, and I would be prepared to accept that amendment in part. That is to say, if the Deputy would agree to make the limit £10 instead of £5 I would agree.
Very good; I am satisfied.
Does that mean then that this section is agreed to?
Yes, with that amendment. The Minister is accepting the amendment as amended?
Yes.
Deputy Wolfe asked me to move amendment 63, which stands in his name:
To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(2) This section shall not apply to any premises wherein no tobacco is sold save only through the medium of automatic machines."
I will bring in an amendment on the Report Stage that will enable that matter to be discussed.
Thank you.
I move amendments 61 and 61a:—
61. In page 19, line 24, to delete the figures "1826" and substitute the figures "1825."
61a. In page 19, in line 25, to delete the words "equals or," and in line 28, before the word "poor" to insert the words "amount by which the," and in line 29, after the word "premises" to add the words "exceed ten pounds."
These are drafting amendments and I am moving them both.
Amendments 61 and 61a agreed to.
Section 23 as amended put and agreed to.
SECTION 24.
I am moving to insert before Section 24 a new section:—
Before Section 24 to insert a new section as follows:—
(1) There shall be charged, levied, and paid for and upon every licence (in this section referred to as a moneylender's licence) to act and carry on business as a moneylender issued under any Act passed or to be passed during the financial year beginning on the 1st day of April, 1932, an excise duty at the following rates, that is to say:—
(a) on a moneylender's licence expiring on the 31st day of July, 1933—ten pounds;
(b) on a moneylender's licence expiring on the 31st day of July in any year, other than the year 1933, and taken out within six months before such expiry—ten pounds.
(c) on any other moneylender's licence—fifteen pounds.
(2) Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners that there is in force an excise licence to carry on the business of a pawnbroker at any premises in respect of which one or more moneylenders' licences is or are taken out by the individual or individuals carrying on such business the Revenue Commissioners shall—
(a) where only one such moneylender's licence is so taken out remit or, if the duty has been paid, repay one-half of the duty on such licence, and
(b) where two or more such moneylenders' licences are so taken out, remit or, if the duty has been paid, repay one-half of the duty on such one of such licences as is first taken out.
This is a new section designed to make provision for the Moneylenders Bill which will be introduced after the Adjournment. We will possibly have to amend the section on Report but we are getting the principle in now.
Amendment agreed to.
Sections 24 and 25 put and agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
Does not amendment 103 meet amendment 104?
I do not think it does.
They both deal with slate.
Very good.
May I ask if a small statue or a large statue is included under the heading of monumental stone?
No. Monumental stone comes under Reference No. 1. That deals only with stone for building purposes.
Statues are not included, even though they may form part of the building?
They would be an ornamentation on a building.
And they will not be included.
Amendment 103 agreed to:—
At Ref. No. 1, page 27, in the second column, after the word "stone" to insert in brackets the words "(other than slate)".—(Minister for Industry and Commerce).
Amendment 104 not moved.
I move amendment 105 which is as follows:—
At Ref. No. 1, page 27, in the second column after the word "sawing" to add words "or crushing."
This is an amendment which I referred to on the Second Reading of the Bill. It is intended to permit the importation of certain crushed marble for mosaic work and other work of that kind.
Amendment agreed to.
I beg to move amendment 106:—
At Ref. No. 1, second column, after the word "sawing" to add the words "excluding polished black and purple Aberdeen granite."
This has reference to a species of black or—whatever you may like to call it— purple granite that is used extensively in shop fittings. There is no other substitute for it in this country. I understand it cannot be brought in and worked here. There is no machinery available for it and apparently the stone people do not wish to undertake the working of it. This is a class of stone that is very ornamental in appearance; it adds very much to the appearance of the streets. I would like to point out to the Minister that any tax imposed on this granite increases the cost of the very best class of shop front. In that way it adds to the cost of the owner of the building and it will in the long run increase his valuation. Therefore, he is more or less paying for beautifying the appearance of the streets and also he has to pay a permanent additional amount on his valuation. I appeal to the Minister to accept this amendment.
I am afraid it is not possible to accept the amendment. Following representations made by the Deputy and others on the Second Reading debate, officials of my Department consulted the firms engaged in the stone-cutting and working industries and they were very strongly opposed to any modification on the lines now suggested by the Deputy. It is true the polishing of granite is not done here now. It was done some years ago and I have no doubt it will be done again if this duty is maintained in its present form. Marble suitable for shop fronts and similar decorative work is available here in considerable quantities. Limestone almost like marble is being used for that purpose at the moment. It is available in large quantities and, when polished, gives a very fine appearance. The process of working can be done here. The imposition of the duty is to ensure that the process of working will be done here.
Can the Minister indicate any firm that is prepared to polish that granite at the present time? Can he give me the name of any firm prepared to undertake the work? I understand they have been approached and they are not willing to do it.
I do not know what approach the Deputy is referring to. Officials of the Department of Industry and Commerce approached firms and found them opposed to this line. A number of them stated they did polish granite in this country at one time and they would do so again although they were not actually engaged in that process at the moment.
Can the Minister give me the name of a firm prepared to do it?
I cannot mention the name.
Will the Minister give it at a later stage if this amendment is withdrawn? My point is that there is no firm willing to undertake this commercially.
Even if that were so, that no firm intended to engage in this business of polishing granite, my attitude would be unchanged. There is an abundance of marble and limestone available and it can be polished for any purpose for which granite can be used.
They are not sold in commercial quantities.
I may say that in County Cork there is a most beautiful marble—Midleton marble—which is used in many religious buildings. Then there are splendid quarries at Fermoy and, as to Connemara marble, what can surpass it? I have every sympathy with this tariff and I hope the Minister will stand firm on it.
Can the Minister get some information for Deputy Dockrell about marble polishers?
Certainly.
The Minister has indicated that Irish firms were formerly engaged polishing granite. Can he say if there are any firms engaged on that work at the moment?
Yes, there are.
Where are they?
I will supply the Deputy with a list.
I am aware that Connemara marble has been extensively used.
Amendment 106, by leave, withdrawn.
[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]
I beg to move amendment 107:—
At Ref. No. 1, page 27, to insert in the fifth column the following provision:—
Where it appears to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners that an article chargeable with this duty is imported for use in the construction of a building which was in course of construction on the 12th day of May, 1932, the Revenue Commissioners may, subject to compliance with such conditions as they think fit to impose, permit such article to be imported without payment of this duty or repay any such duty paid on such article.
This amendment is submitted to meet the case put forward by Deputy Coburn, and one or two similar cases. This deals with cases where cut stone had been ordered for a building that was in course of construction when the Budget was introduced. Duty would have to be paid upon that stone if this amendment were not inserted. The purpose of the amendment is to enable the Revenue Commissioners to permit the importation of such stone; that is, stone intended for a building in course of construction on 12th May. That stone will be imported free of duty in order to enable the building to be completed.
I am very glad the Minister has introduced this amendment. It will be a great boon to contractors who are at the moment engaged completing buildings for which they contracted previous to the imposition of this tariff.
Amendment agreed to.
The following amendments appeared on the Paper:—
108. To delete Ref. No. 3, including relevant references in columns 2, 3, 4 and 5—(Deputy Blythe).
109. At Ref. No. 3, second column, to delete the words "or steel."— (Deputy McGilligan).
I beg to move amendment 108. This is one of the matters for which a very weak case was made. There has been no indication of any substantial employment being given as a result of this tariff. I think it is going to add to the cost of these articles in an unreasonable way.
The Deputy's information is not altogether correct. It is true that the total employment given in the industry of galvanised domestic hollow-ware and the like is not very large, but it is not inconsiderable. That employment is now being given and the firms are engaged in this industry. It seems to me to be a type of industry eminently suitable to the country and which should be fostered in every way, and the imposition of the duty has already had the effect of resulting in considerable development of it.
Could the Minister give a rough idea of the employment he anticipates?
I cannot say what the actual employment being given is, but I know that one firm has intimated their intention to take on additional hands each week for a considerable period to come.
Is it 50 or 250?
It would be in or about 50, I think, at the moment.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 110:—
At Ref. No. 3, page 27, in the second column, after the word "ridgings" to insert the words "which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, are primarily intended for carrying off rain-water."
That amendment is necessary for the purpose of clarification. It was intended that the "ridgings" referred to should be rain-water ridgings. There is some doubt as to the interpretation that might be attached to the word, and so we are inserting the amendment.
The Minister adverts there to galvanised ridgings primarily intended for carrying off rain-water. Ridgings for barns could be used interchangeably for gutter ridgings.
If the Revenue Commissioners are of opinion that the ridgings are intended for carrying off rain-water they are subject to duty.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 111:—
At Ref. No. 3, second column, after the word "ridgings" to add the words "excluding galvanised wrought steel and wrought iron tubes and fittings made by the buttwelded, lapwelded or solid drawn process."
I should like to ask the Minister to tell us what exactly he does want to cover in Reference No. 3. For instance, I rather imagine, but it is for him to say, that by galvanised gutters, pipes and ridgings he meant downpipes and ridgings. Perhaps he will tell us whether that is true, and whether he intends to tax galvanised tubes.
No. It is intended that the tax will apply only to goods primarily intended for the carrying of rain-water.
You accept the principle of my amendment that galvanised tubes are not included?
Rainwater goods only.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 112:
At Ref. No. 3, second column, after the word "ridgings" to add the words "excluding galvanized steel riveted tanks, cisterns and cylinders."
I should like to ask the Minister does he wish to tax galvanised steel riveted tanks, cisterns and cylinders?
Yes.
Who is going to make them?
There is a firm which specialises in the manufacture of these.
Would the Minister mind giving the name?
Messrs. Held.
They certainly galvanise.
There is another firm which is at present installing the necessary equipment to do the same class of goods—it is not a case of one firm—the Hammond Lane Foundry.
My information is that that is not correct.
They must have supplied different information then.
I do not wish to put my information against the Minister's. I should like the Minister to make further inquiries, and in the meantime I shall withdraw the amendment, because if the Hammond Lane Foundry is going to make steel riveted tanks it is a different matter entirely.
It has been intimated to us that the firm hoped to be in a position to meet the demand for all these classes of things in the very near future.
If the Minister will make sure of that I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 113:
At Ref. No. 3, second column, to add at the end the words "but excepting buckets of galvanized iron or steel."
I am asking the Minister and the Dáil in this amendment to except buckets of galvanised iron or steel. I indicated to the Minister that I would ask him to do that at a later stage. Buckets are a commodity that the agricultural community habitually use, that they must use, and that they use every day. My information is—I cannot give this first-hand, because I have not been in the market for these commodities since the tariff was put on— but my information from other people, who have been in the market since the tariff was put on, is that 10 per cent. has been put on the price of galvanised buckets since the tariffs went on. I submit to the Minister that buckets are a commodity without which country people cannot get on. They are used for every branch of agriculture. The price has already advanced as a result of the tariff. If the Minister will meet me this far, and give a preferential rate of nil, and exclude the continental buckets, he will preserve competition adequate to control prices.
I could not agree to that. The removal of buckets from the scope of the duty would be, in fact, to nullify the duty altogether, because they are one of the main items which are manufactured in the country. I will undertake to investigate the statement that an increase of 10 per cent. has taken place. If such an increase has taken place, and if there is no justification for it, then the matter could be considered. I will undertake to make sure of what justification there is for any increase in price which has taken place, but the intention is definitely that buckets should be subject to this duty.
The information is secondhand as far as I am concerned. I cannot tell him of my own knowledge, but I have been told that by a person who has experience of the trade, and whose judgment I trust. If he finds out that it has increased——
Without justification.
Without justification other than the imposition of the tariff.
There will be ample justification.
When the price of goods goes down, Deputies opposite talk about the price of raw materials and everything else.
When I say justification I mean justification. We will raise it here, if needs be, on the Report Stage. In the meantime, the Minister will give me the undertaking.
I will look into it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The following amendments appeared on the Paper:
114. To delete Ref. No. 4, including relevant references in columns 2, 3, 4 and 5.—(Earnán de Blaghd).
115. At Ref. 4, second column, to delete the words "or otherwise advanced beyond hammering, rolling or casting."—(Patrick McGilligan).
116. At Ref. No. 4, third and fourth columns, to delete the percentages mentioned and substitute "25%" and "15%" respectively.— (Earnán de Blaghd).
I move amendment 114. There seem to have been several difficulties raised when this particular Reference was under discussion previously. A number of alternative amendments have been put down in the hope that the Minister might consider some modification of the duty. Deputy Good, who is unfortunately not here, and who has some knowledge of the matter, asked the Minister certain questions that the Minister was not able to answer in full. He asked him, for instance, if merely cutting steel joists or beams would bring them under the tariff. The words used here are "beyond hammering, rolling, or casting." Deputy Good asked, for instance, if a person would have to bring in a beam longer than he required and have it cut here. There was also some doubt as to what exactly constitutes fabrication, and I would move the amendments here, with the suggestion that the Minister should consider them, or, alternatively, that he should let us know, more clearly, exactly what type of article will come under it and whether any minor change, such as cutting, will render an article liable to the tariff.
On the point raised by Deputy Blythe, as to whether the mere cutting would be regarded as fabrication, and bring the article under the duty, the answer is that it would not. It would be impossible for the Revenue Commissioners to say whether a particular length of steel bar was cut in the process of manufacture or not, so that definitely it would not be subject to duty. It is quite possible clearly is, that where steel has been subjected to working of any kind, has been adapted for erection in a particular building, drilled or shaped, or anything of that kind, it should be subject to duty. It is quite possible to have all that class of work done here. There are many competent firms in the business and the entire requirements of the Saorstát in work of that kind can be met at home. We are proposing to insert two amendments in connection with this reference, one, to make a similar provision as in the case of cut stone, namely, that where steel has been imported for a building in course of construction on the 12th May, the Revenue Commissioners may remit the duty, and secondly, a general licence provision, which would permit of the importation of articles required by a manufacturer in the process of manufacture, and where it is demonstrated that it is impossible, under the circumstances, for the manufacturer to have his requirements met within the country. That is the particular licensing provision that we inserted in relation to a number of the duties and we propose to insert it in the Schedule at this point also.
The position in respect of the duty as a whole is that it is quite justifiable. There is no reason whatever why fabricated steel should be imported here. I have explained that constructional engineers here are labouring under a disadvantage at the moment, in so far as a rebate is given by steel manufacturers in England to English engineering firms on condition that they use only British steel. That rebate is a very substantial one and has permitted the English engineering firms to beat Irish firms practically in all public contracts, because British steel has been specified heretofore in all contracts. Irish engineers have found Continental steel very much cheaper, and they have declined to give the undertaking which would entitle them to a rebate, and the position is that in order to redress the balance against Irish firms, this import duty is imposed. A considerable amount of employment will be given as a result of it and employment to skilled adult men, which is an important consideration, in view of the fact that a considerable number of the duties we have imposed are resulting in the employment of women or young people. We are anxious to encourage those industries which acquire adult men, and particularly those with technical skill, and this is one, and, consequently, I would be very loath to see any modification of this duty agreed to by the Dáil.
The Minister, in the course of his speech, has pointed out that his main object is to increase employment in the Free State. With regard to item 4 "manufactured articles of iron and steel for use in building construction" I want to say from information given to me that instead of increasing employment in the Free State, the Minister is going the right way for reducing employmen considerably. There are firms engaged in this trade, especially in the City of Dublin which have been established for over a quarter of a century. I want to be perfectly frank with the Minister and to add that these firms are English firms with headquarters in England, but with a branch in existence in Dublin City for very long periods. The particular firm I refer to is engaged in the manufacture of agricultural buildings, hay barns, cowsheds and things of that kind, and, as I have pointed out, this firm has headquarters in Britain, but for all practical purposes, it is a self-contained unit in Dublin City. They have to draw their raw materials in the shape of girders, beams and columns, upon which the Minister is now imposing this duty, for the purpose, as he said, of increasing employment, from across the Channel.
Why?
Mr. Byrne
Because they cannot get them here.
Why can they not get them here?
Mr. Byrne
Because they are not made here.
Of course, they are.
Mr. Byrne
The Minister knows that girders are not made here and everybody in the trade knows they are not made here.
No, but they are fabricated for use here.
Mr. Byrne
What does that mean?— drilling and putting together.
If they are not drilled and put together, there is no duty on them.
Mr. Byrne
That is the point. This drilling and putting together requires machinery and special plant, and, no matter how good the Minister's intentions are, I say that he has been overhasty in the carrying out of his intentions, and he is bringing about a reduction in employment instead of an increase. This particular firm I refer to has for the past 50 years obtained what is to it its raw material for its industry from across the Channel. They have no machinery for drilling, adjusting and putting the girder together. The tariff has been put on without a moment's notice, and, having no plant, they cannot do this necessary work. They have neither the time nor the opportunity to obtain the necessary plant, owing to the fact that no notice was given that the tariff was about to be imposed. This firm employs a staff of about 100 hands, and in that I include clerical, commercial and travelling staffs, and I am informed that notices have been served by the firm to terminate the employment of these 100 employees by the end of August, as the firm found it quite impossible to carry on, not having notice that the tariff was coming on, having no plant to deal with the necessary drilling and putting together of this girder work, which they use in the construction of hay sheds and barns. They have now definitely decided to close down their workshops and dispense with these 100 employees. This firm has headquarters in England, and I presume that the Minister will regard it as an English firm but, for the past half century, the firm has given employment to 100 hands, and if the Minister persists in the imposition of this tariff, these 100 hands will be disemployed.
