Skip to main content

Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 13 Jul 1932

Vol. 43 No. 6

Finance Bill, 1932—Report Stage.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

I beg to move amendment 1:

In page 6, Section 6 (1), after line 25 to insert the following paragraph:—

"Premises shall not be deemed to be occupied for the purposes of any trade, profession, or vocation within the meaning of this rule where the premises are mainly occupied for residential purposes and no part thereof is occupied for the purposes of trade but a part thereof is occupied for the purposes of a profession or vocation."

This amendment is designed to meet some of the points raised by Deputy Thrift and also by Deputy McGilligan. I think in the section as originally drafted they raised the objection that residential premises used by a doctor would become chargeable under Schedule D. I think Deputy Thrift has seen the amendment and I believe he will agree with me that, in so far as we can do it, it meets his point.

Professor Thrift

It will meet it very considerably. I think it is quite a satisfactory amendment, but I think it will still leave a large amount of difficulty in the case of a doctor—the determination as to whether his residence is used for private purposes or for the purposes of his professional qualifications. I am accepting the amendment and I thank the Minister for it. It goes a considerable way.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I beg to move amendment 2:

In page 9, Section 11 (2) (a), line 27, to delete the words "such article were included in" and also to delete all from the word "in" in line 28 to the word "rate" in line 30, and substitute the words "contained a list of goods to which duty of an amount equal to the said percentage of the value of the goods is made applicable as a preferential rate and such article were included in that list."

This amendment is a drafting amendment. I think in the Schedule in Item 14 the percentage preferential rate of duty is less than two-thirds of the full rate and accordingly this amendment is necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I beg to move amendment 2a:

In page 13, Section 16 (1), in the first column of the scale of rates of duty, after the word "films" where it first occurs in that column, and before the bracket, to insert the words "of a width exceeding seven-tenths of an inch."

This amendment is designed to some extent to meet the case raised by Deputy Thrift in regard to small private films. These films are not suitable for exhibition in ordinary cinema theatres. It appears that a machine has been developed for use principally in educational institutions and also by salesmen and others for the purpose of displaying their wares. A narrow film with a sound strip attached is used in these machines and it would be obviously unfair to make a full charge in the case of these machines which are not designed primarily for entertainment purposes; it would be unfair to charge them the full rate of duty.

Professor Thrift

I am prepared to accept the Minister's statement.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I beg to move amendment 2b:

In page 15, Section 19 (2) lines 25 and 26 to delete the words "in the year 1932 or any subsequent year."

The object of this is to release for the purpose of manufacture only Irish tobacco which is at present in bond and a large part of which has to be destroyed.

Mr. Cosgrave

What purpose would it be released for except manufacture?

Mr. MacEntee

For manufacture.

Mr. Cosgrave

It is a strange thing to have these amendments coming in at this moment. Surely, with all the facilities that are at the Minister's hands in connection with his Department, those amendments could have been circulated at least at 3 o'clock? Surely it would have been as easy to turn off six or eight of them as two or three? It is certainly very bad treatment for the House to have amendments brought in like this at the last moment. In the hands of anybody else it would have been known that these would have been necessary, unless the concession to the home tobacco growers were a joke.

General Mulcahy

How much tobacco is involved in this?

Mr. MacEntee

I understand there is a large quantity of tobacco involved which is unusable. A large part of it will have to be destroyed in any event.

General Mulcahy

What weight?

Mr. MacEntee

About 40,000 lbs. There is a comparatively small portion which may be used. The question is whether we will release that for manufacture or not. It would, at any rate, give employment to someone. If it has to be destroyed it will be an absolute waste.

Professor Alton

Is this Irish grown tobacco?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Amendment agreed to.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments 4 and 5 may be debated together.

Mr. MacEntee

I beg to move amendment 3:—

In page 15 to delete Section 19 (3) and substitute a new sub-section as follows:—

"(3) If it is shown to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners in respect of the business of a licensed manufacturer of tobacco that such business is either—

(a) in the beneficial ownership of an individual who is an Irish-born resident; or

(b) in the beneficial ownership of two or more individuals the majority of whom are Irish-born residents owning between them more than one-half of the capital invested in such business; or

(c) owned by an Irish-owned company and managed and controlled by persons the majority of whom are Irish-born residents;

the person licensed to carry on such business shall be entitled to receive a rebate of sevenpence in respect of every pound of unmanufactured tobacco received by such person upon which the duty imposed by this section has been paid and in respect of which no rebate under this section had been previously paid.

In this sub-section—

(i) the expression ‘Irish-born resident' means a person who ordinarily resides in Saorstát Eireann and either was born in Ireland or is the child of parents both of whom were born in Ireland; and

(ii) the expression ‘Irish-owned company' means a company of which the majority of the shareholders are Irish-born residents holding between them shares which, in the aggregate, are more than one-half in nominal value of the issued share capital of such company and carry at ordinary general meetings of such company more than one-half of the total voting power of all such shares in such company carrying votes at such meetings."

This amendment is designed to meet the objection raised by Deputy Norton.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

On behalf of Deputy Lynch, I beg to move amendment 4:—

Amendment to amendment 3.

In the proposed amendment 3 to insert after paragraph (c) a new paragraph as follows:—

"(d) owned at the date of the passing of this Act by a company whose shares or stocks are quoted on any Stock Exchange in Saorstát Eireann and has established a share register in Saorstát Eireann."

The amendment sets out that under this new proposed section companies should come in whose shares or stocks are quoted on any Stock Exchange in Saorstát Eireann and who have established a share register in Saorstát Eireann.

That enables the companies to have quotations on the Stock Exchange, which, of course, makes the stamp duty on transfers here come to the Exchequer of this State, and if they have a register in the Saorstát then the death duties will come into the State on the death of persons who are shareholders in the company here. Therefore, these particular companies who would come under the section are companies whose existence here is of advantage and benefit to this State. In addition to that I put it—and I want to put it very shortly because this matter has been threshed out in previous discussions here and I do not wish to say very much more upon the matter—that it is taking away the preference which is being given to one set of manufacturers at the expense of another set; that certain persons or companies came into this State and set up business in this State; and that those persons are behaving as ideal employers. It is unfair now that after they have been established here for years, after they have built up their factory and everything else here, it is unfair to start discriminating against them in favour of any other person and I may add too that the company in question is a company in which there is an enormous quantity of Irish-owned capital involved.

Mr. MacEntee

This matter has been threshed out in the Dáil on four previous occasions and the principle contained in the Bill has been approved of by the Dáil on each of those occasions. The proposal now put forward in the amendment would be to rescind the previous decisions of the Dáil in regard to this particular section. We could not do that for one reason—which may possibly lead to a repetition of the previous speeches in this House—which I venture to make again and that is that it would cost the Exchequer at least £160,000.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

The loss to the Exchequer could be got over if there was no discrimination against this company.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

General Mulcahy

I move amendment No. 5:—

In page 15, Section 19, before sub-section (4), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

Any licensed manufacturer of tobacco who was on the 1st day of April, 1932, and has been continuously since that date a licensed manufacturer of tobacco carrying on business as such manufacturer in Saorstát Eireann but who at the date of the passing of this Act would not be entitled to receive the rebate contemplated in the last preceding sub-section shall nevertheless be entitled to receive such rebate as from the 12th day of May, 1932, provided that within twelve months after the passing of this Act such licensed manufacturer becomes qualified to receive the rebate contemplated in the last preceding sub-section.

Is the Minister accepting amendment No. 5?

Mr. MacEntee

No.