Does the Minister expect that he is going to get employment for these hands if they are thrown on the labour market? How are they going to be employed? Who is going to employ them? Has the Minister any estimate as to the number of hands that will be put into employment by the imposition of this tariff? Has he inquired into that aspect of the question and can he give the House the number? I state, on reliable information, that these 100 employees will be disemployed by the end of August, if this tariff is persisted in. I want to point out an important aspect of the question and it is, that this drilling and putting together, or fabricating as the Minister termed it, will give employment only to an infinitesimal number of hands, because it is all done by machinery. Is the Minister wise in imposing the tariff and is he open to reconsider the tariff in the light of these circumstances?
I have asked the Minister what number of hands he hopes to get employed by this work. What does it really amount to? I want further to point out to the Minister that hay barns, cattle sheds and things of that kind are absolute requirements of the agricultural community. I presume that the Minister is not so blind or so prejudiced in the imposition of a tariff that if it can be shown that it involves a national loss instead of a national gain he will persist in its imposition. That is the position with regard to one particular firm. I know another Irish firm which has ten employees walking about without any work for them to do. How is the Minister going to get over these facts?
By allowing the stuff to come in free of duty?
Mr. Byrne
Yes. Allowing the stuff to come in free of duty, and allowing the work to go on in its usual normal way, or postponing the imposition of the duty for such reasonable time as will enable this firm to get the necessary plant to deal with it. There is another matter to be considered. This company would, I presume be what the Minister would call an English firm. What would be the effect on this firm of the Control of Manufactures Bill? There are so many complications facing employers of labour in the Free State at present that they do not know what their position actually is. Let me ask this question, if this firm is willing to import the necessary machinery to deal with this production and to deal with the necessary forming, moulding and putting together of this fabricated work, will it then be free from further imposts and duties? Will it be free to carry on in the same way as a firm which the Minister would term national, or will it be subject to further impositions?
I want the Minister to get into his head that we are as anxious as he is to get fresh employment for the unemployed in the Free State. When we put forward criticisms from this side, pointing out that a tariff fails in its object, we want to assure the Minister that we are looking for no political gain or kudos. All we are seeking is the betterment of the nationals of this country, the same object that he professes to have at heart. Will the Minister tell the House, and it is reasonable that the House should be informed, how many extra hands will be employed if the tariff is imposed? Tell us whether it will be a dozen, twenty or thirty. Has the Minister any information to warrant him imposing a tariff that in the city alone is throwing 100 hands out of employment, and which is placing a very severe burden on the agricultural community which is carrying practically the whole of this country on its back?
I want to ask the Minister whether he would reconsider this tariff or consider postponing it for a reasonable period in order to enable these firms to make the necessary preparations to deal with this branch of the trade which is imposed on them by the Minister without any notice. Is the Minister satisfied that it is going to give fresh employment or that more men are not going to lose their employment as a result of the tariff? I want to suggest to the Minister in all sincerity, without looking for any Party gain, that if this tariff is imposed it means disemployment in the City of Dublin for some 100 men. Whether he wants these to be some of the casualties or some of the shock troops for his economic policy I do not know, but I think it is right that the Minister should be informed of these things. I think that the Minister ought to make these inquiries as to the repercussions that will arise from this particular tariff. I do ask him to reconsider the tariff. I am not in this trade, but I am in a trade that is more or less allied to it, and I suggest to him that he will not get fresh employment for Irish nationals by the imposition of this tariff but that, on the contrary, he will increase unemployment and increase the charges on the staple industry of the country, agriculture.
The Deputy's contention is because some firm with headquarters in England, and a distributing centre here, declines to draw its supplies from an Irish firm and prefers to close down, we should abandon the duty or postpone the duty.
Mr. Byrne
Will the Minister tell me where these supplies can be drawn from in the Irish Free State?
There are at least half a dozen firms in the Irish Free State capable of supplying the requirements of the country.
Mr. Byrne
Would the Minister say where there is one firm capable of supplying steel girders and columns?
One very important firm in the Deputy's own constituency is capable of supplying all the requirements of the Free State in steel girders.
Mr. Byrne
They do not make one in the world.
Go down and ask them. Another firm in the Deputy's constituency, the Dublin Dockyard Company, is at the moment installing plant to make steel girders and other articles of this type.
Mr. Byrne
Does not the Minister know that there is not a steel girder rolled in the Free State?
This duty only applies to manufactured articles of iron or steel which are fabricated for use or otherwise advanced beyond hammering, rolling or casting. It does not apply to rolled girders. If it is only rolled or cast there is no duty on it. The position is that if that external firm wanted to establish works here we would have to consider it very carefully, because this is one of the industries that can be described as having reached the saturation point. There are sufficient firms already engaged in it. Not merely will all the requirements of the country be supplied, but there is going to be very intensive competition between the existing firms. It is difficult to say what amount of employment will be given, because the requirements of the country in fabricated steel vary considerably from year to year. It might be £150,000 in one year, £200,000 in another year, and £250,000 in a third year. Consequently the amount of employment given by the industry fluctuates according to the business which is being done. The figure might be altered by the amount of work done in one year against another, but a considerable amount of a very useful type of employment will be given which has been heretofore lost to the country because of the fact that not merely was the fabricated steel imported here, but the arrangement so worked that the engineering contracts were given to a foreign firm who brought in foreign engineers to do the erection here.
Mr. Byrne
What firm is the Minister referring to?
I am not talking about the English firm in which the Deputy is interested.
Mr. Byrne
I am not interested in an English firm. I am interested in the employment of 100 workers.
We have half a dozen firms which are quite capable of supplying all these requirements in fabricated steel. There is no need to import a single ton of this class of stuff.
Mr. Byrne
I say the Minister is misinformed. There is no raw material for fabricated steel in the city.
We are not discussing a duty on the raw material of fabricated steel. If the Deputy will read the Resolution he will see that the duty does not apply to the raw material, to rolled steel or cast steel.
Mr. Byrne
It applies to manufactured articles of iron or steel for use in building construction which are fabricated for use.
Read on.
Mr. Byrne
"Which are fabricated for use or otherwise advanced beyond hammering, rolling or casting." I think the Minister should consider the important aspect of the question that it needs only a machine to do all the extra work to which the Minister refers, and that in the case of this particular firm employing 100 hands, it does not mean the employment of more than two or three men or at the outside three or four men. If the Minister persists in the tariff it is going to disemploy 100 men.
Another aspect of this tariff, whether it is going to employ extra hands or disemploy those at present engaged, is that the agricultural community have been the principal users of steel posts and girders for hay sheds, cow sheds and so forth. Owing to the tariff policy of the Minister and the conditions down the country where a man cannot sell a beast or an article except at prices that are a long way under the cost of production, there are very many unemployed. There will not be a hay shed or a cow shed put up.
Or a stone left upon a stone!
The tradesmen will also be left idle as a result of the tariff.
The Deputy said the tariff would interfere with the price of cattle.
It is our only good customer who is making these prices yet.
Deputy Corry will have either to make a speech or cease interrupting in the fashion in which he is.
Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand"—put and declared carried.
I move amendment 117:
At Ref. No. 4, page 27, to insert in the fifth column the following provision—
Where it appears to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners that an article chargeable with this duty is imported for use in the construction of a building which was in course of construction on the 12th day of May, 1932, the Revenue Commissioners may, subject to compliance with such conditions as they may think fit to impose, permit such article to be imported without payment of this duty or repay any such duty paid on such article.
As a kind of commentary on this, would the Minister take into consideration that possibly contracts might be signed before 12th May, 1932, though actually the work of construction had not commenced, and there might be cases of hardship as a result? I think that the Revenue Commissioners reviewing the case should have some powers given to them here to deal with such a case.
We considered that but decided that it would be obviously open to evasions. Representations could be made to say that the stuff was imported. If the construction has not been started—that is to say, the sod not turned or the foundations cleared, it is most unlikely that any of the fabrication could have been proceeded with and it would therefore be quite possible for those concerned to import the materials.
It brings a very sharp line of division. There are circumstances in which a contract might have been signed, say, a fortnight before 12th May, and the orders given and the work begun, say, by the present date. I suggest that this would be a case in which there would be serious hardship.
I can quite see what is in the Deputy's mind and his point of view, but we went into that matter with the greatest care and decided that this was the farthest we could go. We decided that if the work had been begun then there was a case, but the contract might be made many years ahead and the aim is to get the work done here, and consequently a remission of that kind, apart from the evasions which could be resorted to, would definitely defeat the idea behind the duty, namely, that this particular class of work should be done in the works here.
The principle of making exceptions of this character is very dangerous. After all, the Dáil is not charged with improving a man's bargain, and any man can put in a clause that the contract is subject to tariff. If you once give in to the principle that we ought to improve a bargain, it might lead to all sorts of difficulties.
The law is that if a person has entered into a contract, and a tariff is imposed upon any goods to be imported pursuant to the contract, the seller can add to the price of the goods the amount of the duty paid by him. That was the law enacted in 1910, I think, and we are clarifying it by this Bill in order to make it cover building and constructional work. The intention is that it should cover such work and we are doing this in order to remove the doubt and to make sure that it does cover building and constructional work and that in the case of any goods imported on which duties are paid, the contractor is entitled to add to the price the amount of the duty paid by him.
The consumer?
Undoubtedly. As far as I know, there were only one or two cases in which goods were in transit or were required in the course of a contract, and it was the fact that there was a very limited number of cases that made it possible.
Is the Minister prepared to say that a very liberal interpretation will be given to it?
Yes.
Amendment 117 put and agreed to.
I move amendment 118:
At Ref. No. 4, page 27, to insert in the fifth column the following provision—
Whenever the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, is satisfied that any articles chargeable with this duty are essential raw materials of a process of manufacture carried on or intended to be carried on in Saorstát Eireann and are not obtainable or likely to be obtainable in Saorstát Eireann and are required to be imported by a manufacturer for use in Saorstát Eireann in such process, the Revenue Commissioners may by licence authorise such manufacturer, subject to compliance with such conditions as they may think fit to impose, to import without payment of this duty the said articles either, as the Revenue Commissioners shall think proper, without limit as to time or quantity or either of them or within a specified time or in a specified quantity.
It is a general licence provision which we are inserting in relation to a number of duties, where the goods were procured in the process of manufacture, and we are satisfied that the manufacturer cannot get all his goods in this country. By this, he may be authorised to get such goods as are not or cannot be manufactured here without the payment of the duty.
I am interested in two items which I do not see included. By amendments 118, 126, 142, 151, 165, 192, 198 and 200, it is intended to insert a paragraph in the fifth column of the First Schedule in the case of several duties. If the Minister will look at page 14, amendment 118, he will see in lines 118 and 119 the words "essential raw materials of a process of manufacture." Under that heading of "raw materials of a process of manufacture" will printers' requisites, such as brass rules, be included? I also want to know whether the words "process of manufacture" cover printing? And are these things considered essential raw materials of that industry, because I happen to know that they are?
Brass printers' blocks are excluded.
The materials to which I refer are known as brass rules.
Perhaps the Deputy will raise it under the brass section.
I would also like to know, does the Minister intend to exclude the material known as telegraphic slip, because I do not see it mentioned in the items to be excluded?
The question obviously arises under the duty on telegraphic steel.
The Minister must be aware that a telegraph slip is now considered an essential portion of the process of manufacture that would apply to the production of a news-paper.
I submit that the Deputy will get more satisfaction if he raises this matter on the relevant duty. It does not arise here at all.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 119:
At Ref. No. 5, page 27, in the second column, after the word "casements" to add the words "excluding frames, sashes, and casements, which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, are designed, constructed, and intended for use as containers for stained glass."
This amendment is introduced to meet the case made by certain Deputies, for an industry in the South of Ireland and in Dublin in connection with stained glass. It is intended to exclude from duty the containers.
I am not in any sense objecting to this, but when the Minister talks about stained glass, does he include lead lights?
No.
How does he distinguish whether these containers are prepared for stained glass or not, because it seems to me the ordinary frames would be suitable?
The Revenue Commissioners must be satisfied that these containers are intended for stained glass.
There should be some clarification as to how they are to assume that. It seems to me that you could make a statement that they were for stained glass.
The usual phrase that is used in connection with these matters is used here.
What is the distinction between the authorities mentioned in amendments 118 and 119? In the latter amendment it is the Revenue Commissioners who are to determine, while in amendment 118, it is the Minister for Finance after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce?
It is a different matter. In the one case it is a question of fact whether these containers are intended for stained glass, and if they are there is no duty. In the other case the determination is as to whether a particular class of article is required, by a manufacturer, in process of manufacture, and, secondly, if it is not possible for that manufacturer to meet his requirements in the Saorstát. These are things in the determination of which the Departments of Industry and Commerce and Finance can assist. If they decide in favour of the application for the licence it is the Revenue Commissioners who issue the licence and fix the terms.
Question put and agreed to.
I move amendment 120:—
At Ref. No. 6, second column, before the word "paper" to insert the word "brown," and in columns (3) and (4) to substitute "25%" and "15%" respectively for the percentages mentioned.
As we understand it, it is only brown paper that is referred to.
That is not correct. Bags can be made from all sorts of paper imported for the purpose. Brown paper is made into bags. There are firms that make the paper, and make it into bags. There are other firms that import white paper and paper of all kinds and make it into bags. It would be a mistake to press this amendment; there are a number of people engaged in making bags from imported paper.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 121:—
At Ref. No. 6, page 28, in the second column, after the word "paper" to insert the words "and not exceeding eight ounces in weight."
It is necessary to insert here this provision exempting from duty bags that exceed eight ounces in weight. In certain industrial processes very large and heavy bags are used, particularly in the flour milling industry and some other industries, and it is not intended that these should be subject to duty. They are strong, heavy bags, described as paper bags.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 122:—
At Ref. No. 7, columns (3) and (4), to delete the percentages mentioned and substitute "25%" and "15%" respectively.
I submit that the percentage rates of duty against blankets are not really so much protective rates as a price raising. The manufacture of blankets and rugs is an industry that is very well established in this country, and they are competing, more than favourably, with any blankets or rugs made elsewhere. The rate of duty proposed in the Schedule is 30 per cent. and a 20 per cent. preference rate. I submit these are entirely too high in respect of an industry so well established as the blanket and rug-making industry in this country. The figures I propose in my amendment are 25 per cent. as against 30 per cent. and 15 per cent. as against the 20 per cent. preferential rate. The figures proposed in the Schedule would be simply price-raising in their effect. They will limit the return from the trade much more than the price-raising would increase it.
I entirely agree with Deputy Mulcahy. The Minister himself, I think, has experience of this. He knows the Irish blanket manufactures and he knows that the English manufacturers are quite unable to touch them with the existing rate of duty. I believe the Irish manufacturers supply 90 per cent. of the woollen blanket trade in Ireland.
About 75 per cent.
Whatever the reason is, they are superior; but, as Deputy Mulcahy says, this additional tariff will only operate as price raising. All the Irish manufacturers have to do, if they want to capture the remaining quarter per cent. of the trade, is to take their coats off, put their shoulders to the wheel, and it is theirs. All they have to do to capture the whole market is to put their backs into the business.
It is quite correct to say that the tariff imposed in 1925 resulted in a very considerable development of the trade, and that about 75 per cent. of our requirements are now supplied from Irish mills, and the remaining 25 per cent. is imported. Following on the imposition of the duty the English manufacturers cut their prices very much, and tried to beat the duty, for a time more or less successfully. They then relinquished their effort, but from time to time they have made sporadic raids upon the market here, cutting their prices and endeavouring to damage the trade of the Irish mills. One of these pricecutting raids is at present in progress, and has been maintained for some longer period, and with greater intensity than some of the others. An increase in duty, therefore, is necessary in order to prevent tactics of that kind being used and to secure for the market the 25 per cent. additional, which is available, and which is now supplied from outside the country. The tariff may result in an increase in price, but only to the extent in which we would get the benefit of the special cut price from the English manufacturer for a brief period. However, there are a large number of firms engaged in the business, well over a dozen, of making blankets here, and between them the competition for the limited market, which is valued at about £120,000 a year, is very severe.
Does the Minister know that there is a close, rigid ring in blankets, and that any merchant who departs by ½d. from the price brings the others down on top of him? There is no tighter ring in Ireland than in blankets.
I have no reason to believe that there is not severe competition between one mill and another in order to extend business.
There is none whatever, to my personal experience. There is a very rigid ring by which blankets are sold on the same terms, except Fox-ford, which are always a little dearer.
The capacity of the factories is much larger than the requirements of the country would justify, and in order that they may work up to the greatest extent of capacity, each mill is only anxious to try to extend its market. In fact, competition between them has kept prices down to the minimum, kept them so low that for a period the mills complained that they were selling at prices that were wholly uneconomic and were not realising an adequate profit. The firms engaged indicated to the late Government and to this that the increased duty was necessary in order to hold the position, and to capture the rest of the market. We think there is no necessity for the importation of blankets when mills here can more than supply requirements. As I pointed out that does not apply to allcotton blankets.
Did they tell the Minister that they are in a ring?
There is an association.
Did they inform the Minister that they are in a ring?
They certainly did not.
I submit that the Minister should be wary when manufacturers come to him to urge their claims, and that they should make full disclosures and should not hide any of the facts upon which his judgment would depend. I ask that the matter be investigated, and that the Minister should look carefully into information given by gentlemen who allege that they are fully informing him, when, at the same time, they are suppressing some of the facts.
I am not taking it that they suppressed any facts.
Will the Minister see that any of the tariffs that are being imposed will reach those selling the wool?
I am afraid there is too much wool in the world.
Has any information reached the Minister about the quality of the Irish blankets that are being sent out since the tariff was imposed? Has he any information why "muck" should be sent out, considering the price at which the blankets are sold?
That is not so.
My information is that it is.
The Minister has been asked if he insists upon this proposal.
I think it is absolutely necessary. There is no reason why we should import blankets.
I agree, but there is no reason why firms should be assisted in this way to raise prices.
Amendment negatived.
I move amendment 103:—
At Ref. No. 8, column 2, to delete all after the words "Putty in any form."
The proposal is to have a tariff of 30 per cent. and a preferential tariff of 20 per cent. on paints and distempers. I submit to the Minister that there is an amount of unnecessary destruction going on in this country through the non-use of paints. Probably a lot of people are using aspirin for bad heads for the want of cheerful surroundings. Recently the people in different parts were driven to use some paint, which had some effect. I hope one of the effects will be to preserve property. Here we are putting a tax of 20 per cent. on paint. I think the Minister might consider what exactly he hopes this tax is going to do in the way of developing the paint industry, as compared with the damping down there will be on the part of people who use paint to improve their property.
The Deputy need not fear that the gay appearance to which he refers will be diminished in any way by the imposition of this duty. In fact, if developments which are contemplated take place, certain firms, since the imposition of this duty, have not merely extended their capacity to supply the requirements of the Saorstát but are beginning to undertake trade with other countries in paints, distempers, and varnishes of various kinds. One firm in Cork has put in a considerably increased plant and proposes to supply paints to certain Eastern markets. Another well-known firm proposes to erect, in association with an existing Irish firm, a factory in Dublin which will, to the extent of 50 per cent. of its output, engage in export trade. The other firms engaged in the industry have extended their capacity recently, and generally there has been considerable all-round development. There is no fear that the full requirements of the country cannot be met by these firms. In fact, there is likely to be considerable competition, as the extensions which have taken place, plus new firms coming into the industry, will increase the capacity of these firms and extend it very much beyond what is required for the home market. I think this duty was one of the most successful.
Are there only three firms in the industry.
No.
Mr. Hayes
How many?
There were five when the duty was imposed but other firms are coming in since. Certain firms which in recent years had ceased to engage in the industry have come back and certain existing firms have extended their capacity.
Mr. Hayes
I remember that when there was some discussion recently about using Irish paint on this building, my information was that there was a firm in Cork, a firm in Dublin, and a Dublin branch of an English firm whose paint was used. This tax is prohibitive. There is no chance of outside firms competing here now, and the question of quality is a very important one, particularly in varnishes. I understand from people who got tenders for varnishes at a certain figure from one firm and got another tender at a lower figure, that the firm who quoted the lower figure used varnish of an inferior quality. When you have a prohibitive tax you have no competition, and no means of ensuring the quality of varnish, where quality is all-important. The Minister may have more information on the matter than I have.
I know definitely that five firms are engaged in the industry, and not merely that, but practically every firm supplying the market also brought forward proposals of one kind or another to come into the industry here, some in conjunction with existing firms, or separately. The competition between them was so keen that, in fact, those that felt that they wanted to come in, came along with proposals to limit the output of the proposed factories and to use the rest for export only. We are likely to have, and it is an interesting development, an export trade in these goods. One foreign firm which came to investigate found that they could supply certain foreign markets cheaper from here than from outside because some essentials which are required and which are subject to duty in England are not subject to it here, so that there has been a considerable development in the industry.
Does the Minister think that the development here will ensure that there will be such competition at home as will secure an article of good quality?
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 124:—
At Ref. No. 8, page 28, in the second column, to delete the words "form or paste" and substitute the words "or paste form."
This is a verbal amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 125:
At Ref. No. 8, second column, after the word "colours" where it secondly occurs to add the words "and excluding distempers in paste form containing 30 per cent. Irish carrageen moss."
I should like to bring to the Minister's notice that there are many formulas for making distemper. Some firms use Irish carrageen moss. Others use French carrageen moss, and others have an entirely different formula. I suggest that it would encourage the use of Irish carrageen moss if distempers in which it is used were allowed in free. The export of carrageen moss would be encouraged in that way and more manufacturers would be induced to use Irish carrageen moss.
Leaving aside the question of the desirability of an amendment of this kind, it can be ruled out on the ground that it is impracticable. Insertion of this amendment would necessitate analysis of every consignment of distemper imported with a view to discovering if it contained carrageen moss and also to ascertain if it contained Irish as distinguished from French carrageen moss. It would be impossible to administer the Schedule if it were amended in this way.
Surely you would only analyse distempers where the manufacturers had made a statement that they contained Irish carrageen moss. I do not think it would be impossible for the Minister to find out if a particular firm did purchase Irish carrageen moss. I should like to ask the Minister if he has impressed upon the Irish firms the desirability of using carrageen moss in their distempers.
That would be considered, undoubtedly. In any event, there is no need to import distemper no matter what it is made of.
Indeed there is.
Will the Minister say if the Irish firms use carrageen moss in their distemper?
I don't know what they use.
Surely a preference should be given to firms coming to do business here which produce carrageen distemper.
There is a special department of Government whose job it is to see that that is done.
Perhaps the Minister would consider between now and the Report Stage whether it would be feasible, without making the extensive tests he mentions, to discover whether distemper imported was carrageen distemper or not.
Apart from the desirability of doing this, there are practical difficulties. We do not want to import distemper.
But we do want to encourage the use of carrageen moss.
We do want to induce people to use carrageen moss. I have no doubt that people are using it because they consider it suitable. No doubt, we might make a bargain with certain firms coming to do business in this country that they should use specified quantities of carrageen moss.
How many firms are manufacturing distemper in the Free State?
Two or three. I do not remember the exact number.
And they are able to supply the home market?
They are able to supply the home market.
Are there foreign firms coming in?
Yes.
Can the Minister state that definitely?
Yes, including the firm the Deputy has in mind.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 126:—
At Ref. No. 8, page 28, in the fifth column, to insert a further provision as follows:—
Whenever the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, is satisfied that any articles chargeable with this duty are essential raw materials of a process of manufacture carried on or intended to be carried on in Saorstát Eireann and are not obtainable or likely to be obtainable in Saorstát Eireann and are required to be imported by a manufacturer for use in Saorstát Eireann in such process, the Revenue Commissioners may by licence authorise such manufacturer, subject to compliance with such conditions as they may think fit to impose, to import without payment of this duty the said articles either, as the Revenue Commissioners shall think proper, without limit as to time or quantity or either of them or within a specified time or in a specified quantity.
This is a licensing provision. There is a certain form of cellulose required by motor body builders which is not capable of definition. Any definition which we might give would cover a number of other things which we do not desire to include. There may be other special articles required by the manufacturers, to be used in the process of manufacture, and consequently we require this licensing provision.
Amendment agreed to.
On behalf of Deputy McGilligan, I move amendment 127:—
At Ref. No. 9; second column, to add at the end the words "but excluding bedspreads or counterpanes."
The Minister has been already finessing with Deputy McGilligan as to the difference between quilts, bedspreads and counterpanes. I cannot add anything to the discussion.
I am afraid I cannot add anything either. I cannot understand the amendment.
We will leave it over for Report.
The difference is perfectly manifest. However, I do not want to add to the discussion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 128 not moved.
I move amendment 129:—
At Ref. No. 12, page 29, in the fifth column, to delete the words "which may be" and also to delete the words "the article" and substitute the words "or used in the manufacture or preparation of the article, but in lieu of any duty chargeable in respect of any other ingredient contained in or used in the manufacture or preparation of the article."
This is a technical amendment required for revenue purposes. It does not alter, in any way, the effect of the duty.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 130:—
At Ref. No. 13, second column, to add at the end the words "but excluding preparations intended for staining boots, shoes or other like articles."
I hope the Minister will accept this amendment. There is a tariff on boots, designed to promote their manufacture here. The staining of them is one of the essential processes of the manufacture. In so, far as there would be any tariff imposed on this raw material for the manufacture of boots, it would be only taking away from the value of the tariff on boots.
The duty does not cover staining preparations. Mistakes may have arisen in the earlier stages as to the interpretation of the provision. The articles the Deputy has in mind are not intended to be covered by the duty.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 131:—
At Ref. No. 13, page 29, in the fifth column, to delete the words "or saccharin."
This is a verbal amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 132:—
To delete Ref. No. 15, including relevant references in columns 2, 3, 4 and 5.—(Deputy M. Hayes).
Amendment 137:—
At Ref. No. 15, page 30, to delete paragraph (b) in the second column and the entries opposite it in the third and fourth columns and substitute in the second, third and fourth columns the following paragraph and figures:—
(b) Books of all kinds (other than books which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, are novels) printed in the English language and bound in leather or any material which is an imitation of leather: 30 per cent; 20 per cent.—(Aire Airgid.)
I move amendment 132. I should like to see this tax going entirely, but I suppose we may discuss amendment 132 and the Minister's amendment No. 137, together, because the Minister is making a very substantial alteration in the tax. If the Minister would begin by explaining the exact position now of taking the new paragraph (b) in amendment 137 in conjunction with Ref. No. 6 in the Second Schedule—that is, in regard to paper-bound books—it might shorten the discussion.
If these amendments are inserted, the position will be that on novels there will be a flat rate duty of 1½d., preferential rate 1d.
Mr. Hayes
If bound in paper?
No matter how bound. It applies to novels of all descriptions.
What is the duty?
A flat rate duty of 1½d. with a preferential rate of 1d. and a duty of 30 per cent., preferential rate 20 per cent., upon books other than novels which are bound in leather and printed in the English language, subject all the time to the exclusion of books which "are of an educational character ordinarily required for use in schools, colleges and universities or of a scientific character," as set out in amendment 144.
Mr. Hayes
Surely the Minister will see that under paragraph (b) there are included books of all kinds "bound in leather or any material which is an imitation of leather." Are novels bound in leather exempted by that duty?
Yes, but they are subject to a flat rate of duty.
Mr. Hayes
That is only when they are bound in paper?
No matter how bound.
Might I ask if there is an amendment down to do away with this penny tax?
No, but amendment 208 is an amendment which changes the relevant part of the Schedule which imposes the duty upon "books which are, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, novels and are printed in the English language and bound in any material."
Trade unions which are united with trade unions in England of which the Minister does not disapprove get over books in order to have complete records. They send over these registered. Will such books be subject to tax?
Will these books be bound in leather?
I do not know. Is it only novels bound in leather?
Novels of all descriptions.
In the case of these trade union books, they would be taxable if they were bound in leather? Is it only when the complete cover is leather or imitation leather?
Yes.
The printed paper of trade unions comes over.
That comes under another duty.
It is intended that the duty shall apply in all cases?
Yes.
The amendment here is to delete the whole reference. Why is the Minister putting a penny tax on novels?
It is a protective duty.
Is the Minister making a joke?
No.
A protective duty of one penny on all novels!
Yes.
Does the Minister say that that will mean the starting of new printing businesses here?
We have a substantial trade already in the printing of novels.
I am prepared to stand aside on these leather books but the Minister knows as well as I do that the penny on novels is a farce and it will only mean that every bookseller in the country will be cursing him. It is not a question of the penny but the nuisance that will be caused in the filling up of documents. I do not know if the Minister has ever sent anything himself through the Customs. It would do the Minister a world of good if he entered practical business again and reconsigned something, sent in error, back to the original consignor. The unfortunate bookseller who has to reconsign these books is put to considerable trouble and annoyance for the sake of this penny which will achieve nothing in the way of revenue but boundless trouble. As for books bound in leather it is different. I do suggest that before the Report Stage the Minister will reconsider this.
I have gone very far.
The Minister has gone very far. This penny duty on novels which are printed here in considerable quantities will give considerable annoyance. I can understand the duty of ten per cent. on novels. That has now been amalgamated with the original duty and made a flat rate upon all novels.
Certain English publishing firms get novels printed here in paper covers and these are sold cheaply. The novels produced that way have an enormous sale, a sale of hundreds of thousands of copies. But the sale of them in this country does not amount to anything as far as these publishers are concerned. The people of this country do not read books in sufficient numbers. Is it the idea that big English publishers of cheap novels would, in order to get the little extra sale that is here and to save this penny tax on their books sold here, give the order for printing to a Dublin firm and have them printed here? Does the Minister think that any big English firm is going to say "we will send for estimates to Glasgow, Edinburgh and various other places in England and to Cahill's of Dublin, and while in other circumstances we would send the work to Edinburgh we are going to give it to Cahill's of Dublin because of the saving of one penny tax on the few dozen books we are likely to sell in Ireland"?
Does the Minister think that any English firm is going because of that tax to divert their printing to Dublin? It is not going to make a scrap of difference to an English firm and it is not going to induce them to divert their printing here because the Minister puts a tax of one penny on the cheap novels coming into this country. When the Minister is putting this penny tax on he is achieving nothing but merely irritation, a very virulent irritation of the whole business of the booksellers. Every 7/6 or 10/6 novel is going to have this penny tax put on and a great amount of trouble will be caused in the collection. What the Minister is trying to do by this tax has not a dog's chance of diverting one novel from being printed in Edinburgh or Glasgow to being printed in Dublin because no big English publisher would trouble his head about the few dozen copies of the novels that may be sold here. This tax will achieve nothing beyond making the life of the bookseller a burden to him and it will cause endless trouble and inconvenience to librarians; because in connection with this tax there is a whole formula to be gone through on the part of the librarian in order to make sure that the novel is really for the library. The implication of the tariff is that you are protecting an industry inside the country. The fact is that you have here a case of English booksellers distributing their printing amongst cheap printers. They send a certain number of their orders to Messrs. Cahill's here. They do not care about circulation here in Ireland because it is small. The Minister is putting all this inconvenience on the booksellers in this country because of the fatuous belief that he is going to coerce English booksellers to send their books over here.
They will not do it except it pays them.
Does the Minister think that this tax will cause additional novels to be printed here? I submit it will have the contrary effect, because it will add to the difficulty of doing business in the two countries. Does the Minister think that the latest sixpenny thriller, say, the last Edgar Wallace novel, is more likely to be printed in this country in a 200,000 or 400,000 edition because of that penny tax on each novel? The Minister knows as well as I do that it is not. Messrs. Cahill's are going to compete with the English and Scotch houses when their quotations can beat the English and Scotch houses. They will get the order then when it pays the publisher. This tax is going to make the life of the bookseller a misery to him and anyone who is going to order a book will be put to a lot of irritation and trouble. When you go into a bookseller's to ask for a book you will be told that it is not in stock, that he will order it, and then there is at least a week's delay before you will get the book.
Is the Minister aware that the Revenue Commissioners have the fascinating habit of charging a sixpenny tax for collection and that they have another fascinating habit of informing you bluntly that the lowest duty which will be collected is 2/6?
It is the postal authorities who are responsible for the sixpenny tax.
Does the Minister realise that that is probably 7d.?
He would have to pay that in any case whether there was a duty on it or not. That 6d. tax is a delivery charge collected by the postal authorities.
Put into operation by the late Government.
Is that horrible statistics tax still to remain?
It was Deputy Blythe invented that?
It is a most damnable tax. The irritation of it is indescribable. I hope the Minister will goout of his way to meet some of the objections put up against this tariff. I hope the Minister will exterminate that tax. Perhaps he will patch this measure up a little more and remove these irritations. I do not think his heart is in this amendment, but, of course, he would not tell me about that. If I understand it rightly, the amendment moved by the Minister for Finance is to the effect that the only books to be taxed are books in English, other than novels, and bound in leather. Is that correct?
Yes.
Mr. Hayes
And a penny on all novels.
I will leave that aside for the moment; I think the Minister has suffered enough. I would like to point out that he is going to hurt probably a very small proportion of the population who are interested in scholarship and research work if he imposes this tax on leather-bound books, even in English. Books from the 15th to the 18th centuries, certainly from the 15th to the 17th centuries, were bound exclusively in leather. Most of the 18th century books were also bound in leather. I think that most of them are out of print. They are hard to get, but they are necessary for scholars. We generally borrow them or pick them up second-hand. They are expensive. As it is, we have to pay postage and now we are faced with this tax of 30 per cent.
Any books which are of a scientific or educational character are excluded in any case.
Who is to determine whether a book is or is not of a scientific character?
The Revenue Commissioners.