General Mulcahy

The Minister in moving No. 3 suggested he was moving that amendment to meet certain representations made by Deputy Norton. As I understand it, the Minister's amendment No. 3 means that those firms at the present moment who are licensed manufacturers of tobacco and who are not Irish companies within the terms of his amendment, and perhaps within the terms of the Control of Manufactures Bill, ought to be deprived of a particular preference but that as soon as the taxation that is here or the restrictions in connection with the Control of Manufactures Bill operate sufficiently heavily on them to make them form themselves into Irish companies, they must get a rebate of the 7d. Now the particular tobacco manufacturers whose case was specially mentioned here and on which this question originally arose, made, I think, representations to the Minister that they were only waiting until following the very great expenditure of money on their part here in the setting up of their firm and following on the necessary loss that would fall on the first three years of their working —they would settle down and establish themselves and turn themselves into an Irish company here —to turn into an Irish company this company that has satisfactorily carried on its business under the laws of the country up to the present and has given a considerable amount of employment here both in the setting up of the new factory and its working. This company has told the Minister that it is anxious at the earliest possible opportunity to become an Irish company. If it takes it four, five or six months and carried its intentions in that way and becomes an Irish company, the Minister is going deliberately, and I suggest, unnecessarily, to deprive it of the rebate as between the 12th of May, the date of the coming into effect of this taxation and the date on which it becomes an Irish company. I submit that that company is in a bona fide way going to carry out the intentions which they have and I suggest that the company should not be mulcted for this particular taxation, for four, five or six months that must necessarily elapse before the coming into effect of additional taxation and the time by which they are able to carry out their intentions.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is amendment 3 agreed?

General Mulcahy

Yes, that is agreed.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is amendment 5 agreed?

Mr. MacEntee

I cannot accept this amendment. The whole principle of it is illogical and I need not go into it.

General Mulcahy

Better hear the Minister's reasons.

Mr. MacEntee

Why should a person get a rebate before he becomes entitled to it? And why should he become entitled to it in respect of a period in which he was not entitled to it? That is the proposition that Deputy Mulcahy is putting before the House.

Mr. McGilligan

Does that apply in the other way? Will it apply to the Government getting retrospective taxation? That is the rebate to the Government to which they are not entitled.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy possibly has a poorer sense of the significance of words than I have. By his own showing here he has a very much poorer sense of the use of words and he can very easily see that things are not identical and that there is no analogy between them at all. Here is a case where a person is not entitled to any particular privileges. Possibly in eleven months' time he converts himself into an Irish company and he is entitled to reap, under this amendment, all the benefits and advantages which he would have had if he had been an Irish company during the preceding eleven months. I think the Deputy himself will see why no Government could accept a proposition like that.

General Mulcahy

The position we have then is this, that when an Irish company, coming back in changed circumstances here from Belfast and establishing itself here three or four years ago at a time when building costs were very high and spending £250,000 in establishing a sound tobacco factory here and giving a very big and considerable amount of employment, finds itself after three years working just as they anticipated, beginning to have their business properly established and to be making a profit. On the eve of being able to put their shares into the market in such a way as to secure that their company would be an Irish company, they find themselves, on 12th May last, faced with a completely new policy of discrimination. That discrimination as regards certain types of companies in contrast with others was enshrined in this Finance Bill and subsequently enshrined in the Control of Manufactures Bill. The Minister has brought in an amendment to his Finance Bill so that any company which is a non-Irish company, on becoming an Irish company, or any new company establishing itself as an Irish company, will get this rebate. This company is going to be caught in the discrimination contained in this Finance Bill. It is going to be forced to sell itself at a time when there is an unnecessary deduction from its capital arising out of the discrimination involved here. That is all I want to say on the matter. The Minister suggests that this is Deputy Norton's contribution to the saving of Gallaher's. After the Labour Party's performance on the Housing Bill last night, I am prepared to believe it is.

Mr. Corish

You saw that the Labour Party were not allowed to perform.

An Ceann Comhairle

I should like to remind Deputies that we are not in Committee.

Mr. MacEntee

If the Deputy had put some of his points when I could answer them, I should be glad to answer them and the first answer I would make would be that Gallaher's is not an Irish company.

General Mulcahy

I am sure you, a Chinn Comhairle, will give the Minister latitude to answer the points I have raised in view of the latitude I have taken.

Mr. McGilligan

And in view, further, of the latitude that I am going to take. There is an amendment on the Paper which provides that any licensed manufacturer of tobacco who was on 1st April, 1932, and has been continuously since a licensed manufacturer of tobacco but who, at the date of the passing of the Act, would not be entitled to receive the rebate "shall nevertheless be entitled to receive such rebate as from 12th day of May, 1932, provided that within twelve months after the passing of this Act such licensed manufacturer becomes qualified to receive the rebate ...." Might I ask in connection with this, does the whole question of rebate operate within the financial year? I assume it does. Might I ask what is to prevent Deputy Mulcahy's amendment taking effect under the terms of the Minister's amendment which we have just carried—Amendment 3? Supposing Gallaher's do transform themselves into an Irish company, taking lettered paragraph (c) in the Minister's own amendment, we are told that "the person licensed to carry on such business shall be entitled to receive a rebate of sevenpence in respect of every pound of unmanufactured tobacco received by such person upon which the duty imposed by this section has been paid." Supposing Gallaher's transform themselves into an Irish company within the twelve months, will they not be entitled to demand a rebate, because the tobacco referred to is clearly tobacco upon which the tax imposed by the section has been paid? Are there any limiting words which prevent a rebate being claimed at any time within the financial year? I think it is necessary to know that before we can discuss the other amendments.

Mr. MacEntee

Again, to reply to a question——

Mr. McGilligan

Just a question.

Mr. MacEntee

I should like to direct the Deputy's attention to the words "receive a rebate of sevenpence in respect of every pound of unmanufactured tobacco received by such person upon which the duty imposed by this section has been paid and in respect of which no rebate under this section has been previously paid." If the company changes its ownership, then the new owners will not have received the tobacco which was received and upon which duty was paid by the former owners.

Mr. McGilligan

That will depend on whether they can get themselves into the new position of beneficial ownership without changing the company. If they can do that without changing the old statutory company, they will be entitled to the rebate within the financial year.

Mr. MacEntee

They will not be the same entity or the same corporation.

Mr. McGilligan

If that be possible —I am only putting it as a hypothesis —then sevenpence per pound during the whole of the financial year can be claimed upon all the tobacco upon which they have paid the full rate inside the financial year. Is not that right?

Mr. McMenamin

The Minister says that the company would not be the same entity. Why not? If I am legal owner of an article or of property and if, within twelve months, I institute proceedings and am declared the beneficial owner as well, am I not the same entity?

Mr. MacEntee

I can assure the Deputy that there is nothing in the point which has been raised.

Mr. McMenamin

It should be answered.

Mr. McGilligan

It is a question of getting the reason why, because on the answer to the question will depend the argument that is to proceed on amendment No. 5. May I again put the point? A company is in existence at this moment. It might transfer its ownership without ceasing to be the same company. If it becomes a company beneficially owned in the Saorstát and if it has inside the financial year paid duty at the full rate, is it not entitled to a rebate under the terms of the Minister's amendment, which I shall read: "The person licensed to carry on such business shall be entitled to receive a rebate of sevenpence in respect of every pound of unmanufactured tobacco received by such person upon which the duty imposed by this section has been paid"? The "person" is the licensed manufacturer.

Mr. McMenamin

The legal awner.

Mr. McGilligan

Is it possible for that to happen under the hypothesis I mentioned—that the company changes its ownership without ceasing to be the same company?

Mr. MacEntee

No.

Mr. McGilligan

Why not?

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy can get an answer to that elsewhere. I thought the debate on amendment No. 5 had been concluded. However, I think I ought to point out to the Deputy the definition of the expression "Irish owned company" which is contained at the bottom of the amendment. "The expression ‘Irish-owned company' means a company of which the majority of the shareholders are Irish-born residents holding between them shares which, in the aggregate, are more than one-half in nominal value of the issued share capital of such company and carry at ordinary general meetings of such company more than one-half of the total voting-power of all shares in such company carrying votes at such meetings." I think the Deputy himself has missed the point.

Mr. McGilligan

I do not think I have. The Minister has missed it.

Mr. MacEntee

In order to become qualified to receive the rebate under paragraph (c), the business must be owned by an Irish-owned company and the duty must have been paid by an Irish-owned company.

Mr. McGilligan

It must not. Look at it.

Mr. MacEntee

".... receive a rebate of sevenpence in respect of every pound of unmanufactured tobacco received by such person."

Mr. McGilligan

"Person." Who is the person?

Mr. MacEntee

"Such person."

Mr. McGilligan

Who is "such person?"

Mr. MacEntee

The company.

Mr. McGilligan

Is it the company? May I read the Minister's own amendment—"If it is shown to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners in respect of the business of a licensed manufacturer of tobacco that such business" is owned in various ways, then, "the person licensed"—not the company—"to carry on such business shall be entitled to receive a rebate of sevenpence in respect of every pound of unmanufactured tobacco received by such person.""Person" is the word used, not "company."

Mr. MacEntee

The new company would be newly licensed.

Mr. McGilligan

Surely not?

Mr. MacEntee

Absolutely.

Mr. McMenamin

Where is the use of fiddling with this matter? Is it not the same company. Assuming they are the legal owners, if they transform the company and become beneficial owners as well as legal owners, is it not the same entity?

Mr. MacEntee

If they are an Irish-owned company all the time, they receive the rebate. If, before a certain date, they are not an Irish-owned company, then, under the terms of the amendment, they do not receive the rebate.

Mr. McGilligan

Will the Minister read me the phrase dealing with the company and referring to the rebate?

Mr. MacEntee

The word "person" includes "company."

Mr. McGilligan

Will the Minister read us the section which refers to the person receiving the rebate?

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy knows that the word "person" includes persons or corporations in this context.

Mr. McGilligan

That will not be a matter for the Minister to determine.

Mr. MacEntee

It has been already determined.

Mr. McGilligan

Yes, in other contexts.

General Mulcahy

I want to have this amendment negatived definitely in this House by Deputy Norton and the Minister for Finance.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 50; Níl, 70.

Tá

Níl

Tellers: Tá, Deputies Duggan and P. S Doyle; Níl: Deputies G. Boland and Allen.

Amendment declared lost.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment 6:—

In page 17, before Section 21 (6) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, a portion of cheese wrapped only in tinfoil and not exceeding two ounces in weight shall not be a package for the purposes of this section."

In the debate on the Committee Stage of the Bill, Deputy Blythe raised a point about small portions of cheese wrapped in tinfoil which were contained and sold in a larger packet, and I promised to see if I could not meet him. This amendment is to meet the point.

Mr. Dillon

Will these words here employed be vitiated by the addition of a label on the tinfoil?

Mr. MacEntee

No.

Mr. Dockrell

I want to ask a question on 6 (b) "all drinks not excluded by the next following sub-section of this section." I understand that at present wines and liqueurs that have been in merchants' bonding warehouses for years are being charged the packet tax on being taken out. If the Minister could consider that, I would feel very much obliged to him.

Mr. MacEntee

That is on Section 21 (b)?

Mr. Dockrell

Section 21 (6) (b).

Mr. MacEntee

I am afraid the liqueurs and wines will be covered and will come within the scope of the duty, and I do not think we could possibly exclude them. In any event, there is sufficient profit on wines and liqueurs, I assure the Deputy, to pay the package tax.

Mr. Dockrell

The point is that they are inside the country.

Mr. McMenamin

They are already imported.

Mr. McGilligan

As to the amendment, what is the necessity for having the word "only" in after the word "wrapped"? The amendment can secure what the Minister wants if he leaves out the word "only"—"wrapped in tinfoil."

Mr. MacEntee

No. There may be a subsidiary wrapping. I have in mind the case where there are six or eight sections separately wrapped in tinfoil and packed in one container.

Mr. McGilligan

"Not exceeding two ounces in weight"?

Mr. MacEntee

"Not exceeding two ounces in weight." If there is any further wrapping then they clearly come within the terms of the package duty because the additional wrapping could be applied here. The statement is that the tinfoil must be applied at the moment they are packed in the first container, at the moment, as a matter of fact, when the pieces are made up.

Amendment put and agreed to.

The following amendments appeared on the Paper:

7. In page 17, at the end of Section 21 (7) (e), line 56, to add the words "diabetic bread, biscuits and cereals or insulin."—Sir James Craig.

8. In page 17, to add at the end of Section 21 (7), the following word and paragraph—

"or

(f) foods which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, are intended primarily for consumption by infants or invalids."—(Aire Airgid).

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments 7 and 8 can be taken together. Will Deputy Sir James Craig state whether he considers amendment 8 meets the purpose of his amendment No. 7?

Sir James Craig

I move amendment No. 7. I am not satisfied that it is included in amendment No. 8. I understand that the Minister is going to accept my amendment. In that case I shall not occupy the time of the House by going into any description of it, but will merely formally move the amendment.

Mr. MacEntee

I am willing to accept amendment No. 7 in the name of Deputy Sir James Craig, and I am putting before the House amendment No. 8, which is designed to meet the point made by Deputy Mrs. Collins-O'Driscoll, on the one hand, and Deputy McGilligan, on the other, in regard to invalid foods.

Amendments 7 and 8 put and agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 9:

In page 18, before Section 23 (2), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"(2) The duty imposed by this section shall not be charged or levied on any articles which are shown to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners to consist only of frozen boneless veal produced in a country within the British Commonwealth of Nations and consigned from that or any other such country and imported solely for use for manufacturing purposes in Saorstát Eireann."

This amendment is introduced to facilitate an existing Saorstát industry for the manufacture of meat paste. The products of this industry are mainly exported, so that even if this provision were not made, a drawback would be payable as regards the part which would be imported. The duty-free admission is a much simpler and much more satisfactory procedure from the point of view of the Revenue Commissioners and the manufacturers.

Mr. McGilligan

I welcome the remission of course, but why confine it to "frozen boneless veal"? Supposing the people engaged in this meat-paste industry want to go into some other form of the meat-paste business, for which they will have to get raw material from outside, would it not be the proper thing to leave in some general word instead of the particular frozen boneless veal, say "meat" simply, or "meat or animal products produced in a country within the British Commonwealth of Nations"? The whole thing is covered by the later phrase "imported solely for use for manufacturing purposes in Saorstát Eireann." I think that guards everything that the Minister may want.

Mr. MacEntee

The manufacturers who, presumably, have a certain amount of foresight, and know what their business requirements are likely to be, have not suggested that the scope of the amendment should be any wider than appears on the Order Paper. In view of that, I presume there is no necessity for such a wider scope, and I do not propose to enlarge the amendment.

Mr. McGilligan

I suppose this is a sort of following up the procedure adopted, namely, put on a tax and wait until somebody squeals under the impact and then remit. Supposing people have not realised it and squeal too late, what is going to happen?