Take, for instance, the books produced during the Elizabethan period. Some of them are distinctly non-scientific. Are you going to turn your Revenue Commissioners into pedagogues, people belonging to the ignoble profession which I do not adorn but represent? I would like the Minister to put down some date in regard to these leather-bound books. He might, for instance, specify leather-bound books published since 1900. The Minister must realise that there are lots of books out of print and they are essential and very valuable. Most of us cannot afford to pay an additional 20 or 30 per cent. on their value.
Mr. Hayes
The Deputy has been referring to a matter touched upon by an amendment of mine which will be reached later on. Perhaps we might be permitted to deal with the whole matter at this stage. I notice the Minister has completely abandoned his cultural aim. I think what happened in the case of the book tax was that Ministers looked around to see what they could tax and then they decided to tax books. They found, on further consideration, that certain things were impossible arising out of the book tax. They reached the point when they decided that a tax would have to be imposed for revenue purposes or to increase employment. With regard to the penny tax, I do not see how it can increase employment. There is at least one Irish firm which is able to print cheap novels in competition, not only with English, but American firms. That firm is enabled to do that as a result of a business organisation which permits submitting a lower tender than outside competitors. Perhaps the Minister will explain how a penny tax on novels coming in will help that kind of a firm? I cannot see how it will. The firm, as I said, prints a great deal of very cheap stuff in competition with outside firms.
Why is a tax to the extent of 20 per cent. put on leather-bound books? Why are leather-bound books chosen? Is it to give a fillip to the Irish bookbinding industry? If it is, is it contended there is a sufficient market for leather-bound books in this State to induce a publishing firm to publish a book bound in leather at a fairly substantial price? Is it contended that there will be, in our limited market, a sufficient circulation to enable outside firms to send in unbound books and get them bound here? I may say that that is not the experience of people who understand the situation. Those who are interested in the book trade say there is a very small market for that kind of book. New books bound in leather would, no doubt, do some little good to the Irish bookbinding industry. Let us take the type of book that Deputy Alton spoke about, the second-hand book. There are a great many second-hand books bound in leather, but they would not come within the category indicated in the Minister's amendment; they would not be ordinarily required for use in schools, colleges or universities. I think the Minister will find that the interpretation in this connection will be a very difficult matter.
With the franc as it is, if one went to Paris one would be able to buy a leather-bound set of any of the French dramatists, such as Carré or Racine, at a fairly cheap rate. Most professors going to Paris, even with the franc as it is, would find it profitable up to this to buy second-hand books bound in leather. With this tariff imposed the expense entailed in taking such books into this country would be very considerable. The persons who usually buy those books and bring them into the country increase our assets from a national point of view, and they should be encouraged. Looking at the matter from a national point of view, we must realise that such people bring into our possession something extremely valuable as distinct from something that is cultural.
The tariff imposed on such books can give no conceivable employment here. What we are doing by imposing such a tariff is that we are taxing the individual who seeks to bring valuable works into the country. Let us say that you tax six volumes printed in France in the 18th century, or, for that matter, the 19th century. There is no chance of getting those books bound in Dublin. It has no connection with employment here. It is merely putting a tax on persons who are, I submit, not too numerous. I suggest that those persons are a deserving class, because they add to our book population, which in itself is a good thing. If the Minister persists in keeping on this kind of remnant of his book tax he really ought to exclude second-hand books bound in leather.
If there were any evidence at all that the bookbinding trade would be helped by a tax I would be in favour of it, because that is a form of work for which Dublin was once famous. I would be anxious to see that work revived, but I contend you cannot revive it by imposing a duty on second-hand books. I am aware that people travelling abroad have purchased secondhand books and brought them to this country. The books were not of any value, but the binding was, and that binding was utilised for other books. People buy a lot of secondhand books bound in leather, and they get the covers put on other books in this country. I would like the Minister to examine carefully whether a tax on leather-bound books will improve the book-binding industry here. He should consider especially whether it is advisable to put a tax on secondhand books, many of which are very valuable. If, for instance, a valuable leather book were put up for auction in London, an Irish purchaser would be at a great disadvantage. A person who will pay a high price for a rare book will be bringing into this country something which is of very great value. If this tax remains, not only will that person have to face competition in an outside market, but he will also have to pay a very considerable duty before he can take the book into the Free State.
I am prepared to accept that amendment in principle. I take it, however, that it will require certain alterations in view of the alteration in the wording of the section. I assume that meets Deputy Alton's point.
Yes.
Mr. Hayes
Perhaps it would be better not to move the amendment at all and to leave it to the Minister to introduce the necessary amendment.
I should like to suggest another point. The Minister is trying to meet us on this. I think he really believes that the words of his amendment 144 go further than I believe they do go. I think he has omitted to notice one matter which is of a good deal of importance. I referred before to the proceedings of learned and scientific societies. I do not think they would come under the wording of amendment 144, yet I believe the Minister means to exclude them from duty. It is quite a common thing for different learned societies, which could not be called scientific, classical and foreign language societies, and various kinds of societies, to reciprocate by sending to one another their publications. As a rule, these are either bound in leather or imitation leather. I should like to ask the Minister to consider the insertion of the words "learned or scientific societies" as well as schools, colleges and universities.
I think the case referred to is met by amendment 143 or amendment 144. These would be books intended for use in universities, else they would come under the term "of a scientific character"; or else they are imported for use in libraries, other than proprietary libraries.
Not entirely libraries.
If they were imported for use in universities they are covered by amendment 144.
That is quite clear. I was not thinking of that.
I should like to ask the Minister is vellum leather? Deputy Thrift said that books from the 15th to the 18th century were bound in leather. It struck me that he counted vellum as leather. I do not know whether it is technically leather or not. But the books at that time were mostly bound in vellum. The Minister has agreed to meet Deputy Hayes about second-hand books. Deputy Hayes spoke about books in French. As we all know, this definition about leather is only the Minister's way of trying to get after prayer books, missals and works of piety. He did not like to put it in that form, so he tried to get this other form. Take a missal with the Latin text for the Mass on various days and the English translation. What is the position with regard to that?
So far as missals are concerned, some of them are in Latin and contain no English. In others there is a certain amount of Latin, but the bulk of the material would be in English.
I do not think the Minister need try to cover his tracks. We know that this really is an attempt to get at prayer books and books of piety. Nobody thinks there is going to be any business brought about except in that line. Most prayer books have a certain amount of Latin. All sorts of missals also have a certain amount of Latin with an English text. You can say they are printed in English if you like, or in Latin. What is the position with regard to them? In these books you have one column Latin and one column English.
They will be charged.
So that the real purpose is to get after books of piety.
I say these things will be done here.
You can buy a missal here for 15/-. The wholesale price would be very much lower than that. To get that bound in this country as it is bound would cost you more than the whole book will cost you now. It seems ridiculous that for the mere binding, the sole purpose of which is to keep the printed paper together, the Minister is creating a position whereby, in order to have the thing bound as it is bound at present, you will first of all have to buy the book at its value, and then pay considerably more for the binding of it than you would have to pay for the whole book bound if the Minister did not put a tax on it. As far as the binding of these books is concerned, the Minister's tariff of 20 or 30 per cent. is no good, it is no protection. He will have to put on a tariff of 100 per cent. to force us to buy things bound in this country, if we want things well bound. Personally, I would rather pay 20 or 30 or even 70 percent. more to get decent value. It is true that the one type of book normally circulated in this country is the prayer book, the book of piety. Deputy Hayes talked about leather-bound books being only bought by well-to-do people. Nothing of the sort. These books are bought by every poor parent whose child is making his or her First Communion. They are given as presents to the children. This is a tax to make the unfortunate poor pay more for their piety in order to give employment to book-binders. I wonder how many people are going to be employed by this and what value are they going to give the poor people as compared with firms in Bruges and other places? This tax hits the unfortunate poor. Because they are pious, they will have to pay for it and that is the Minister's policy.
I am advised that vellum is leather.
My amendment 137a reads: In amendment 137 after the words "other than" to insert the words "bibles and." That is to exclude bibles. The position with regard to them is peculiar. You cannot get employment in that respect at all. Bibles printed in the English language, whether in the authorised or revised version, are copyright and cannot be printed except by certain firms. These firms will not print and issue editions unbound. There is no chance of getting one of these bound in this country. There is no chance whatever of giving employment in that way.
The Deputy's amendment is not necessary. They will be admitted free of duty as educational.
I am satisfied with that.
The Minister gave an answer which he seemed to have some doubt about, and I want to be certain. He said that in order to be counted as bound in leather or imitation leather it had to be all leather, not merely the back. Is that the position?
If there is merely a strip of leather on the back it is not leather.
What is known as half leather then is not leather-bound?
No, it must be all leather-bound.
There are one or two other points I wish to raise. I still hope that the Minister will, on consideration, insert the words I have suggested, "scientific or learned societies," in amendment 144. I ask him to consider that, anyway, but there is still one other point in order to make water-tight the concessions he has granted in relation to the proprietary libraries. The amendment he introduces applies only to Reference No. 15 on page 30, as stated by the Minister, but books again come in under the Minister's own amendment 208 in the second sheet.
I am prepared to accept the suggestion.
Amendment withdrawn.
Mr. Hayes
I withdraw amendment 132. I would like to say that I was quite wrong in referring to French books as being taxed, but it is quite applicable to English books with leather binding.
The Minister said the purchase of these books would be a very desirable addition to the library wealth of this country, but a friend of mine recently bought a copy, a very well-known copy, of the Scriptorum Rerum Hiberniarum for a big sum, and did a benefit to the country in bringing it in here. He had, however, to pay the tariff on it. I cannot understand it, and I hope the Minister will see that similar blunders do not occur.
I will look into that.
It is bound in leather.
I move amendment 133:
At Ref. No. 15, page 30, in paragraph (a), in the second column, to delete the word "cardboard" and substitute the words "to any other article or substance."
This is a minor amendment. Printed paper, which is affixed to cardboard, is excluded from duty and it is intended to extend the exclusion to printed paper which is affixed to any other article or substance.
Amendment agreed to.
The following amendment appeared on the Paper:—
134 Ref. No. 15, column 2, paragraph (a), after the word "periodicals" to insert the words "trade catalogues and notices supplied free to traders in Saorstát Eireann for free distribution."—(Deputy McGilligan.)
I could not accept that at all.
Mr. Hayes
There is a considerable amount of stuff of this kind coming into the country for trade purposes from firms outside the Saorstát. Does the Minister intend to tax them?
Definitely so. The duty is 10 per cent. in any case, and if the firms persist in bringing in this sort of stuff, I see no reason why we should not get revenue from them. Generally speaking, the practice is that these catalogues are imported, with a blank space at the bottom, in which the trader gets his own name and address printed, and the intention is to induce him to get the printing done here, where it can be done quite well.
Mr. Hayes
Take the case of the wholesale firm which sends in stuff which is not made here at all, and which sends in its own catalogue, which is not to be used by the trader at all, but which is to be kept by the trader and shown to customers when they are choosing stuff.
The duty only applies tc material imported in bulk. An individual catalogue for the information of a trader is not dutiable and in so far as these catalogues come in, I see no reason why we should not get our 10 per cent. revenue.
If you go into a shop, you may find 20 or 30 catalogues of articles in the shop which are not made here. Are we to get the printing of these catalogues done here?
Why not? If a firm wants to send in an article here, there is no reason why they should not get the catalogue printed here.
Mr. Hayes
It would not pay them.
Amendment withdrawn.
I move amendment 135:
At Ref. No. 15, page 30, in paragraph (a), in the second column, after the words "wall paper" to insert the words "maps, patterns for the manufacture of other articles, ornamental greetings, foreign government publications, forms officially prescribed by foreign governments."
This is designed to exclude the articles mentioned from this duty.
Are maps also excluded from furniture?
Yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 136 not moved.
I move amendment 137 (as above):
May I ask the Minister another question? What is the position with regard to such books coming through the post? It is frequently the case that books are sent through the post to subscribers to libraries. Are those books liable to duty?
Oh, yes.
Are the packages by post going to be stopped in the Customs?
It is quite the practice to import dutiable goods by parcel post and there is a regular recognised procedure by which the duty is collected.
Does the Minister really recognise the additional amount of inconvenience that is put on the ordinary public who subscribe to libraries, either in England or elsewhere, and who get books weekly from these libraries? It means a visit to the Custom House every time in order to get a book out. That may be simple for the person resident in Dublin, but it will mean a good deal of trouble.
The Deputy does not understand. The book will be delivered to the consignee in the ordinary way and the duty collected, then, on the book.
The Minister is, of course, aware of the present practice. If a package is made up, there is some doubt as to whether it contains a book or not, and notice is given that the packet is in the Custom House and the consignee will have to go and see it opened. Will that apply to every book received?
The duty applies to books in the ordinary way as it applies to every other article.
That is what I would expect the Minister to say, but what I am getting at is, what is the amount of inconvenience that is going to be caused to the public because of this wretched tax? It is incalculable.
A non-dutiable book, I am informed, can be sent by book post. The dutiable book must be sent by parcel post, and that will considerably reduce the amount of inconvenience caused, arising out of a dispute as to whether a book is dutiable or not.
That, I think, now makes matters worse, if I understand the Minister correctly. I order a book from a London firm—it may be a book on science or a novel—and the London firm does not know our regulations about novels——
It is their duty to know.
It may or may not, but a firm often does not know, and it transmits the book to me by ordinary post——
To avoid the difficulty, the Deputy can order the book from a Dublin firm.
Am I or the firm liable to a penalty for receiving through parcel post a novel liable to Customs duty, whereas it would be all right if it was a book on science and could not be called a novel? What would it be if it was a scientific novel?
I will not answer that.
It would be double fiction.
Mr. Hayes
There is an organisation here, the Carnegie Students' Central Library, from which one can get almost any book free. Their procedure is that when a particular book is asked for, they get it, from London, perhaps, and have it sent on to your address. You only keep it a certain time and then send it back. The position there seems to be very difficult. It is really coming into a library, but it is for the use of A.B., and is not coming in for sale.
The library will have to alter its procedure. That is all it means. Books intended for non-pro-prietary libraries are free, and, consequently, libraries will just have to alter their procedure.
The book is coming to an individual.
The library can alter its procedure and import the books direct.
And go to the expense of double postage?
That means more revenue to the Exchequer.
Am I to understand that books coming to a county council library are free?
Yes.
The novel coming to A.B. must come by parcel post if——
Dutiable.
Yes, if it is a novel. If it is a book on science, it may come by book post. It is an extraordinarily anomalous position, and because the person who sends the book is a private person, who may, as the Minister said, be somebody connected with the firm, who ought to know his business, but more likely to be somebody who does not know that aspect of the matter, a position is going to be caused——
It is not going to be as bad as that.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 137a not moved.
Amendments 139 and 140 not moved.
Mr. Hayes
Amendment 141:—
At Ref. No. 15, column 2, paragraph (b), at the end of sub-paragraph (iii), to add the words "excluding all second-hand books bound in leather or imitations of leather."
I am not moving this amendment because the Minister is accepting the principle of it.
Yes, I am accepting the principle.
Amendment 141 not moved.
I move amendment 142:—
At Ref. No. 15, page 30, in the fifth column, to insert a further provision as follows:—
Whenever the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, is satisfied that any articles mentioned in paragraph (a) in the second column and chargeable with this duty are essential raw materials of a process of manufacture carried on or intended to be carried on in Saorstát Eireann and are not obtainable or likely to be obtainable in Saorstát Eireann and are required to be imported by a manufacturer for use in Saorstát Eireann in such process, the Revenue Commissioners may by licence authorise such manufacturer, subject to compliance with such conditions as they may think fit to impose, to import without payment of this duty the said articles either, as the Revenue Commissioners shall think proper, without limit as to time or quantity or either of them or within a specified time or in a specified quantity.
This amendment provides for the insertion of the licence provision in relation to the printed matter duty.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 143:—
At Ref. No. 15, page 30, in the fifth column, to insert a further provision as follows:—
Where the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied that any books chargeable with this duty are imported for the use of a library which is not a proprietary library conducted mainly for profit, the Revenue Commissioners may, subject to compliance with such conditions as they may think fit to impose, permit such books to be imported without payment of this duty.
This amendment provides for the case of the proprietary library.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 144:—
At Ref. No. 15, page 30, in the fifth column, to insert a further provision as follows:—
This duty shall not be charged or levied on any books which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, are of an educational character ordinarily required for use in schools, colleges, and universities, or of a scientific character.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 145:—
At Ref. 16, second column, to delete paragraph (d).
There was some discussion about this and I do not know whether the Minister undertook to consider it or not. I think the case was made that certain classes of these goods were almost bound to be imported, certain classes that could be made so much more cheaply abroad that no tariff that could be imposed would be of any use unless it was over 100 per cent.
The case was made that this was a one-firm trade and that Dennison's is a firm with enormous international ramifications. They supply unprinted tags of this character all over the world. I think it would meet the situation if the word "printed" were inserted before the word "tag" and if the tags were allowed to be imported in blank and printed here which I think is the common practice at present. I think the one firm have complete control of the trade all over the world.
I shall have the matter looked into if the amendment is withdrawn.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments 146, 147 and 148 not moved.
I move amendment No. 149:—
At Ref. No. 16, second column, paragraph (f) before the word "ticket" to insert the word "printed."
Amendment put and agreed to.
Amendment 150 not moved.
I move amendment No. 151:—
At Ref. No. 16, page 30, to insert in the fifth column the following provision:—
Whenever the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, is satisfied that any articles chargeable with this duty are essential raw materials of a process of manufacture carried on or intended to be carried on in Saorstát Eireann and are not obtainable or likely to be obtainable in Saorstát Eireann and are required to be imported by a manufacturer for use in Saorstát Eireann in such process, the Revenue Commissioners may by licence authorise such manufacturer, subject to compliance with such conditions as they may think fit to impose, to import without payment of this duty the said articles either, as the Revenue Commissioners shall think proper, without limit as to time or quantity or either of them, or within a specified time or in a specified quantity.
This is the licensing provision. It is desirable to have that power.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 152:—
To delete Ref. No. 17, including relevant references in columns 2, 3 and 4.
This is a case something like the book tax. It has been very substantially altered from the beginning. I do not know whether the original proposal was due to a misprint or some error in drafting, but all this wire was being taxed. Now it is manufactures of wire. A number of these manufactures seem to be excluded and we have only got what remains of the tax. I do not know that anything will now be chargeable with the duty except bird cages and rat traps and I suggest to the Minister that they should be allowed in free.
The exclusion of the word "manufactures" in the first instance was a misprint. The duty is intended to apply to wire manufactures. I agree that the majority of wire manufactures are excluded but still a large number of wire manufactures remain subject to the duty, wire fences and things of that sort which can be manufactured here. A fair amount of additional employment will be given as a result of it. I might mention that manufacturers are pressing very hard that barbed wire should be made subject to duty, but we are not prepared to do that.
Hear, hear!
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 153:—
At Ref. No. 17, page 31, in the second column, after the word "iron" to insert the word "wire." This is only a drafting amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I understand that if amendment 154, which proposes at Ref. No. 17, second column, to insert after the words "barbed wire" the words "fencing wire," were accepted it would leave only bird cages and rat traps subject to the duty. I shall withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments 155 and 156 not moved.
I move amendment 157:—
At Ref. No. 17, page 31, in the second column, after the word "descriptions" where it lastly occurs to add the words "springs, and screwed wire."
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 158:—
At Ref. No. 17, page 31, to insert in the fifth column the following provision:—
Whenever the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, is satisfied that any articles chargeable with this duty are essential raw materials of a process of manufacture carried on or intended to be carried on in Saorstát Eireann and are not obtainable or likely to be obtainable in Saorstát Eireann and are required to be imported by a manufacturer for use in Saorstát Eireann in such process, the Revenue Commissioners may by licence authorise such manufacturer, subject to compliance with such conditions as they may think fit to impose, to import without payment of this duty the said articles either, as the Revenue Commissioners shall think proper, without limit as to time or quantity or either of them or within a specified time or in a specified quantity.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 159:—
At Ref. No. 18, second column, to insert after the words "telephone poles," the words "hayrakes or hay forks."
The Minister for Agriculture has doubtless informed the Minister for Industry and Commerce that there is a certain variety of American hayrake which is not made in this country. It is of light quality which, I believe, in certain parts of the country is largely used by women who are engaged in harvesting operations. I am not trying to make a false case to the Minister. I believe that is so. I do not believe that this amendment is absolutely essential or that it would work any grave hardship on women as a class if this class of rake were subject to the duty. However, I think it is a rake that does not compete seriously with the home product and I think it would be a great advantage to the agricultural community if the Minister accepted the amendment. I think the vast bulk of hayrakes would be manufactured here, with the exception of the light hayrake used for the particular purpose I have described. I do not press the amendment on the Minister but I suggest that he should look into the matter. I do not see how he can if he is going to Ottawa.
My position is that there is a number of exclusions from manufactured woodworks and it is the one class in which least exclusions should be made because if there is one thing that we can manufacture here it is worked wood. I have no doubt that we can make hayrakes here which would meet all the needs of the country. There is a certain type of American hayrake which is used here but it is not essential. I shall have the matter looked into but I do not think there is much likelihood of my being able to agree to the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 160:—...
At Ref. No. 18, page 31. before paragraph (b), in the second column and the entries opposite it in the third and fourth, to insert in the second, third and fourth columns the following paragraph and figures:—
(b) the following tools when fitted with wooden handles and imported as complete tools, that is to say, hammers, hatchets, adzes, axes, pickaxes, mattocks, hoes, rakes and forks, and also wooden handles imported separately and, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, designed, constructed, and intended for use as handles for one or more of the said tools: 50% ; 33?%.
The purpose of this amendment is to extend the customs duty and to remove an anomaly that arises. As matters stood a person who imported the head of a tool and the handle of a tool separately paid a duty on the handle, but if he imported the two together he paid no duty at all and the intention is that the handles will be charged with duty whether imported separately or not but there will be no extra duty if they are imported with the head.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 161:—
At Ref. No. 18, page 31, in paragraph (b) in the second column to delete all from the bracket and words "(other than" to the end of the paragraph and substitute the following brackets and words "(except articles exempted by the provision contained in the fifth column) and component parts of such manufacturers (except as aforesaid)."
This is a drafting amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I move amendment 162:—
At Ref. No. 18, second column, paragraph (b), after the word "furniture" to insert the words "toys, religious articles."
Why does the Minister limit these articles to crucifixes?
Even in the case of crucifixes I have some doubts in my mind. A number of these things are manufactured here.
At the same price?
I know that some come in from Belgium at prices which make it practically impossible to compete with them, but articles made of wood are made here and can be made here.
At the same price?
Well, at reasonable prices. There are some very cheap articles of this nature imported from Continental countries, but there are a number of firm engaged in the manufacture here, and although prices are a consideration, we should not allow the question of price to determine whether or not we should protect the industry.
We should take into account the poverty of the people who are forced to buy that type of article.
Wood is the main material used in a crucifix.
Then why not exclude the others?
Because there is no reason. The term "religious article" is altogether too wide. For instance, all types of church furniture and things of that type could come under the heading of religious articles, and are made here and can be made here.
The Minister surely does not suggest that the amendment intends to cover such things as church furniture?
I am quite certain that Deputy McGilligan's amendment meant crucifixes.
The Minister said at the earlier stage that he would investigate the conduct of a certain manufacturer of rosary beads of whom I had informed the Minister that he had advanced his price. Did the Minister look into that?
I did. I got a report, but I cannot recollect, at the moment, what the exact purport of it was, but as far as I can recollect it was not quite as the Deputy stated.
I got a list which said, in effect, "the increased cost compels us reluctantly to increase our prices in accordance with the schedule." I put it in my pocket at the time and said that, at least, Mr. Lemass will see this. What I want to know is will the Minister look into that?
Oh, I will.
Amendment 162, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 163:—
At Ref. No. 18, second column, paragraph (b), after the word "kegs" to insert the words "extension ladders."
Is the Minister accepting that?
No, I see no reason why two ladders cannot be put together here.
Well, then, why cannot an extension ladder of from, say, 20 to 60 feet be got here?
I do not know that anybody in the country is engaged in the manufacture of these extension ladders at the moment, because they have not got the opportunity, but any competent saw miller should be able to make an extension ladder.
With the greatest respect to the Minister, I differ from him. It is a highly specialised industry.
A Deputy
I would not like to be up on it.
I quite agree with the Deputy. I do not wish it, of course, but I would much rather that the Minister was up on the 60-foot extension ladder, made by a saw miller who has had no experience, than that I was up on it. It is no good talking about somebody or some firm going to take up the manufacture of these ladders.
We approached persons interested in this business and asked them did they make, or was it their intention to make them. They said they had not made them because they had no orders, but that they could make them, and were prepared to make them. They said "If anybody wants them, refer them to us."
What I want to know is who is going to make them in this country? The Minister says "I will put a duty on them and the manufacturers of the ladders will automatically appear." Who are they?
Anybody who makes an ordinary ladder can make these ladders.
I differ from you. You can cart an order around the whole city of Dublin for extension ladders, and you will not find anyone to undertake it as a commercial proposition. You might tell a man that you would bet him £150 if he would build such a ladder, and he might be able to build it for you. The same thing applies to other matters in this schedule. There is no manufacturer in the country making these ladders, or, as far as I know, willing to make them. Switch ladders are an entirely different thing. but extension ladders, with the development of modern transport and various other things, have practically become a necessity to contractors, and there is no one in this country making them or, so far as I know, purporting to make them.
Mr. Hayes
Workmen's lives depend on the proper making of these ladders and from the point of view of anyone who knows a man who goes up these ladders, the point of view of a man who says that he will make them if he gets an order is not enough. I know a considerable number of people who have to go up on these ladders, and they say that they must know first who made the ladder before they will go up, and they will not go up on any ladder made by an amateur. It must be remembered that the people who have to go up on them are generally trade unionists, with a strong trade union behind them, and they will not go up.
After this they will insist on Irish-made ladders.
There is as much difference between an extension ladder and an ordinary ladder as there is, say, between a vacuum cleaner and a swab. Is the Minister aware that an extension ladder is quite a complicated piece of machinery? I can make any ordinary ladder myself, and, I am sure, so could the Minister, if he had a few pieces of wood, some nails and a hammer; and so could any carpenter. An extension ladder, however, is a highly specialised article and one on which men's lives depend.
We have some of the best woodworkers in this State.
Mr. Hayes
But it is not a question of woodworkers.
I would like to protest in the strongest manner possible that here is an important matter affecting all the contracting firms in this country, and the Minister meets us by saying "Are there not excellent wood-working firms in this country?" There are; but it is like a lot of other things, —this is a highly specialised kind of manufacture. The grain of the timber has to be very carefully selected, and I think, in the case of a firm starting to-morrow, it would be a couple of years before they would have selected the timber and left it to season. And here we are now with a tariff going to be put on, and there is no one to supply the demand. I suppose the Minister will dispute the fact that the price of extension ladders is going to go up to 33? per cent. I should like the Minister to look into this again.
The issue raised has not been taken seriously by the Minister. He assumed that an ordinary carpenter, in an ordinary firm accustomed to making ordinary ladders, could make these extension ladders just as if they were the same thing. He ignores the fact that these ladders are entirely different. He ignores the fact that men's lives may be depending upon them. The job being done by persons not accustomed to doing it may have serious consequences. I suggest that the Deputy should not withdraw his amendment.
I think that the Minister might agree to accept this amendment.
No. I had the matter investigated and no case was made out for exclusion. An extension ladder is in the main two ladders held together with metal fittings.
The lives of workers may be depending upon this. Trade unionists will not risk their lives on these ladders.
Deputy Norton will risk their lives for them.
I really think this is important. If these ladders could be produced here I would be perfectly satisfied.
Mr. Hayes
Would the Minister get one of them made and submit it to a contractor and let us have his opinion on it? He tells us here that it is all right because somebody has told him that somebody else could make these ladders.
I said there was a firm competent to make them here.
Probably there are firms here competent to make them, but does the Minister realise that the special timber for their manufacture is not to be had in the State? It has to be very carefully selected. I do not know how many Deputies here have had experience of the making of aeroplane parts and the laws of cross grains and so on. There are certain things that an ordinary person could see are not fit to go into a ladder. I am perfectly satisfied the Minister has in his mind switch ladders that merely involve split poles, bars and holes for rungs, which can be made by any carpenter in the country. The other is a highly specialised matter and you are merely, by this tax, going to increase the cost to the trade to the extent of the duty.
Surely the Minister realises that there is a difference between an extension ladder and the kind of ladder he has in mind.
I will undertake to look into the question to see whether my idea of an extension ladder and the Department's idea, differ, in any way, from Deputy Dockrell's idea. If Deputy Dockrell has in mind something that in our opinion is not an extension ladder we will exclude it.
What I am looking for is an Irish source of supply for extension ladders.
Some of the finest ash in the world grows in this country.
It is not the wood that is in question at all. It is whether the wood used is matured and suitable.
Would Deputy O'Sullivan give us a definition of an extension ladder?
An extension ladder is a ladder fitting in sections.
If the Deputy does not move this amendment now and brings it up on Report Stage we can argue it again.
I agree to that.
Amendment withdrawn, to be considered again on Report Stage.
Amendment 164 not moved.
I move amendment 165:
At Ref. No. 18, page 31, in the fifth column, to insert a further provision as follows:—
Whenever the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, is satisfied that any articles chargeable with this duty are essential raw materials of a process of manufacture carried on or intended to be carried on in Saorstát Eireann, and are not obtainable or likely to be obtainable in Saorstát Eireann and are required to be imported by a manufacturer for use in Saorstát Eireann in such process, the Revenue Commissioners may by licence authorise such manufacturer, subject to compliance with such conditions as they may think fit to impose, to import without payment of this duty the said articles either, as the Revenue Commissioners shall think proper, without limit as to time or quantity or either of them, or within a specified time or in a specified quantity.
This is a licensing provision.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 166:—
At Ref. No. 18, page 31, in the fifth column, in insert a further provision as follows:—
This duty shall not be charged or levied on vehicles designed, constructed, and intended for use on roads or for use on rails, nor on any of the following articles nor on any component parts of such of the following articles as are complete articles, that is to say:—
(a) machinery,
(b) power lifts,
(c) furniture (not including picture frames imported without a picture),
(d) harness and saddlery,
(e) articles for use in sport, (f) scientific and medical instruments and apparatus,
(g) component parts of boxes which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, are margarine boxes,
(h) butter-boxes, egg-boxes, barrels, casks, and kegs,
(i) tools, excluding tools and component parts thereof specifically mentioned in the second column,
(j) spools,
(k) churns,
(l) incubators,
(m) component parts of umbrellas,
(n) unfinished covers for loose leaf ledgers,
(o) musical instruments,
(p) containers which at importation are filled with other goods,
(p) empty containers which are shown to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners to be imported for use as containers of goods to be exported,
(r) punnets, chip boxes and baskets,
(s) articles constructed, designed, and intended for use for educational purposes in schools, colleges, or other educational establishments,
(t) crucifixes,
(u) any toy the value of which does not exceed one shilling.
This specifies the list of articles excluded from duty, following upon the various representations made here and otherwise. Considerable doubt exists as to the advisability of excluding some of the articles enumerated, and very strong representations against exclusion have been received, but I decided to move the amendment on this occasion, noting, however, that in relation to some of the articles it may be desirable to modify the provisions later by bringing them subject to the duty.
Does the Minister intend to include the component parts of sections of beehives? They come in in sheets.
I shall look into that. I received certain representations. The bee is a manufacturer of course in that case.
May I ask the Minister are tools with wooden handles of all kinds free of duty?
No. If the Deputy would look at amendment 160 he would see.
This could not have reference to No. 18 of the Schedule. We are dealing now with amendment 166 and that has reference to No. 18 which deals with wooden articles. Do these refer to machinery?
There is any amount of wooden machinery, for instance, in flour mills.
That was not my question. Does this cover only wooden articles?
Yes, only wooden articles.
It is used for connotation and not denotation.
Amendment agreed to.
The following amendment was on the Paper in the name of Deputy Good:—
167. At Ref. No. 18, fifth column, after the word "importation" to add the words:—
This duty shall not apply to wooden ships used for carrying cargo, fishing vessels, motor boats or sailing boats, nor shall it apply to the timber portions of ships constructed mainly of steel or iron.
I shall accept that in principle and introduce an amendment on Report Stage. We will exclude three-masted sailing ships and motor boats and other boats of that kind. I think row boats of various descriptions are made here. I undertake to bring in an amendment on Report Stage to deal with the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 168 standing in the name of Deputy Gorey: "At Ref. No. 19, second column, to add at the end the words. ‘excluding non-poisonous sheep dip.'"
I move this amendment because I am not satisfied, despite the representations made here, that a non-poisonous sheep dip prepared by Cooper for the prevention of sheep scab is available in this country of Irish manufacture. Is the Minister satisfied that there is a non-poisonous sheep dipused which will be regarded as discharging the obligation?
There is and approved by the Department of Agriculture.
Non-poisonous and contains no arsenic?
I do not know its composition, but I know that it is approved by the Department of Agriculture.
That is the whole problem. If there is such a difference let there be no warm feelings about it, as I will withdraw my opposition if it is available and can be had at a reasonable price. I do not think the Minister should put on this duty until he is satisfied there is such a difference. A number of people are obliged to use sheep dip of some kind for their stock. The Minister knows how intensely dangerous it is to introduce arsenic into farmers' houses, where there are young children running about, who may poison themselves or scatter it about. the yard where it will get into a pool of water and perhaps poison cattle. The thing is a very real danger, especially where there are children, not only to human life but to farm stock. Unless the Minister is certain that a non-poisonous dip is available I would not be satisfied. If a man uses dip that is not efficacious the country may be faced with an epidemic of sheep scab and any farmer can tell what a disaster that would be. If the Minister is satisfied, after consultation with the Department, I will not press the amendment, but I think he should take elaborate precautions.
Perhaps I could enlighten Deputy Dillon. In the town from which I come a sheep dip is made which is non-poisonous. It is a nicotine sheep dip.
Does the Deputy call that non-poisonous?
It is non-poisonous.
Nicotine is the most potent poison in the British Pharmacopoeia.