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment 10.

In page 19, before Section 24 (4), to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"(4) 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 a number of courses between greyhounds in each of which two greyhounds are released from slips in pursuit of a live hare."

On the Committee Stage I promised to introduce an amendment which would exempt from the scope of the entertainments duty greyhound coursing, and amendment 10 is designed to give effect to that.

Mr. McGilligan

Amendments were to be accepted in the House and I want to move the omission of the word "live" from in front of the word "hare" for an obvious reason.

Professor O'Sullivan

I understood the Minister was accepting an amendment in my name and others.

Mr. MacEntee

Give the obvious reason.

Mr. McGilligan

To let in coursing which is not competitive greyhound racing and which is not in pursuit of a live hare.

Professor O'Sullivan

I understood the Minister to say that he accepted the amendment in the name of Deputies Lynch, Morrissey and myself.

Mr. MacEntee

No. I made the point there that any exemption which I was disposed to concede in this matter would apply to greyhound coursing only, and not to greyhound racing.

Mr. Dillon

When I heard Deputy McGilligan get up and say that he desired to leave out the word "live," I certainly thought I had discovered in his incisive personality a soft spot. I discovered subsequently that I had not and I think it is rather regrettable —if the Deputy does not say it, I will— that the Irish Treasury should have made a special exception in favour of the cruellest and most savage sport practised in this country. I can well understand that the dog men will become eloquent. Maybe I have started a debate that will go on for I do not know how long. I cannot, however, let this occasion pass without saying that coursing in many parts of this country is nothing better than savagery. The men who engage in it will not advert to that aspect of it; the gentlemen who hunt foxes will not advert to that aspect of it. To see unfortunate hares let loose one after another in order to be torn to pieces by hounds, and all for the edification of onlookers, is to me a most disgusting business. If the coursing of dogs has to be carried on, greyhound racing is the better of a very undesirable pair. For a different reason from that mentioned by Deputy McGilligan I wish that the word "live" would be removed from this resolution.

Mr. Curran

I quite agree with the statements made by Deputy Dillon regarding park coursing. It is most cruel and I appeal to the Minister to take out the word "live." We have in this country the electric hare and I think that the people who attend those places are as well entitled to do so as those who attend the park coursing meetings. As Deputy Dillon said, park coursing is absolute cruelty. I dare say in the open coursing it may be good and fair sport, but, in the case of park coursing, it is downright slaughter. I appeal to the Minister to take out the word "live."

Mr. Shaw

The statements made by the last two Deputies with regard to park coursing are absolutely without any foundation.

Mr. Curran

Not at all; the statements are quite correct.

Mr. Shaw

All I can say is that those Deputies must not be accustomed to attending coursing meetings. In all the park coursing meetings I have attended there always has been an escape for the hares. Not alone that, but in case a faulty hare is let out the dogs are not slipped to her.

Mr. Dillon

What about the hares that do not escape?

Mr. Shaw

The hare that does not escape is killed and a good many animals do not get as decent a death as that. I am quite certain that the hares get a fair hunt. I am sure that at least 75 per cent. of the hares escape at the majority of park coursing meetings. At the Waterloo Cup and at other places the hares get as good a chance as any other animals get.

Mr. Brasier

I would like to add my voice to the appeal made to the Minister to exempt the word "live." In the country districts, while they are not able to rise to such a luxury, if I may so call it, as an electric hare, they nevertheless have mechanical means of carrying on greyhound racing. They adopt a much simpler method when they cannot avail of an electric hare. I must say that this affords a very considerable amount of amusement in country districts and it eliminates the effects alluded to by Deputy Dillon and Deputy Curran. Of course everybody is entitled to his own opinion on this matter. Deputy Dillon and Deputy Curran are entitled to have their views with regard to the cruelty or otherwise of coursing. I certainly think that if the House agrees to Deputy McGilligan's suggestion, it will eliminate any effects of the sort described.

Professor O'Sullivan

I think the Minister will remember that the case made out for the original amendment was in connection with the training and export of greyhounds. I am sure if he thinks over it he will realise that the amendment he now offers goes only a very small way to meet that particular case. The case was strong before, but I am sure that the Minister will now realise that, with the extra 20 per cent. that is being put on live animals of this kind exported to England, the case is still stronger than it was when the Minister promised to meet the arguments put up from these benches.

Mr. MacEntee

If the amendment in its present form is not acceptable, it seems to me the only thing I can do is to withdraw it. The deletion of the word "live," as suggested by Deputy McGilligan, would not, I think, meet the points raised by Deputies Dillon and Curran.

Mr. Dillon

Remove one form of greyhound sport at the expense of the other.

Mr. MacEntee

No. Let us put the amendment on a proper footing. The whole purpose of the section is to procure revenue. I am satisfied, so far as greyhound coursing is concerned— and I am not considering any other aspect of it except the revenue producing aspect—that there is going to be no revenue derived from it and the attempt to collect revenue is only going to cause most unprofitable labour for the officers of the Revenue Commissioners. For that reason I am exempting coursing primarily, but the situation is quite different in regard to greyhound racing. I know the attendance at meetings at which mechanical hares are used is substantial. I know that the profits of the greyhound racing companies have been very large indeed. Therefore, I say that this is an entertainment which can be made to yield something to the Exchequer. For that reason I am giving the House the option of either accepting the amendment as it stands or consenting to its withdrawal.

Mr. McGilligan

Has amendment 10 been moved?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

Therefore it cannot be withdrawn without the permission of the House?

Mr. MacEntee

Wait a moment.

Mr. McGilligan

I am given to understand it was moved.

Mr. MacEntee

But there was an amendment moved to it.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendment 10 has been moved.

Mr. McGilligan

I am entitled to move an amendment to it?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

And neither of these amendments can be withdrawn without the permission of the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, without the permission of the House.

Mr. McGilligan

That is all right.

Mr. Cleary

A peculiar situation has arisen here. There was an amendment moved the other day by Deputy Lynch from the front Opposition Bench. I rather approved of that amendment and was prepared to support it, but I understood that the amendment was being withdrawn by the Opposition on an undertaking given by the Minister for Finance that he would introduce the amendment which he has now introduced. Why are the Deputies opposite now objecting to this amendment? Why did they not press their amendment the other day? Why did they agree two or three days ago to have an amendment of this kind introduced? Why are they so anxious now to go back on their attitude of the other day? I was somewhat sorry the other day that Deputy Lynch did not press his amendment because I was particularly anxious that the tax on greyhound racing should be taken off. I thought it would be in the best interests of those people who breed greyhounds for sale. I thought it would be a little advantage to them and to that trade that the tax should be on the coursing meetings. For that reason I am satisfied with this amendment. I understand the Minister for Finance could not give way on the whole lot. The attitude of the Opposition now rather puzzles me.

With regard to the remarks of Deputy O'Sullivan, I cannot say that there is the same amount of jubilation on this side of the House or in the country at the idea of the British imposing a 20 per cent. tax on Irish cattle and Irish produce as appears to exist amongst the Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies in this House.

Professor O'Sullivan

Jubilation expressed here!

General Mulcahy

Deputy Cleary can talk that at the cross-roads meetings, not here.

Mr. Cleary

It was expressed by Professor O'Sullivan. It is a thing that should not be dragged at all into this discussion. Professor O'Sullivan is talking for a particular purpose to advertise certain things. The fact that the Irish export trade is going to suffer makes him talk about the export of greyhounds. I think he should look upon the matter from a different standpoint. We here think that the matter should be looked upon from a different standpoint than that of the people on the opposite benches I was going to appeal to the Minister now to extend his generosity to greyhound racing tracks seeing that this greyhound racing enhances the price of greyhounds, but the Deputy says there is no use now in doing that at this stage. The Minister is removing the tax upon open coursing and we have to be satisfied with that or nothing at all. I would not like that the House would press the Minister to withdraw that concession.

Mr. White

I suggest that Deputy McGilligan should withdraw his amendment and allow the section to go through.

Mrs. Collins-O'Driscoll

I do not want to start another hare but I think the Minister's amendment is liable to misinterpretation. "A live hare" in the opinion of a great many people would include an electric hare. I suggest that the Minister would substitute the words "a living hare." It would be less subject to misinterpretation.

Mr. MacEntee

The Revenue Commissioners will not take it like that. They will not misinterpret the section.

General Mulcahy

Deputy Cleary might have his memory refreshed if I read what he said on this matter on a previous discussion here. Speaking on the 8th July, column 563-564 of the Official Debates, the Deputy said: "My impression is that coursing is of very little use to people who sell greyhounds and gain by the selling of them. Coursing as I know it, is only a sport— a very expensive sport to those who engage in it. In my county, it is usually a sport for people who can afford to spend money on it. It is track racing that makes whatever market there is for greyhounds. Since greyhound track racing came into prominence the value of our export trade in greyhounds has increased. Were it not for that greyhound breeding as a profitable proposition would not be worth while." The Deputy now goes back on his advocacy of the freedom of the greyhound racing track from taxation.

Mr. Cleary

I ask the Deputy why did he allow his colleagues to withdraw the amendment the last day.

General Mulcahy

The Deputy now unfortunately acquiesces in the attitude of the Minister on this matter because the export of greyhounds has been killed.

Mr. White

I suggest that the Deputy should withdraw his amendment and allow the sub-section to go through.

Mr. Kennedy

It is clear to me that if the Minister does not exempt both the greyhound coursing and the track racing, he has done the next best thing.

Mr. McGilligan

The Deputy might ask Deputy Cleary about that.

Mr. Kennedy

Greyhound coursing in the country brings out the best qualities in the dogs and it brings forward the best dogs for the coursing track. That is very necessary from the point of view of the export of dogs for greyhound racing. Deputy Mulcahy has pointed out that the export of greyhounds is dead. The importers of greyhounds on the other side will pay the tariff.

General Mulcahy

And the same will happen to the cattle trade too.

Mr. Kennedy

Not at all. It will not put down the price by 1/-.

Mr. Cleary

The ex-Minister for Agriculture always said so.

Question —"That the word ‘live' proposed to be deleted stand"—put.

The Dáil divided; Tá, 69; Níl, 56.

Tá

Níl

Tellers: Tá, Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Níl, Deputies Duggan and Doyle.

Amendment 10 agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment 10a.

On page 19, Section 25, to delete lines 41 and 42 and substitute the following:—

"Duty calculated in accordance with the following provisions, that is to say,"

(a) where the premises to which such licence applies are of a residential character and no part thereof is used as a factory or a shop and the sale of tobacco or snuff on such premises under such licence is effected solely by means of one and only one automatic machine or other mechanical contrivance, such excise duty shall (subject to the limitation hereinafter mentioned) be of an amount equal to one-half of the 1 per cent., of the amount by which the poor law valuation of such premises exceeds £10;

(b) In every other case, such excise duty shall (subject to the limitation hereinafter mentioned) be of an amount equal to 1 per cent., of the amount by which the poor law valuation of such premises exceeds £10;

(c) The total amount of the excise duty now payable and the additional excise duty imposed by this section chargeable in respect of any one such licence shall not exceed £10.

Paragraph (a) of this amendment is designed to meet, in part, the amendment put down by Deputy Wolfe, completely exempting automatic machines from duty, to the extent that they will be only charged, so far as the valuation of the premises in which they are situate exceeds £10, at the rate of ½ per cent. of such excess. Paragraph (b) of the amendment is in fulfilment of the undertaking which I gave Deputy Mulcahy that, if he would withdraw his amendment on Committee Stage, I would accept the principle but increase the limit of duty from £5 to £10.

Mr. McGilligan

This amendment was only put into my hands a moment ago. Am I right in assuming that lettered paragraph (a) means that a private house which has an automatic machine on the premises will pay a tobacco dealer's licence fee? Is that what is intended?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes, and it has always done so.

Mr. McGilligan

Every house which had a machine installed?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes. The tobacco dealer's licence duty is payable in respect of such machines as the law stands at present.

Mr. McGilligan

I am not talking about what is payable.

Mr. MacEntee

Has been paid.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister has made the astounding statement that houses which have machines on the premises have paid—

Mr. MacEntee

Yes, have paid.

Mr. McGilligan

That is entire rubbish. How many have paid? Would the Minister get figures from the Revenue Commissioners showing how much money has been received in such payments?

Mr. MacEntee

Duty has been paid in respect of at least 400 such machines.

Mr. McGilligan

By the owner of the premises?

Mr. MacEntee

No, nor will this duty be paid by the owner of the premises.

Mr. McGilligan

How many machines have been in use, say, in residential houses? What percentage, in other words, is the 400 of all the machines that have been in use?

Mr. MacEntee

The whole, or, at least, the greater part of the 400.

Mr. McGilligan

And I think if we quest a little more, we will be told "some part."

Mr. MacEntee

No. You will be told "virtually all of the 400."

Professor Thrift

Does this apply to hotels?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Professor Thrift

And has it been in a form like this for hotels?

Mr. MacEntee

No. They paid 5/3 per machine.

Professor Thrift

This may run to a considerable number of pounds.

Mr. MacEntee

Yes, but the point about it is that only one duty will be charged in respect of the premises. In respect of hotels, they fall under (b), in any event, and they will pay under (b), because I presume they would sell cigarettes otherwise than through automatic machines.

Professor Thrift

Sometimes not.

Mr. Brasier

Will this apply to offices and any places that have automatic machines?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Amendment 10a agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment 10b.

In page 20, before Section 26 (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows—

(2) Where two or more individuals carry on business as moneylenders in partnership and such individuals take out moneylenders' licences in respect of the premises or all the premises in which they so carry on business in partnership, the Revenue Commissioners shall remit or, if the duty has been paid, repay to such partnership—

(a) where such business is so carried on in one premises only, a sum equal to the total duty on all except one of the moneylender's licences as taken out by such individuals in respect of such premises, or

(b) where such business is so carried on in two or more premises a sum equal to the total duty on all moneylender's licences so taken out by such individuals in respect of any such premises in excess of one such licence for each such premises.

This amendment has become necessary because the relevant clauses of the Moneylenders Bill of 1932 are not identical with the clauses in the Moneylenders Bill of 1929 upon which the original section was based. The amendment will grant the concessions to partners in so far as it limits the duty to what it would have been in the case of a single individual. The whole principle of the amendment will arise for discussion on the Moneylenders Bill.

Mr. McGilligan

And there will be no charge until that principle comes to be discussed?

Mr. MacEntee

No.

Amendment 10b agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment 11:

In page 20, Section 29 (3), line 51, after the word "day" to insert the words and figures "or is taken out before the passing of this Act for a period commencing on or after the 1st day of July, 1932."

This amendment to Section 29 is designed to cover the case of a licence taken out after the 1st of July, 1932, but before the passing of the Finance Act. The case was not covered by the section as originally drafted.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendments 12 and 13:

In page 20, Section 29 (3), line 55, to delete all from the word "at" to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words "be repaid to such person."