It is non-poisonous and is used extensively in the Colonies. The gentleman who makes it sells practically the whole output abroad. It is highly recommended by agricultural experts in Canada, Australia and South Africa. The extraordinary thing is that in the town in which it is made it is hardly known. A poisonous arsenic dip is preferred. The sheep dip to which I refer is well known to officials of the Department of Agriculture and is highly recommended by them. If its manufacture were encouraged the owner could easily supply the wants of the Free State and, incidentally, give a considerable amount of employment. The dip is highly efficacious and non-poisonous.
With the leave of the House I will withdraw the amendment, providing the Minister will look into the matter.
I do not want to reopen the case again.
The Minister promises to look into it.
There are a number of sheep dips manufactured in this country, which are approved of by the Department of Agriculture, the body responsible in this matter. I am almost certain that non-poisonous sheep dip is included in the list but I would like to be definite before saying so. As far as I know there are satisfactory sheep dips made here which are very strongly recommended by the Department.
As far as I know they are all poisonous dips. I asked the Minister to make sure when he stated previously that they were non-poisonous. I regret that the Minister has not the information now. I blame myself for not making enquiries. I venture to say, with very little short of absolute confidence, that they are not. Non-poisonous sheep dips are necessary for dogs and fowl as well as for sheep. A winter dip to be any way effective must contain carbolic which is non-poisonous. In the summer you must have arsenic or sulphur in the dip. I do not believe there is an effective non-poisonous waterproof sheep dip. We had an excessive amount of rain during the past few winters, and there was a necessity for a non-poisonous dip. Carbolic is waterproof and in that lies its greatest value.
I would like to reassure the House on this matter. Cork County Council accepted tenders for sheep dip last week. It is made in Cork-Burke's non-poisonous dip— and is recommended by the Department of Agriculture. The advantages of that dip are that it is non-poisonous, it is recommended by the Department, the price was the lowest, and in addition it is made in Cork.
Is it waterproof and recommended for the autumn dip?
Yes, and it was recommended by the Department as such.
The dip I mentioned is a very suitable one, because it does not destroy the natural oil in the wool as arsenic does.
Where is it made?
At Lismore, County Waterford. It is used by Cavan County Council and by other bodies and is recommended by the Department. It is non-poisonous.
I had experience of the dip to which Deputy Corry refers. Cooper's dip has to be used through it.
No.
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 169 not moved.
I move amendment 170:—
At Ref. No. 20, page 32, in the second column paragraph (v), before the word "pumps" to insert the word "water."
Amendment agreed to.
I move:—
At Ref. No. 20, second column, page 32, to add at the end the words : "No duty shall be charged on any goods that on importation are found to be damaged and are returned for replacement."
I would like to know if the Minister accepts the principle of this amendment or some form of it. In this trade the breakages are very heavy, and the desire is to have some machinery by which damaged castings may be returned for replacements without being subject to duty.
If the fact that goods on importation were damaged was brought to the notice of the Revenue Commissioners before the goods were cleared, no duty would be charged. Obviously the Revenue Commissioners could not be responsible after goods had been cleared and left their control.
I quite agree. The simplest and the easiest case is where they are found to be defective on the quays, but, if the Minister can supply machinery where on delivery goods are found to be defective, some arrangement might be made that would be acceptable to the trade.
I will look into the matter.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 172 not moved.
I move amendment 173:
At Ref. No. 21, second column, to delete the word "superphosphates."
Here I think we come to the proposition which I asked the Minister to consider. On the last occasion on which I referred to the Finance Bill I told the House of my experience, and I gave the Minister, not prognostications, but facts that have occurred in connection with this trade.
For the information of the House, I propose now to repeat what I said. In the spring of every year during the last five years the English and Irish manure manufacturers have been accustomed to approach distributors. I propose to speak in round figures for the purpose of illustrating what I have to say. When they approach distributors, they inform them that they will be prepared to supply superphosphate of lime at say, £4 5s. per ton. On each occasion when such an approach was made to me, I bade the representative "good morning" and told him I was not interested, in his proposition. Usually after these representatives have called, the representatives of the Continental manufacturers arrive. Their price is usually from 12/6d. to 15/6d. per ton under the other price. That is to say, it runs from £3 10s. to £3 12s. 6d. In every single year, when the Continental price became current property to distributors, the English manufacturers came down to the Continental price—delivered superphosphate of lime at that price. That has happened one year after another.
The Minister will observe that although I was inclined to move the deletion of the whole section, I have sought to appreciate his difficulty in abandoning the principle of a tax of that kind. I am satisfied that if he removes superphosphate of lime from the Schedule, we will be able to control the price of compound fertilisers, because we will be able to offer farmers the alternative of mixing their own compound fertilisers if the manure manufacturers try to push the price up too high. Take the 8¼ per cent. general fertiliser. If the manufacturers try to push the price of that up too high, the people can easily prepare an adequate substitute by mixing muriate of potash, sulphate of ammonia and superphosphate of lime. Another mixture, would include superphosphate of lime, kainit and nitrate of soda. I could go through all the compound manures and prepare formulae that the farmer could mix in his own home if the manufacturer sought to mulct him in high prices. If you exclude the import of Continental superphosphate of lime by a tariff, you will not succeed in increasing the production of the Irish manufacturers of artificial manures by any substantial amount, because the Minister admits that a very large percentage—I think he said as high as 90 per cent.—of artificial manures are already supplied from sources other than Continental. Therefore, you are not going to increase Irish production. But you are going to withdraw the one safe brake on prices that has operated efficiently in the eyes of everybody for the last five years. There is no doubt about that. The facts are there and any person who honestly informs the Minister must inform him of those facts. The Minister has frequently replied to representations of that kind that if we are going to make price the only criterion he is not interested. All I say in answer to that is "Look at the thriving condition of Goulding's manures." Let him remember that Gouldings control the whole manure industry in this country. Let him watch the stock exchange and, if he does that, I think he will satisfy himself beyond doubt that Gouldings is not in any danger and never was in any danger. On the contrary, I believe it is very good for the Irish manure factories to have that competition, because it gives them just that impetus to keep their business efficient and just that justification for saying to their workers, supervisors and employees: "You must keep on the job if you are going to keep our trade." If that stimulus is withdrawn, the net result will be that the price of superphosphate of lime will be increased from 6d. to 1s. per cwt. to every farmer. That will mean that every small farmer who is trying to operate his farm intelligently will have laid upon him a tax of from 5/- to 10/- per annum at a minimum. Every farmer of any substance will be fined in a sum anywhere between £2 and £5 per annum, and this, so far as I can see, to achieve practically nothing, because the Minister admits that at present the Irish manure trade is holding its own and is well able to hold its own, as is evidenced by the fact that it is supplying the bulk of the demand at the present time. I ask the Minister to note that I have not applied for the removal from the Schedule of all compound manures and only ask for the removal of superphosphate of lime. If he will meet us on that and give us superphosphate of lime, we will be able to control the market and keep prices down to a reasonable level. If the Minister does not do that, it is well to understand—Farmer Deputies know it as well as I know it—that Deputies will be voting for an annual tax of from 10/- to £5 on every farmer, or else they will be voting for the farmers to stop using artificial manures, to the grave detriment of the land and in direct opposition to the advice promulgated by the Department of Agriculture when they published the exceptionally strong-worded poster declaring that the land of this country is "starving for phosphates."
This matter was well argued on a previous stage and anything that one could say now would be repetition. If the Minister is in the same frame of mind as he was, it is useless debating the question. If the Minister has made some of the inquiries I suggested, he will have discovered that his attitude should not be as it was before. Deputy Dillon has said that this will mean an increase of from 5/- to 10/- a ton in the cost of "artificials" to the consumer. That is putting it very low indeed. That is based on last year's experience when the other stuff was free to come in. What is it going to be now that it is not to come in? Is there any forecast made of that? I cannot see the cost being less than £1 per ton additional when the coast is clear of all foreign competition. The case is being made to you by the Minister that some of the employees were not retained as long last year as the year before. That may be his information. I do not believe it. I do not believe it is a fact because the same amount of artificial manure was used in the country last year as during the previous year, and no additional amount of foreign manure replaced it. The figures for the last few years vary from 200,000 tons to 168,000 tons of Irish manures. About 32,000 tons come from outside. These embrace raw mineral phosphates and compound manures. Now that it is reduced in the amendment to phosphate of lime, a different figure altogether would be arrived at as to imports. But it would be sufficient to regulate the prices, it would be sufficient to bring in that necessary competition that will prevent the consumer from being mulcted.
I cannot understand the Minister making a plea for a company whose shares on the market form some of the best investments in the State, the most favoured of the investments amongst the investing public. What then is the Minister's justification for boosting up a combine that is already at the top of the industry? We know as Deputy Dillon has said that the Irish combine is in the hands of one man and in addition to that that combine has affiliations with England, with the result that there is no competition from that quarter. Not alone is there a combination here but there is a combination across the water. Why the consumer in his present opulent or the reverse position, whichever you like to call it, should be asked to do a thing that the artificial manure business does not demand, something that the shareholders or traders in that business do not demand, is a thing I cannot understand.
The story about the drop in the sales of the Irish manure firms last year is a thing I do not accept, because the farmers sowed as much last year as the year before and the workers in the industry were employed as long as the year before. The effect of this tax will be that a very small amount of money will be brought into the Exchequer, but it will take a whole lot of money out of the pockets of the consumers. That is a thing that we here on these benches representing the farmers protest against and resent.
I do not wish to prolong the discussion on this amendment nor at this stage will I repeat the arguments set forth on the two previous occasions, but I do appeal to the Minister to reconsider this tariff. I would point out to him that the use of superphosphate of lime is now absolutely indispensable to the farmers of this country. I wonder if the Minister before he proceeded to impose this tariff on superphosphates and the tariffs on the other things used by the farmer, discussed these tariffs with any class of farmer or with the traders who have been in the habit of supplying the farmers of the country?
Did the Minister discuss it with traders of the type of Deputy Dillon and men like him through the country? if he had discussed these tariffs with a representative body of farmers and with the traders who are accustomed to supply these farmers he would have been advised that tariffs of this character, no matter how small they may be, are bound to do a tremendous amount of harm to the farming industry. This is one of the indispensable manures to the land of this country. There was never more need of phosphate of lime on the land than at present. That statement will be confirmed by his own officials. For years and years the officials of the Department of Agriculture have been advising the farmers of the country to use more phosphate of lime and some of those officials have actually assisted the small farmers to obtain adequate supplies of phosphate of lime. I do not want to prolong the discussion on this amendment but I would appeal to the Minister to reconsider the whole question and to remove the tariff altogether. In that way he will be doing something that will be not only in the interest of the Government but very much in the interest of the small farmers of the country.
There is no product so essential for the carrying out of a successful tillage policy as a plentiful supply of superphosphates. Everybody who has had anything to do with tillage must realise how very essential it is for those who are carrying on agricultural pursuits in this country to be able to obtain superphosphates at the lowest price possible. In putting on this tariff I feel that the Minister will be taking away the means by which the farmer will he enabled to increase the volume of production in the country. The imposing of restrictions on the importation of manures is taking away one of the means whereby prices can be kept within bounds. Artificial manures are provided to a very large degree by one particular firm in this country operating as they are on certain lines. They will only supply the trade. They will not supply direct a co-operative society or a body of farmers and therefore the farmer has absolutely no means of countering that combine except by the competition which has hitherto been available to him by the imports of foreign manure. I have realised that myself in the past.
We have been able to bring down prices of manures only in one way and that was by combining amongst ourselves to import foreign manures. If one takes into consideration that the Government are really in favour of increased tillage in this country, they are working against that policy by taking away from the farmer the means of carrying out tillage successfully. As Deputy Dillon has pointed out, one of the means whereby the farmer can counter any likely increase in the price of compound manures is by mixing the manures himself. That has been carried out by the farmers in the past. But this absolutely essential product, superphosphate, the farmer will not be able to obtain unless foreign manures are allowed in free. By this tariff on manures the Minister is striking a blow at agriculture and a blow at the farming industry. I would appeal to him to remit this tariff on imported superphosphates.
This matter was debated here at great length on another occasion and the arguments then put up were the self-same arguments as we have heard to-day. Apparently there is a certain brand of farmer in this country who want the unemployed labourers to buy their products but do not themselves want to buy anything in this country that would provide employment for those labourers. That is the whole case in a nutshell. This matter was all right until Great Britain put a tariff on imported artificial manures. The moment that was done the flow of artificial manures into Great Britain was changed to this country. We were made the dumping ground for the Continental stuff. That is the actual situation at present. I know very well there was a ring in operation in the artificial manure industry. I do not think there is any farmer who has had to buy manures who does not know that some years ago there was a ring in operation in this matter.
But we are taking steps to deal with rings and to deal with profiteering whether that is done in Indian meal by Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies or in artificial manures by Messrs. Goulding. That sort of thing is going to be dealt with and I am perfectly confident that the moment Messrs. Gouldings, or any other firm manufacturing manures here, look for a higher profit than they are getting at present, they will be dealt with and dealt with in a manner that will give satisfaction to everybody. We have no doubt about that. We will be using three times as much artificial manures next spring as were used last year. I believe that with our tillage policy in full operation we will need three times as much artificial manure as we required last year. It will take a good deal of artificial manure to get 150,000 extra acres under the plough and we expect to have 150,000 extra acres under the plough next Spring. That will mean that there will undoubtedly be more competition and that there will be more employment for our people in this country. I would like to hear Deputy Kiersey on that matter. That is the Deputy who told us some days ago that there were eight bright spots in the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. I would like to see those eight bright spots coming forward now in order to help in abolishing unemployment here. I hope those eight bright spots will still remain bright and that the fertilisers will not be too much for them.
The Deputy is one of the bright spots of Fianna Fáil.
I made a suggestion to the Deputy a while ago, but he did not take it up. I see no reason to be afraid of protecting our own industries. I know what happened during the last three months as a result of the extraordinary dumping of foreign manures.
What is the result?
There were 6,000 or 7,000 tons of fertilisers left on people's hands. That amount was changed over from the English market the moment England put on a tariff. Many of our people were left walking the streets of Cork unemployed. We have no room for foreign manures, either from across Channel or from the Continent, while there is an unemployed man in this country. There is no occasion for this howl on the part of farmers who want to sell their produce to the Irish people and who complain, at the same time, because they are asked to give employment to Irish people.
When this matter of superphosphates was debated in the first instance there was no case made for it on the Government Benches. As a matter of fact, occupants of the Government Benches were unable to agree in any particular. In the first place, the Minister for Industry and Commerce assured the House that the tariff would mean no increase in price to the farmer. Then came the Minister for Agriculture who said that of course it would mean an extra cost, and although it would mean an extra cost it would be well for the farmer to bear it as the money was going to be spent on a home product. Deputy Allen said this tariff should be borne because it was for the good of the community. Deputy Corry said it was not for the good of the community but for the benefit of 1,000 men employed in the artificial manure trade. He added that if this tariff were not carried we would have to support 1,000 men by way of home assistance.
Is not that for the good of the community?
We are told by one of the Labour members that even if the tariff were put on it would not mean any increase in employment, because the men at present employed in the artificial manure trade were not working up to 25 per cent. of what they were capable of producing. That is the way the case was put to us. Now Deputy Corry says there is a howl. I did not hear anybody howling. If one brings commonsense to bear on this question it will be found that it cannot stand examination. With regard to the consumption of artificial manures, the Irish farmer deserves great credit for his patriotism in purchasing home products, notwithstanding the difference in the price of the Irish article above the imported article. Four-fifths of the total quantity of artificial manures purchased by farmers were of Irish manufacture.
For patriotic motives?
The fact is that Irish farmers purchased at least four-fifths of their requirements from Irish manufacturers notwithstanding that foreign manures were from 10/- to 14/- a ton cheaper. Whatever motive may be attributed, that is the fact. That was particularly the case in County Cork, where the farmers will not buy foreign manures on any account. If this tariff is imposed I fear the general tendency will be for the price of the home product to go up. At the present time the home manufacturer is able to sell his product notwithstanding a difference of from 10/-to 14/- a ton, as compared with foreign manures. If there is no outside competition there will be a tendency to increase the price of the home product, and that will be a distinct disadvantage to the farmer.
There was a very poor case made for the tariff. It must be understood that the control of this trade, in Ireland, is in the hands practically of one firm. There are seven firms engaged in the trade, but they are more or less under one central control. The firm has been doing extraordinarily well and I do not think it is opportune at the present time to encourage an increase in price by the putting on of the tariff. There is no case for it, and farmers ought to be allowed to take advantage of cheap manures if they want to purchase them. It will not affect the great bulk of the trade which is being done from the Irish manufacturers' point of view.
This duty was discussed at considerable length in the Dáil on two previous occasions, and I do not think we are going to become any wiser as a result of another long debate. The various representations made by Deputies were carefully examined. All the matters mentioned were gone into, and the more examination we gave them the more convinced we became that this duty was one that should be imposed and maintained. We are told there is a danger of the farmer being exploited. I do not think I said there would be no increase in price. In so far as superphosphates are being imported at uneconomic prices, the exclusion of imports may mean some increase in price, but the danger we must avoid is any undue profit-making at the farmers' expense. We are told there is some danger of that. The position is that we have seven factories working here. Between them they are quite capable of supplying all the country's requirements. In open competition here in the past they succeeded in supplying 80 per cent. of the country's requirements.