13. In page 21, Section 29 (4) (b), line 9 to delete the words "the allowing as a credit or" and in lines 10 and 11 to delete the words "to be so allowed or".

Amendments 12 and 13, I think, should be considered together, as they are more or less in the nature of drafting amendments. It is proposed to permit the refund to take the form of a credit on payment under the new licence. Power is, in fact, taken, under the regulations to be made under this section, to repay by way of credit but it is not usual to provide for credit in specific terms in the Act.

Mr. Dockrell

May I refer to Section 42 before we go to amendment 14?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes.

Mr. Dockrell

It was up for discussion the other evening and Deputy Finlay raised a most important point about a sub-contractor. I do not wish to argue the law with the Minister, but I understood him to say that he would consider Deputy Finlay's point. Has the Minister considered it in this section as amended?

Mr. MacEntee

I have very carefully considered that point and I am advised that it is not necessary to make any special provision to cover the point made by Deputy Finlay. I am advised that it is, in fact, already covered by the section.

Amendments 12 and 13 agreed to.

Mr. Blythe

I move amendment 14:

In page 26, line 20, Section 46 (1) to delete the figures "1930" and substitute the figures "1931."

I do not want to take up the time of the House with this, but I believe that the dates in the Bill will cause hardship in certain cases, because profits will already have been distributed, in certain cases, without provision being made for payment of this tax.

Mr. MacEntee

I regret that it is not possible for me to accept this amendment in the form in which it is put down, or to accept the amendment at all.

Mr. McGilligan

Why?

Mr. MacEntee

Because it would mean that in this year we would have all the odium of increasing the Corporation Profits Duty and none of the rewards. In fact, we would get none of the increased Corporation Profits Duty in this year, and it would cost the Exchequer — at the risk, again, of rousing the Deputy — £200,000.

Mr. McGilligan

That is nothing to £2,000,000, and do you not expect to be in next year?

Minister for Defence (Mr. Aiken)

No.

Mr. McGilligan

Deputy Aiken has different views but he is not able to express them.

Mr. MacEntee

Gather ye rose-buds while ye may!

Professor Thrift

Does the Minister not think that it is a very regrettable way of putting this matter? Am I wrong in thinking that it simply means that, according to the accidental period at which a corporation's year ends, it may or may not be liable for this duty for the preceding year? Supposing its financial year ends, say, on the 1st January or the 1st February. It becomes then, according to this, apparently, liable to tax for the whole of the preceding year.

Mr. MacEntee

It is quite true that it takes effect as from the 1st January.

Mr. Dillon

Would the Minister say if there is any precedent for imposing a tax of that character retrospectively?

Professor Thrift

The point I want to make is that this is retrospective legislation of the most discriminatory character — discrimination depending on mere accident.

Mr. MacEntee

Not at all.

Mr. Dillon

Is there any precedent?

Mr. McGilligan

Is it not a fact that there is no precedent?

Mr. MacEntee

At this moment, I cannot recall that there is any precedent, but is there any precedent for any fresh taxation? And is there any precedent for the situation in which we find ourselves?

Mr. McGilligan

Hear, hear, none.

Mr. Dillon

But the Minister will admit that there is a special principle underlying this and he is now, with one fell stroke, introducing a principle that may turn up in a very awkward form in the future. However, I suppose the answer as to the £200,000 will serve.

Mr. McGilligan

Instead of the £2,000,000.

Mr. Dillon

Is this duress, sir?

Mr. MacEntee

It is the duress under which I have been compelled to put this section in the Bill.

Professor Thrift

But surely the Minister does not justify, or has not, so far, attempted to justify, the fact that, under this, as worded, one firm's profits, during the year 1930, will be made liable to this tax because it happened to end its accounts on the 1st January, whereas another will not be liable to this tax at all because it happened to end its accounts on the 30th December?

Amendment 14 withdrawn.

Amendments 15 and 16 not moved.

Mr. McGilligan

I move amendment 17:

In page 27, Section 47, line 57, after the word "person" to insert the words "not being a member of the Oireachtas of Saorstát Eireann."

This is a most amazing section. The purpose of the section is to allow the Revenue Commissioners to remit all interest payable in respect of a certain year and to grant such remission of such duty as is considered just. The terms of instructions to the Revenue Commissioners are, that, where they are satisfied that a person who is liable to Excess Profits Duty (a) has voluntarily furnished to the Revenue Commissioners all such information in his possession or procurement as is requisite for the due computation of the amount of such duty—which, incidentally, he is bound to do — or (b) if he is in such financial circumstances that he cannot without undue hardship pay the whole amount of such duty or (c) has so furnished such information and is in such financial circumstances, then, the remission may take place. It is to be noticed that the first condition on which the Revenue Commissioners may remit is if a man does what he is bound to do, and the second condition — and it is not a junction but an alternative — if he is in such a financial condition, whether he furnishes the information or not, the Revenue Commissioners may make certain remissions. I propose to put in, after the word "person," the words "not being a member of the Oireachtas of Saorstát Eireann," so that the section will read: "Where the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied that a person, not being a member of the Oireachtas of Saorstát Eireann, has done these two things, etc."

I do that for this reason, that it seems to me that when we are making this peculiar remission of duty, we should not allow it to be said outside that members of the Oireachtas are looking for something in the way of remission, where that remission is really founded, in the main, or going to be founded upon their doing something, which, in fact, they were bound to do. Notwithstanding the opinion that may be held, inside the House, of members of the House, there are people outside who have expressed the view that this is specially designed for the safe-guarding of individuals, being members of the Oireachtas, who are put in conjunction with people who occupy Government posts, and who are close to them and who have got this particular remission to allow them to escape certain taxation which ought to be imposed on them. Whether that is right or wrong, and I do not believe it is right, I think that we should have a standard set, at any rate, for members of the Oireachtas, that they are not going to claim these peculiar remissions. If a man is elected here to do his duty as a public man, that ought to include his doing his duty as a private citizen in the matter of taxation, because a man's public duties rest to a great extent upon such matters as taxation and the imposition of taxation. We should not allow it to go forth that a member of the Oireachtas can gain a remission of taxation because, after the event, and after he has voted for something of this sort, he can do something which he was bound to do before, and so obtain a remission of taxation which had been justly and equitably assessed upon him. I move the amendment.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not know whether it is the intention of the members of the House to turn this into a Committee Stage debate. If it is, I should like the Ceann Comhairle to give such members an opportunity of making their points before I close.

An Ceann Comhairle

The House is not in Committee. Every Deputy may speak once of course.

Mr. MacEntee

I cannot understand the rather peculiar reasons that have been given for moving this amendment. Deputy McGilligan has advanced arguments in support of the amendment which he has moved which he himself admits are untenable and without foundation. He asks the House to accept the amendment for reasons which he thinks cannot be substantiated. Quite obviously, this is a concession given, as I pointed out in the Budget speech, to the general body of taxpayers, and as members of the Dáil do not enjoy any benefit or advantage which the general body of taxpayers do not have——

Mr. McGilligan

Some of them do.

Mr. MacEntee

—— I do not see why they should be excluded from this concession. I give the House the fullest assurance that there will be no interference by the Government with the discretion of the Revenue Commissioners in administering this section. I think that members of the Opposition must accept this, that we will not interfere any more than they did with the Revenue Commissioners in their administration of the Revenue law, and if that were not a sufficient assurance to the House that no undue pressure will be brought upon the Revenue Commissioners to give any concession under this section to which people are not properly entitled, I would remind them that all settlements made by the Revenue Commissioners under it will be subject to review and examination by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. If he notes any irregularity in the administration of this section, or considers any concession given by the Revenue Commissioners under it not to have been warranted, he will draw attention to that in his report, and the Public Accounts Committee will have an opportunity of considering that and of subsequently reporting to the House on it. Therefore, I think the section as it stands is fully safeguarded against abuse and that there is no justification for the amendment proposed by Deputy McGilligan.

Mr. Dillon

Is the Minister satisfied that what he said about the Public Accounts Committee is borne out by the facts?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

I suggest that he consult the present Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. Hayes

Upon what?

Mr. Minch

What does the Deputy mean?

Mr. Hayes

I did not catch the point as to the present Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. Will the Deputy repeat it?

Mr. Dillon

The Minister said that if the Revenue Commissioners made any concession under this section the matter would be adverted to by the Comptroller and Auditor-General, would be discussed at the Public Accounts Committee and then subsequently discussed in this House, if thought desirable. I asked the Minister if he was satisfied that what he stated reproduced the actual practice in that matter. He said he was satisfied. I said I would esteem it a favour if he would consult the authority, and I suggested the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, to ascertain if that is the procedure of the Public Accounts Committee.

Mr. MacEntee

First of all, I should like to emphasise that I said "any unjustifiable concession."

Mr. Hayes

Any impropriety?

Mr. MacEntee

Any impropriety. As to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I am perfectly satisfied——

Mr. Dillon

Any impropriety?

Mr. McGilligan

This is not a question of impropriety. This is a question of not giving a remission to members of the Oireachtas as such.

Mr. MacEntee

Because the Deputy stated an undue concession might be given.

Mr. McGilligan

No, that is not the argument, because it seemed wrong to have members voting for the imposition of taxation and getting a remission of taxation in a case where they should have paid already.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

An Ceann Comhairle

Amendments 18, 19 and 21 go together.

Professor Thrift

Deputy Sir James Craig asked me to say that he does not intend to move amendment 19.

Amendment 19 not moved.

The following amendments appeared on the Paper:

18. In page 29, Section 49 (1), to delete the words "1st day of March, 1932" and substitute the words "passing of this Act."— Patrick McGilligan.

21. In page 29, Section 49 (1) (a), line 25, to delete the words "6th day of April, 1932" and substitute the words "passing of this Act."—Patrick McGilligan.

Mr. McGilligan

Amendments 18 and 21 go together. They are on very much the same points as Deputy Sir James Craig's was on. I should like to have some explanation from the Minister as to why he is going outside the financial year on which the Budget generally acts.

Mr. MacEntee

As I explained in the Budget speech, it was originally my intention to approach this matter in another way. When some information of this kind reached the Associated Hospitals Sweepstakes Committee, or, at least, the members of the Executive Committee of that Committee, I received a deputation and discussed the matter with them and they expressed the view to me very strongly that the course which I proposed to take, was in their view undesirable, and they submitted to me an alternative proposition which after prolonged discussion I agreed to accept as the basis of the new tax provided that they would put the matter to me in writing. In consequence of that I received this letter, dated 9th May:

Dear Sir,

In view of the declaration by the Minister for Finance not to tax the gross receipts obtained from the Hospitals Sweepstakes, the Executive Committee of the General Committee of the participating hospitals hereby agrees to the ordinary income-tax being levied on the total amount allocated to the hospitals (i.e., 25 per cent. of the gross receipts as ascertained under the Act).

This is the paragraph which answers Deputy McGilligan's points:

The Committee further agrees that the income-tax should be levied on the amount received from the Grand National Sweepstake of 1932, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Finance Act of 1931.

The Committee pointed out that in their opinion a larger amount should be allocated to the voluntary hospitals and that 33? per cent. was too much for County Homes and Nursing Institutions.

The Minister on his part undertook to recommend an inquiry into the present allotment of 33? per cent. assigned to the County Homes.

Yours faithfully,

Powerscourt,

Chairman, Associated Hospitals Sweepstake Committee.

Mr. McGilligan

Is that all the Minister intends to read?

Mr. MacEntee

That is the whole of it.

Mr. McGilligan

That is all that happened? Surely not.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy asked me why I proposed to bring in the Grand National Sweepstake.

Mr. McGilligan

Yes, and, in answer, we got a letter read and the preliminaries to it are merely a statement of the Minister that he saw a Committee — just saw a Committee.

Mr. MacEntee

And I told them what I proposed to do.

Mr. McGilligan

Yes, the Minister told them what he proposed to get from them.

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

I should like to point out to the Minister that the statement he made when introducing the Budget has been characterised by a professional person, who has described himself as a friend of his, as one of the most brazen utterances ever heard in Ireland since Hamar Green-wood left the country.

Mr. MacEntee

Did the Deputy inspire it?

Mr. McGilligan

That is what a doctor friend of the Minister said. It shows the casuistry which is employed. What does it all amount to? We have the Minister giving his own reason for going back to the Grand National, outside the financial year. It is almost tantamount to going up to a person and saying to him: "Pay me so much or I will blow out your brains," and he writes back saying: "I will pay you so much." It does not answer the question: Why are they paying? to say "They will pay." You have to get the previous threat.

Mr. Corry

Do not forget the threats to-night.

Mr. McGilligan

The what?

An Ceann Comhairle

It has nothing to do with the matter before the House.

Mr. McGilligan

That remark would almost always apply, I suppose, to what Deputy Corry says. The Minister has not explained why he must get from the hospitals a certain amount of money which necessitates going beyond the financial year. He has not explained it now. He did explain it before. He is a purist in finance, but he is going to go outside the financial year. He is building up Budgets in the normal way, but yet he is going to rob the hospitals. He complained to-day of an amendment which would give a rebate to people outside the period in which they would be entitled to receive it, but he can turn round and do exactly the opposite when it comes to the turn of the State. The State, according to the Minister, can claim outside the financial year. I merely wanted to get the Minister on record again with this brazen statement of his so that his doctor friend can again comment on it and other people can, later on, comment upon his attitude. The robbing of the hospitals must be contrasted with the promised £2,000,000 remission in taxation.

Amendment 18, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. McGilligan

I beg to move amendment 20:

In page 29, Section 49 (1), line 21, to delete the words "stamp duty" and substitute the words "Public Charitable Hospitals Tax."

This is an important item. The Minister, when he was introducing this whole business in his Budget speech, said:

I have had to consider many proposals in this regard. They were all rejected in favour of one which was submitted by the Emergency Committee of the Hospitals and which outshone all others in its attractive simplicity.

We can now judge for ourselves as to the frankness and accuracy of this statement:

They were all rejected in favour of one which was submitted by the Emergency Committee of the Hospitals and which outshone all others in its attractive simplicity.

Here is the proposal:

I propose to levy 25 per cent. on the hospitals' share of the proceeds of all sweepstakes drawn after the 1st March, 1932.

The phrase was "to levy 25 per cent. on the hospitals' share of the proceeds." A few days afterwards the Minister produced a table explanatory of the Budget. On the receipt side there appeared an item "Income tax on hospitals' receipts from sweepstakes." The letter signed by Lord Powerscourt stated that the Committee was now willing to have the ordinary income tax levied. Later on Deputy Sir James Craig raised the point as to whether this was income tax or not. He saw a new phrase creeping into a Financial Resolution about stamp duty. He was told the two things were very much the same. Later on I was told the Minister had not had the question of income tax discussed in relation to this matter at all.