They were not in competition with the world.
No clear evidence has been produced to show they were not in open competition. I have no evidence to show that they had an arrangement between themselves. That was emphatically denied to me by those concerned. The position is that they did succeed in securing 80 per cent. of the market here. We are told we are going to have a monopoly by excluding Continental superphosphates. Deputies are omitting the fact that there is no duty on superphosphates imported from Great Britain or any other member of the British Commonwealth. It is not a confined market. The duty is imposed upon the Continental superphosphates which have been excluded from England in recent months, by reason of the English duty, and which are coming in here at prices with which the Irish factories could not be expected to compete. The fact is that even the 20 per cent. duty we have imposed if paid in full upon the Continental superphosphate, at the present price of that superphosphate, does not bring it up to the price at which Irish superphosphate was bought by farmers last year in preference to the Continental stuff.
That is no guarantee that the Irish stuff will not go up another bit.
The fact is that if the Deputy wants to get Continental superphosphate he can get it and pay the duty and have it cheaper than the Irish superphosphate but it will not be as good. The Deputy knows that the reason Irish superphosphate was sold in four times the quantity that the Continental stuff was imported was because it was better and the farmers were prepared to pay more for it.
The analysis is the same but the Irish stuff is made up better.
Whatever the circumstances are, the farmers prefer to pay more for Irish superphosphate. That is the position. There is no question about the ability of the factories to supply the requirements of the country. That is not contested. There is no question about the quality of their product. That is demonstrated by the fact that it commands consistently a higher price, and has been purchased in much greater quantities than any imported stuff. Doubt has been expressed as to whether or not an attempt will be made to exploit the farmers subject to the duty. I say that such exploitation cannot take place, firstly, because there is not a reservation of the market. There is a complete absence of any duty upon superphosphate imported from Great Britain. Secondly, because the rate of duty imposed upon the Continental stuff, in relation to the present range of prices, does not bring the price of the Continental stuff up to the price at which Irish superphosphate is being bought. I say further that if these safeguards are inadequate, if we should find that, in fact, an attempt to exploit the farmer is being made, then we are proposing, in a Bill which has been circulated to take power to deal with that situation. That situation will be dealt with if necessary, but we do not anticipate that it will arise. That Bill, in any case, will have been enacted here before the next season comes round or before there is an additional demand for superphosphate.
I think the Deputies opposite have been backing the wrong horse in their opposition to this duty. Those who have examined the position, including the persons who can be justly described as experts in agriculture with whom it was discussed, are satisfied that this is a duty which should be imposed. Its imposition, as I pointed out, means preserving the livelihood of the 1,000 people engaged in the compound manure industry. That industry was badly hit this year. The number of men employed were facing a long period of unemployment this Summer. A number of factories are at present temporarily shut down. It is true that they do normally restrict the output at this period of the year, but there is in the country an abnormal stock of the Continental stuff and, because of the abnormal supplies which came in, an abnormal stock of Irish stuff, and consequently a definite diminution in the employment given. In view of the restrictions which are being imposed on the Continental stuff, and other possibilities, there is some reason to anticipate, not that the number of persons employed in the industry will be increased, but that these people are going to get more employment and more regular employment. That is why we recommend the duty.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 64; Níl, 50.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Clery, Mícheál.
- Colbert, James.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred Hugh.
- Curran, Patrick Joseph.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Everett, James.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Gormley, Francis.
- Gorry, Patrick Joseph.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- Norton, William.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas J.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brasier, Brooke.
- Broderick, William Jos.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Davis, Michael.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Gorey, Denis John.
- Hassett, John J.
- Hayes, Michael.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Keating, John.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Kiersey, John.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McDonogh, Fred.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Coburn, James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Brien, Eugene P.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Manony, The.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Reilly, John Joseph.
- O'Shaughnessy, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Mrs. Mary.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Thrift, William Edward.
- White, John.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Dillon.
Question declared carried.
The following amendments appeared on the Paper:—
174. To delete Ref. No. 23, including relevant references in columns 2, 3, 4 and 5.—(Earnán de Blaghd.)
175. At Ref. No. 23, second column, to delete from and including the words "and wheeled vehicles" to the word "children."—(Patrick McGilligan.)
I presume this is a revenue tax.
No. The tax is to get, first of all, bicycles and tricycles assembled here, and it has succeeded in that; also, to get children's carriages manufactured here, and it has succeeded in that.
Can the Minister see any hope on his horizon?
Undoubtedly.
One of the best tariffs of the lot!
So far as children's carriages are concerned in the discussions that are taking place between the firms and the Department, the firms are urging that certain other parts, which we propose to allow in duty free, should also be brought subject to duty.
Can the Minister give any idea as to what Border arrangements with regard to bicycles are going to be made?
The usual arrangements, as in relation to farmers' carts.
Take a note of it and have it on the next Stage.
Amendments 174 and 175 withdrawn.
Amendment 176 not moved.
I move amendment 177:—
At Ref. No. 24, page 32, in the second column, after the word "plate" to add the words "excluding photographic prints which in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners are of a technical or scientific nature."
So far as photographic prints for exhibition purposes are concerned, there is a drawback arrangement, which, I think, meets the point Deputy Dockrell has in mind.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments 178, 179 and 180 not moved.
I move amendment 181:—
To delete Ref. No. 27, including relevant references in columns 2, 3 and 4.
This is definitely a tax by which it is proposed to obtain revenue, by taxing the import of knives, forks, spoons, tongs, razors and component parts.
The duty, as the Deputy has said, is mainly a revenue duty, but we are investigating, at the moment, the possibility of having some industry started for the manufacture of certain of these articles here. I do not know whether we will be successful in that, but, in the meantime, we will be glad of the revenue.
Will it not be better to make certain of the prospects of giving employment in manufacture here, and to postpone the imposition of this revenue tax until these prospects arrive?
We must get revenue.
Mr. Byrne
Surely the Minister has put enough burdens on the backs of the people, without adding an unnecessary burden on them.
This does not add to the burden. It is part of it.
Mr. Byrne
Why does it not add to it?
Because it is part of it.
That is subtle use of language.
Amendment withdrawn.
I move amendment 182:—
To delete Ref. No. 28, including relevant references in columns 2, 3 and 4.
I move this amendment because this tax is also a purely revenue tax.
That is so. It is so intended, definitely.
Amendment negatived.
I move amendment 183:—
At Ref. No. 28, page 33, in the second column, after the word "work" to add the words "and also excluding unexposed sensitized films, plates, paper, and cards."
This is an amendment I undertook to bring in on Second Reading.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 183a:—
At Ref. No. 28, page 33, second column, after the word "work" to add the words "or in any educational institution."
I am glad the Minister has brought in amendment 183 and I think 183a is only in accord with principles he has adapted to other matters.
I am afraid that the wording of this amendment would make the exclusion altogether too wide. It would be impossible to distinguish a photographic apparatus intended for use in an educational establishment, from one intended for use, say, for pleasure. It is possible, definitely, to ascertain whether apparatus is intended for use in hospital or surgical work, and, if so, it is excluded, but the exclusion the Deputy suggests is altogether too wide.
Could the Minister suggest some wording which would meet the point?
I am afraid not. It is a revenue duty and we have to get revenue.
It is very important for many research institutions that these articles should not be liable to duty. Would the Minister accept the principle that such things consigned to Universities or educational institutions should not be taxed? That would prevent any abuse.
I would have no objection to excluding from the duty apparatus which was designed for use in scientific work and which would be unsuitable for any other class of use, but I could not exclude from the duty apparatus similar to the apparatus which might be used for pleasure merely because it is intended for use in the University.
It is infinitesimal compared with the raid on the Hospitals Fund.
Still it is of considerable importance. Would the Minister produce some phrase for the Report Stage which would meet this point?
I shall consider what can be done along those lines.
I should like to impress upon him that a great deal of scientific work particularly in laboratories, medical laboratories and scientific institutions, involves, nowadays the use of photographic apparatus which is generally of a very expensive type. This would be a very substantial tax on the limited resources of these very valuable centres of work and research.
I shall consider what can be done.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments No. 184 and 185 not moved.
Mr. Byrne
In connection with these amendments has the Minister any hope or prospect of any firm coming in here for the corrugation of iron?
I move amendment No. 186:—
At Ref. No. 30, second column, before the word "iron" where it first occurs, to insert the word "curved," and to delete the word "flat" and substitute the word "straight."
I understand the Minister's mind on this question but the section as originally drafted does not convey his intention. It leaves a great element of doubt, so much so that an instruction was sent out I believe from his Department in connection with cases where people had been paying on straight sheets of corrugated iron. I have a billhead here showing that an amount of £11 17s. 8d. was charged to a trader in Bagenalstown on such sheet. The section says: "galvanised corrugated iron or steel excluding flat sheets of such iron." A flat sheet of galvanised iron is a straight flat sheet similar to the table. A corrugated sheet is known as a straight sheet, not a flat sheet and the whole confusion arose out of that. There may not be much necessity for putting in the word "curved" but there is certainly necessity for replacing the word "flat" by "straight." Flat has a certain meaning and there is no such thing as galvanised corrugated iron in flat sheets. There are galvanised iron straight sheets and there are curved sheets. If this amendment is inserted it carries out in my opinion the Minister's intention. This is a Resolution that has caused a whole lot of confusion and it will likely result in considerably more unless it is amended. It has already resulted as I have pointed out in one trader being wrongly charged £ll. I think it would be very much better if there was no doubt either in the people's minds or in the minds of the Revenue Commissioners as to what it means. The traders of the country want some information and the wording as drafted does not give that information. If you put in the word "flat" instead of "straight" it puts the matter right and carries out the Minister's intention and it is preferable to a word that causes confusion. In fact I should like also to put in the word "curved" because it removes all doubt both for the trader and the Revenue Commissioners.
It is clear that Deputy Gorey and myself have the same thing in mind but we are not agreed as to what we should call it. I submit the wording in the section meets the Deputy's point. It does not really matter so long as it is administered in accordance with the Deputy's view. What is happening is that the straight sheet and the flat sheet are not being subjected to duty.
Are there both straight and flat sheets of corrugated iron?
The flat sheet of corrugated iron is not subject to duty, nor is the straight sheet of corrugated iron subject to duty.
Mr. Byrne
Will the Minister say whether corrugated iron that is curved is subject to duty?
A galvanised corrugated sheet that is subjected to any other process of working is subject to duty.
Mr. Byrne
Does the Minister know what a corrugated sheet of iron is?
I despair of explaining it to the Deputy.
I should like to urge one point upon the Minister. I am not in any doubt, unfortunately, as to what the paragraph means, but I should like to put in one last word against subjecting curved sheets to duty for the following reasons. The people engaged in the trade are small, medium and large. It does not pay anybody but a very large importer of corrugated sheets to have a bending machine. There is not a whole lot of labour involved. It merely means that any merchant who gets an inquiry for curved sheets, even if it is accompanied by an inquiry for flat sheets is practically left out of the market, if he has not got a bending machine. The Minister may say: "Well, let them go and get bending machines." But some people have not the room, others have not the capital and others have not the trade for it. It is really putting the trade into the hands of a very small number of people whom it pays to instal this bending machine, and it means a very small amount of labour.
I could not agree to that. The intention of the duty is to get the bending and working process done here.
Supposing you have sheets coming in and have only one bending industry here?
There is more than one here.
Supposing you have to send up the sheets from Cork and Waterford to be bent here?
A Deputy
Benders or twisters.
To professional benders or twisters. The process is so simple that it would not mean any employment.
There are other forms of working too.
To illustrate the confusion that this will cause I might point out that Deputy Byrne connot still understand that straight sheets of corrugated iron are not meant to be tariffed. You can multiply Deputy Byrne, until you get 100 per cent. of the people of the country.
Surely not.
That is a fact. I never saw such confusion among people in the trade. The people of the country are anxious that the Minister and the draftsman should make clear what the duty means.
The intention is clear. A flat sheet or a straight sheet of corrugated iron is not subject to duty, but if the straight sheet or the flat sheet is subjected to any other process of working, including the process of bending, then it becomes subject to duty.
Mr. Byrne
If a flat sheet or a straight sheet is curved is it subject to duty?
Do you mean corrugated?
With grooves running down the face of it—is that subject to duty?
No.
Does the Minister know that the result of the discussion here has been to clear the minds of many people as to what the Minister meant? Would the Minister accept that as true?
I understand that some duty has been repaid.
Not in some cases.
In any case the definition has been amended on the Report Stage of the Resolution to exclude thin, flat sheets from duty. The definition now is quite clear, I submit, and it is plain that flat sheets of galvanised corrugated iron are not subject to duty.
Perhaps the Minister would explain it better if he said the only sheet subject to duty is the bent one.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 187:—
At Ref. No. 30, page 33, in the second column, after the word "iron" where it lastly occurs, to add the words "or steel."
Question put and agreed to.
Amendment 188, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 189:—
At Ref. No. 33, page 33, in the second column, after the word "linoleum" where it lastly occurs to add the words "and also excluding floor covers made wholly or mainly of rubber."
Question put and agreed to.
I move amendment 190:—
At Ref. No. 34, page 33, in the second column, to delete all from the word "manufactured" to the word "machines" where it lastly occurs and substitute the words "Sheet lead, lead piping, and manufactured articles which are made wholly or mainly of brass or tin (including tinplate) or a combination of brass and tin (including tinplate), but excluding the articles exempted by the provision contained in the fifth column."
It is intended to alter to a considerable extent the description of the articles liable to duty in Ref. 33 in the manner I announced in the Second Reading, and amendments 190, 191 and 192 effect these alterations. The duty will now be payable only upon sheet lead and lead piping and manufactured articles which are made wholly or mainly of brass or tin (including tinplate) or a combination of brass and tin (including tinplate) but excluding the articles exempted by the provisions contained in the fifth column. That will operate to exclude electrical and gas fittings, apparatus, instruments, and appliances and surgical and scientific instruments and appliances, and all the other articles mentioned there. Amendment 192 introduces into this section the licence provision which will enable us to permit the importation, free of duty, of articles required in the process of manufacture.
Question put and agreed to.
I move amendment 191:—
At Ref. No. 34, page 33, in the fifth column to delete all from the word "article" to the word "business" and substitute the words "of the following articles nor on any component parts of such of the following articles as are complete articles, that is to say:—
(a) electrical and gas fittings, apparatus, instruments, and appliances,
(b) surgical, scientific, and optical apparatus, instruments, and appliances,
(c) apparatus, instruments, and appliances which; in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, are designed, constructed, and intended for use for educational purposes in schools, colleges, or other educational establishments,
(d) tinfoil, capsules, crown corks,
(e) brass wire (whether screwed or not screwed), brass pins, brass rivets, brass screws, brass tubing, and unworked brass rods,
(f) syringes, sprayers and combined syringes and sprayers, whether of brass or tin, (including tinplate) or a combination of brass and tin (including tinplate),
(g) toys,
(h) printers' blocks,
(i) filled containers,
(j) component parts of type-setting machines or of type composing machines,
(k) component parts of agricultural machinery other than dairy machinery,
(l) any religious object made of brass or tin (including tinplate) of which the value does not exceed one shilling,
(m) machines (other than pumps) which are made wholly or mainly of brass and, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, are specially manufactured and designed for use by the proprietors of dairies and creameries in the processes of their business,
(n) containers which are made wholly or mainly of tinplate and have a capacity of not less than ten gallons and, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, are specially manufactured and designed for use by the proprietors of dairies and creameries in the processes of their business."
I would like to talk on amendment 191. First of all, I would like to ask the Minister if he would accept as a substitution for (j) "component parts of type-setting machines or of type composing machines and brass rules"—that is, the printer's rules for those machines? Would the Minister consider that? It might be held that they were in under it already, but perhaps the insertion here would make it abundantly clear. I would compliment the Minister on the way he has dealt with sheet lead in amendment 190. I want to ask him also how he proposes to deal with my amendment 191a on the Order Paper? Many of these articles are not manufactured in this country and there does not seem to be any prospect of their manufacture at the moment.
As far as brass rules are concerned I will look into that point. It is possible that they are covered by the term "component parts," but I will have it examined.
In connection with the amendment moved by the Deputy on the Order Paper, 191a, I do not feel that it is possible to accept it. The history of this tariff is briefly as follows: We were anxious to take some action to develop the brass industry here. We endeavoured to get a clear list of articles which were made or could be made here with the intention of subjecting them to duty. We found almost insuperable difficulties in preparing such a list and we decided therefore to reduce the duty we had in amount to the lowest imposed by the Bill, that is, ten per cent., and to impose it upon all articles of brass, subject to certain exclusions. We appreciate the fact that certain articles will be subject to that duty which are not being made here, but I think we have taken the necessary steps to secure that no considerable hardship will be imposed upon any producer or upon any section. It is true that certain people will have to import brass articles and pay a duty upon them, but the duty will be ten per cent. and in the majority of cases will be of little consequence. The general licence provision will ensure that no manufacturer will be impeded in his operations by this duty. It is hoped as a result of its operations to be able to do what we have not succeeded in doing up to the present, and that is to get a clear segregation of those articles which can be made here in quantity or which are likely to be made here. It is felt that this small duty will attract attention to the possibilities of the industry and that we may be able to get development and later on definitely exclude from duty some of the articles which are not being made or will not be made, and possibly increase the duties upon some others and definitely secure a greater measure of protection. For the moment, it is felt that it is best to leave the duty as it is and leave the articles subject to the duty contained in amendment 191 and it is not intended to add to that list except under very exceptional circumstances for the duration of the present year. At the end of the year, the position can be reviewed and another attempt made to get that segregation.
I would like to ask the Minister has he considered that this amendment purports to leave out any things that can be manufactured here. This is a list of highly specialised articles, every one of which, in my humble opinion, cannot and are not likely to be manufactured here. Those articles which the brass trade here have made some attempt to manufacture have been deliberately excluded. And, of course, no doubt, the Minister is aware that he has expressly excluded from duty under this heading one of the largest lines of goods at present manufactured in this country.
What industry is that?
I refer to the creamery business. The original in column 5, Ref. No. 34, definitely did exclude dairy and creamery machinery. That is not the position as it stands now. We have excluded from that definition pumps and "machines (other than pumps) which are made wholly or mainly of brass, and, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, are specially manufactured and designed for use by the proprietors of dairies and creameries" in the Irish Free State. It is, I understand, mainly in the manufacture of pumps the local firms are engaged and they are now subject to the duty and it is intended they should be.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment 191 (a) not moved.
I move amendment 192:
At Ref. No. 34, page 33, in the fifth column, to insert a further provision as follows:—
Whenever the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, is satisfied that any articles chargeable with this duty are essential raw materials of a process of manufacture carried on or intended to be carried on in Saorstát Eireann and are not obtainable or likely to be ob-able in Saorstát Eireann and are required to be imported by a manufacturer for use in Saorstát Eireann in such process, the Revenue Commissioners may by licence authorise such manufacturer, subject to compliance with such conditions as they may think fit to impose, to import without payment of this duty the said articles either, as the Revenue Commissioners shall think proper, without limit as to time or quantity or either of them or within a specified time or in a specified quantity.
Agreed.
I move amendment 193 on behalf of Deputy McGilligan:—
To delete Ref. No. 35, including relevant references in columns 2, 3 and 4.
That tariff again is a revenue tariff.
No, definitely not. We excluded from these duties the component parts of those articles partially manufactured, such as golf clubs and the like. They are, in fact, manufactured by the golf professionals and in some of the shops.
Has the Minister any prospect of having any of those athletic articles referred to in this Schedule made in this country?
The intention is to get them assembled here. Let me say the duty is partially a revenue duty. There is a definite revenue intention behind it but by the exclusion of component parts it will encourage the assembly of these articles here.
As it stands at present the component parts are included in the tax.
I take it that would include rowing gear, and I am informed there is already a 10 per cent. tax on that set out in this Schedule; but the customs authorities are demanding a 33? per cent. tax because it is partly of finished wood. Rowing gear, out-rigging and the like are not made in this country.
Would there be a double duty on cricket bats?
I think in amendment 166 the Minister has already conceded that wooden articles in sports material are not subject to the duty— golf clubs and so on.
As far as they are concerned it is a revenue duty. In reply to Deputy Doyle I would say it is possible that there may be a misunder-standing with regard to rowing gear which is now subject to a 10 per cent. duty.
Has the Minister any information that 33? per cent. is being charged upon these articles because of the finished wood?
It is possible that an error may have been made, but these articles are subject to the 10 per cent.
So we find the Minister is intending to get revenue by not only taxing the people going to the sports but also by taxing sport appliances.
Would not amendment 166 exclude these articles made of wood used for sport?
Yes, but subject to this duty.
Only under the tariff in No. 18?
They come in afresh then?
Yes.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 194 agreed to.
I move amendment 195:—
To delete Ref. No. 36, including relevant references in columns 2, 3 and 4.
This is a revenue tax also.
No, there are quite a number of firms engaged in the business.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 196:—
At Ref. No. 36, page 33, in the second column, after the word "materials" to add the words "excluding binder twine and coir yarn, and also excluding any article which at importation forms part of another article."
I promised to exclude binder twine and coir yarn and any article which at importation forms part of another article.
Is the Minister with-drawing this?
No.
You are putting a very heavy tax on fishermen.
How?
On the rope they use.
They can get Irish-made rope.
Not as cheap or as good.
Much better.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 197:
At Ref. No. 36, second column, to add at the end the words "excluding plaited and cable laid sash cords."
I am not quite sure as to what is intended there. We have a licensing provision in respect of this. The intention is in every case to exclude articles required in the process of manufacture. My belief is that that would cover the items mentioned by the Deputy.
What I have in mind is sash cord not made in this country.
I am not clear about that but I will look into it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 198:—
At Ref. No. 36, page 33, to insert in the fifth column the following provision:—
Whenever the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce is satisfied that any articles chargeable with this duty are essential raw materials of a process of manufacture carried on or intended to be carried on in Saorstát Eireann and are not obtainable or likely to be obtainable in Saorstát Eireann, and are required to be imported by a manufacturer for use in Saorstát Eireann in such process, the Revenue Commissioners may by licence authorise such manufacturer subject to compliance with such conditions as they may think fit to impose, to import without payment of this duty the said articles either, as the Revenue Commissioners shall think proper, without limit as to time or quantity, or either of them, or within a specified time, or in a specified quantity.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 199:—
At Ref. No. 37, to delete in the third and fourth columns, "45%" and "30%" and substitute "25%" and "15%" respectively.
This again is an excessive duty. In the case of knitted fabric the proposed duty is 45 per cent. and 30 per cent. respectively.
The intention of the duty is definitely to exclude knitted fabric except in so far as we permit its importation under licence arrangement. The duty could not be too high. The intention is to permit such importation as is necessary to encourage the knitting of fabric here. There was a real danger that our hosiery industry might develop along wrong lines, and instead of a hosiery industry become a sewing industry and a finishing industry. The intention is to prevent wrong development.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment 200:—
At Ref. No. 37, pages 33 and 34, in the fifth column, to delete all from the word "Whenever" to the words "foregoing provision" and substitute the following provision:—
Whenever the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, is satisfied that any articles chargeable with this duty are essential raw materials of a process of manufacture carried on or intended to be carried on in Saorstát Eireann and are not obtainable or likely to be obtainable in Saorstát Eireann and are required to be imported by a manufacturer for use in Saorstát Eireann in such process, the Revenue Commissioners may by licence authorise such manufacturer, subject to compliance with such conditions as they may think fit to impose, to import without payment of this duty the said articles either, as the Revenue Commissioners shall think proper, without limit as to time or quantity or either of them within a specified time or in a specified quantity.
The intention is to have the form common to the other amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment 201:—
To delete Ref. No. 1, including relevant references in columns 2, 3 4 and 5.
The Minister is imposing a terrible duty. I wonder has the Minister anything to say why it should be 7/6 and 5/- a gallon.
It is absolute exclusion to put 7/6 on varnish.
Yes.
I would like to get it from the Minister that it is his intention to have absolute exclusion.
Yes.
Are we in a position to meet the demand?
Yes.
Mr. Hayes
For a highly finished article?
If the Deputy went to the Spring Show he would have seen some tests in operation.
May I ask if the Minister will meet the demand of firms like Jacobs, who require special brands for foreign countries?
That position was examined before, and it was found that a supply of special varnish could be got here. That firm is getting it here.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Hayes
I move amendment 202:—
To delete Ref. No. 3, including relevant references in columns 2, 3, 4 and 5.
This is the remains of the periodical tax.
The best part of it.
Mr. Hayes
I think "the remains" are better words than "best part." This is a tax that was imposed without thought and which in its effects is simply vexatious. If the intention is cultural there should be some inquiry to discover what kind of periodical we want to have excluded and have that defined by statutory definition. I agree with the Minister that there is coming to this country a type of periodical whose general tendency is such that people who have particular ideals, like we have ourselves, do not like. I have seen such periodicals and I have also tried as an experiment to frame a statutory definition to deal with them. I found great difficulty in doing so. In any event I would like to submit that the question of keeping out periodicals on cultural or moral grounds should be dealt with by the Committee dividing. What the Minister has done is to clap a tax on all kinds of periodicals. He proceeded to do what has produced great vexation amongst wholesale newsagents and newsvendors. He made certain amendments but even with the amendments there are still a number of periodicals which should not be excluded whose price has been arbitrarily raised for the getting of revenue. These periodicals are read by average citizens and the simplest thing for the Minister to do would be to abolish them altogether. The tax involves great difficulty for newsagents getting their supplies, because the packets have to be opened to see whether they are subject to duty or not. I would suggest to the Minister that he took the attitude that he is going to exclude certain publications, unless he is working on cultural or moral grounds. I would like to know what he expects to get by this tax in the way of employment.
What are the grounds?
Cultural, moral, financial and industrial.
And vexatious.
What does the Minister mean by industrial?
I hope to get certain Irish periodicals launched in order to take the place of those excluded.
The Minister "hopes."
Give us the moral ground.
The Minister hopes that certain editions will be printed here, that certain periodicals will be kept out, and that writers will be employed here. He hopes that that will come about as a result of this tax.
[An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.]
Mr. Hayes
This is a part of the Bill that should be divided upon because there can be no doubt the Minister put on the tax without thought and then amended it. He worked up all kinds of arguments for it none of which he could sustain.
Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted, stand part of the Bill"—put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 53.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Everett, James.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Gormlev, Francis.
- Gorry, Patrick Joseph.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Clery, Mícheál.
- Colbert, James.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Seamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- Norton, William.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Reilly, Thomas J.
- O'Ronrke, Daniel.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Bourke, Séamus A.
- Brasier, Brooke.
- Broderick, William Jos.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Coburn, James.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Davis, Michael.
- Desmond, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Gorey, Denis John.
- Hassett, John J.
- Hayes, Michael.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Hennigan, John.
- Keating, John.
- Keogh, Myles.
- Kiersey, John.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McDonogh, Fred.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Brien, Eugene P.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Reilly, John Joseph.
- O'Shaughnessy, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reynolds, Mrs. Mary.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Thrift, William Edward.
- White, John.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Boland and Allen; Níl: Deputies Doyle and J.J. Byrne.
Amendment declared lost.
The following amendments were agreed to.
203. At Ref. No. 3, page 34, in the second column, before the bracket and word "(excluding" to insert the words "wholly or mainly in the English language."—(Aire Airgid.)
204. At Ref. No. 3, page 34, in the second column, after the words "daily newspapers" to insert the words "and also excluding foreign Government publications."—(Aire Airgid.)
Amendment 205:—
At Ref. No. 3, column 2, after the word "religious" to insert the words "or technical, or financial, or economic, or informative" and to delete the word "three" and substitute the word "one."—(Patrick McGilligan.)
Mr. Hayes
Perhaps the Minister would accept this amendment.
I am afraid not. We have gone a long way to meet the point of view expressed in the amendment.
Mr. Hayes
The point of view expressed in the amendment obviously is one that ought to be met. If it has not been met before it ought to be met now.
The term "informative" is altogether too wide. I take it that a paper that would inform the Deputy of the winner of the next race would come under that definition.
Mr. Hayes
Supposing in deference to the Minister we dropped the word "informative," would he exclude technical, financial, or economic"? After all as long as we are next door to England and can read the English language we should not be prevented from getting a good type of journal which is produced for a country with a population of 40,000,000.
There is nothing in this to prevent the Deputy getting it.
Mr. Hayes
You pay more for it.
A penny a copy.
Mr. Hayes
Why should people who want a technical, economic or financial journal be taxed? There is no possibility of any employment coming here through it.
You have the exclusion of trade and craft journals. I take it that should cover technical and scientific journals. I take it that the journals which the Deputy has in mind as economic journals are covered by the terms "scientific or educational."
That is the difficulty. It is hard to know what is meant by the term "educational." Economic papers are useful and instructive, and I do not think that they ought to be taxed.
I think there are, for instance, papers like The Economist or The Statist. Then there are papers like The Spectator or The New Statesman.
They would not be included.
I would ask the Minister at this stage to accept the words "financial" or "economic."
Not necessarily.
There would be no harm in including these words.
Perhaps the word "informative" is too wide a word. I wonder would the Minister not consider whether it would not be possible, not merely, say, taking these papers as samples, that papers like The Economist and The Statist but also papers like The New Statesman would be included?
It would be almost impossible to get a definition. Deputy Hayes admitted he tried to get a definition, but did not succeed.
Mr. Hayes
I said no such thing. I said I knew the journals that I would like to keep out, but that I could not frame a definition under the Censorship Act that would exclude them. I do not know how the Minister can manage to get this administered. He must make a very large addition to the staff of the Revenue Commissioners and that addition must be University men who could be expected to decide this. The only kind of employment this tariff will give will be employment to the staff of the Revenue Commissioners, who will require a very high standard of education in order to interpret what kind of journal should be excluded or should be admitted and what kind of book should be taxed and should not be taxed.
I think most of the journals the Deputy has in mind are excluded.
Mr. Hayes
The Statist and The Economist are included but papers like The New Statesman and The Spectator are not.
Would the Minister say what would be the interpretation of the word "religious" in this definition? That is a very serious thing.
It would mean a journal which deals with religion and religious matters.
What sort of religion? How many religions are there?
Would such periodicals as The Tablet and The Month be tabulated religious journals? Would the Minister include these as “religious”?
I would not, but it is the Revenue Commissioners will be dealing with this.
Would the people for whom the Minister is taking responsibility here tabulate these as "religious"?
I would regard The Tablet as a political journal.
I would like to say this: that some people claim that The Free Thinker is a religious journal. These people are supporters of Cumann na nGaedheal.
The Free Thinker is a negation of religion. But would a journal like America be included?
The Minister has said that some people have claimed exemption for The Free Thinker and he says that they are supporters of our Party. I would say they are far more likely to be supporters of his Party.
Why is John o' London excluded?
And also Thomas o' London?
Will the Minister give his reasons for his refusal to exclude financial or economic?
The terms are too wide. The papers the Deputy has in mind are probably included already.
Another adjective that has not been considered is "philosophic."
I do not know whether The Tablet or The Month or America would come in under the term “religious journals.” I do not know if The Commonweal counts as a “religious journal” and here we are asked to vote to apply a tariff to certain journals and not to other journals. I should like to have some guidance as to whether we might take The Commonweal, America, The Month or The Tablet as being journals that would come in under the definition of “religious.”
The decision rests with the Revenue Commissioners.
I suggest that it is we, legislating here, who should decide that matter and not the Revenue Commissioners.
The legislature is deciding as to whether journals which are religious, educational, trade or craft are to be excluded. The legislature is deciding that journals devoted mainly to these matters are excluded from the tariff but we will leave the actual administration to the Revenue Commissioners.
The Minister apparently cannot give a definition of the term "religious." I suggest that when the Minister cannot give a definition of these terms how can the legislature? I take these four journals that have come into my mind?
The Tablet has been excluded.
Surely, a Chinn Comhairle, this House is not going to take the authority of Deputy Fitzgerald as to what is or is not "religious."
No; but we ought to take Deputy Briscoe's authority on it.
What does Deputy Briscoe know about religion anyway?
A Deputy
That is a remark that should be withdrawn.
Mr. Hayes
I suggest that this is a very serious matter and the Minister is imposing on the Revenue Commissioners a burden which the Revenue Commissioners will not be able to carry. Deputy Briscoe was quite wrong in suggesting that the Revenue Commissioners are the proper people to solve this matter. Take a paper like The Commonweal. You may find one week in which you would not have in that paper one single article that any of us would say was a “religious” article.
Then it is not a religious paper.
Mr. Hayes
The Minister now is quite casual about that.
I do not know anything about the paper.
Mr. Hayes
I do not accept the Minister's interpretation. There are papers which are written from the Catholic point of view but which have articles on polities and finance and which sometimes have articles on Catholic Apologetics, but it would baffle any one to say that a particular issue of such a paper was religious. Everybody would say that they were good, sound Catholic journals but that they were religious is quite another matter. The difficulty about the Minister's own amendment simply proves that the whole thing is unworkable.
If I have used an expression that is offensive to a member opposite I wish to express my regret and I beg to withdraw it.
Amendment put and negatived.
Amendment 206:—
At Ref. No. 3, in the fifth column, to add on page 35, a further provision as follows:—
Where the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied that any article chargeable with this duty is imported for the use of a library which is not a proprietary library conducted mainly for profit, the Revenue Commissioners may, subject to compliance with such conditions as they may think fit to impose, permit such article to be imported without payment of this duty— (Aire Airgid).
Agreed to.
Amendment 207 not moved.
That has been dealt with already.
Does the Minister exempt a paper known as The Mind? It is devoted to philosophy.
Amendment 208:—
At Ref. No. 6, page 35, in the second column, to delete all from the word "Books" to the word "covers" and substitute the words. "Books which are, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, novels and are printed in the Engglish language and bound in any material"—(Aire Airgid).
Amendment agreed to.
Progress reported; the Committee to sit again on Friday, 8th July.
The Dáil adjourned at 10.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Friday, 8th July.