As will be seen in col. 1603 of the Parliamentary Debates, Deputy Sir James Craig asked a question in regard to this matter of stamp duty and he got the statement that the two things, income tax and stamp duty, were absolutely the same; there was no difference there. "One and the same tax" was the Minister's statement. They may be both one and the same tax, but they are both equally wrong in their application to what is being done here. I want to put the matter right. I want to have this tax called what it really is, a Public Charitable Hospitals Tax. Hence it is that in page 29 I am moving to omit the words "stamp duty." In connection with this phrase that has been used, how will the stamp duty be leviable if there is no stamp struck or affixed? What is the necessity for the subterfuge about stamp duty when the Minister previously said it was to be a charge upon the proceeds? He said afterwards that stamp duty and income tax are exactly the same.

Mr. MacEntee

Will the Deputy kindly indicate where I said they were exactly the same?

Mr. McGilligan

I have given the quotation.

Mr. MacEntee

The real point there was, were there two taxes?

Mr. McGilligan

Before the Minister starts to explain I think he had better listen to what he said.

Mr. MacEntee

Read the whole thing.

Mr. McGilligan

I will read all that is relevant because there is a terrible amount of stuff.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy likes to read what suits him.

Mr. McGilligan

I only read things which the Minister says and which are foolish—and that is saying a lot. I will read the following debate which took place on 12th May:

Sir J. Craig:... In the paper handed to us this afternoon under the heading of Emergency Budget Receipts there is an item of Income Tax from Hospitals Receipts from Sweepstakes. I want to know is the Stamp Duty the same as the Income Tax.

Mr. MacEntee: Yes.

Apparently Deputy Sir James Craig was not satisfied with that. He obviously knew what the Minister's "yes" might mean and the debate goes on:

Sir J. Craig: There is no difference.

Mr. MacEntee: No difference. They are one and the same tax.

That is the Minister's statement—"They are one and the same tax."

Mr. MacEntee

I did not say "one and the same thing," which was what the Deputy stated.

Mr. McGilligan

If there is any point in that, let it be made. I will come down to what the Minister said —"They are one and the same tax." I say they are both equally wrong in their relation to this. This should be called what it actually is, a Public Charitable Hospitals Tax. Apparently the only reason the Minister will not put that in is because he does not want to have himself associated with a tax which has "Public Charitable Hospitals" attached to it. He should get that monument to his memory, and I suggest it should be called a Public Charitable Hospitals Tax because it is nothing else. Why should the Minister be ashamed of it? He is actually raiding the hospitals, and some Deputies of his Party have declared that that is a grand thing. Some of them are even of the opinion that there is going to be more good got out of this than the hospitals themselves could do. One Deputy, a supporter of the Minister's and of the Government's interests, said the hospitals did not spend any more money in work and did not give any more employment since they got the benefit of the Sweepstakes. The matter is not of terrific importance, but it is of some importance. The Minister himself did not know what the levy in proceeds meant as he said in the Budget speech when he described this tax as income tax or stamp tax. In the explanatory statement issued afterwards, Lord Powers-court is quoted as saying that he would be agreeable to the ordinary income tax, and then the Minister said that income tax and stamp duty were one and the same tax. Why should not the Minister call the thing what it is—a Public Charitable Hospitals Tax?

Mr. Corry

Deputy McGilligan is thinking of the Public Safety Act.

Mr. McGilligan

I suppose Deputy Corry knows what the words "Public Charitable" mean. Why should he show his annoyance at the phrase used by me when it is a correct phrase? Deputy Corry is a purist in the matter of the English language, and I am sure he had straight speaking to himself over and over and he knows what the calling of things by their proper names is.

Mr. Cleary

Do not make us do that.

Mr. McGilligan

Calling Deputy Corry what he is would be outside the limits of the forbearance of the Chair. But to put the proper word on this tax it should be called a Tax on Public Charitable Hospitals. That is what it really is.

Sir James Craig

I want just to say one or two words. I was asked not to press my amendment and I consented with very great reluctance indeed not to press it. And now there is no use in my going into all the severe things that I intended to say and that I had hoped to say. I will say this, however, that the Minister for Finance's name will go down to posterity as being the first man who is responsible for placing a tax on charitable institutions. He cannot get away from that. I want just to say another word. I have here a sheet containing those pictures already referred to here and Deputy MacEntee only takes second place in this particular competition. Deputy Robert Briscoe is first. What I want to draw particular attention to in this sheet containing these photographs are these statements: "What the policy of Fianna Fáil is and what they are going to do." The last sentence is this: "It will make for the welfare of the sick, the poor and the aged," and one of the things they are going to do is to rob the hospitals of the sums of money that were going to be used for the care of the sick, the poor and the aged.

Mr. Blythe

If the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment would he alter the term of the tax and call it "Death Duty"?

Dr. Keogh

The Minister, when speaking on the Budget, referred to a particular Deputy on these benches and said that he used a meeting of the Associated Hospitals for political propaganda against the Government Party. Has the Minister learned since then that he was misinformed?

Mr. MacEntee

If Deputy Myles Keogh thinks that anything I said was a reflection on him, I unreservedly withdraw it.

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted"—stand.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 72; Níl, 56.

Tá

Níl

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.

Question declared carried.

Amendment 21 not moved.

Mr. Moore

I move amendment 22:

In page 34, First Schedule, Ref. No. 15 (a), second column after the word "government" to insert the words "and league of nations."

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment 23:

In page 35, First Schedule, Ref. No. 15, in the fifth column, to add a further provision as follows:—

"This duty shall not be charged or levied on any books which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, have before importation been substantially used or have before importation been in private ownership for a substantial period."

This amendment is intended to cover the point raised, I think, by Deputy Alton or Deputy Thrift as regards books other than new books.

Mr. M. Hayes

And raised by me on an amendment. I think the Minister has covered the second-hand books very handsomely indeed.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment 24:

In page 35, First Schedule, Ref. No. 16, in the second column, after the word "tags" in paragraph (d) to insert in brackets the words "(other than labels and tags of woven materials)."

On the Committee Stage of the Bill, the Minister for Industry and Commerce promised that he would consider the advisability of excluding labels and tags of woven material from the scope of the duty. The use of labels and tags of this description is extremely limited. There is, consequently, very little possibility of having them produced here. The quantities imported are small and the cost of the concession will be very slight.

Mr. Dockrell

I want to raise a point on amendment 24, item 16, with regard to trade catalogues. I do not think that the position with regard to trade catalogues is sufficiently appreciated. If you impose a duty on catalogues imported in bulk you are going to place the wholesale traders in a very unfair position with regard to their rivals who do their business from across the water. In my opinion, all catalogues ought to be allowed in free or all catalogues ought to be subject to duty. I understand that the Minister is considering the matter and if he merely mentions that I shall be satisfied.

Mr. MacEntee

I am very sorry this matter was not brought earlier to the notice of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. At this late stage, I am afraid we have not very much time to consider the matter further. I do not know whether we could improvise an amendment which would exclude wall paper pattern books if imported in bulk.

Mr. Dockrell

There was an amendment down to the Finance Bill, so that I cannot be accused of not raising the matter at the earliest possible moment. My position is that I cannot see why one set of catalogues should be allowed in free and catalogues in bulk should be subject to duty. That is the attitude I take up.

Mr. Blythe

If the Minister were disposed to meet the Deputy, I am sure he could arrange for a recommendation to be made to the Seanad.

Mr. MacEntee

Would not that mean re-summoning the Dáil to consider the recommendation?

Mr. McGilligan

Does the Minister mean to suggest that there will be no recommendations?

Mr. Blythe

There nearly always are.

Mr. MacEntee

Deputy McGilligan could answer his own question better than I could.

Mr. McGilligan

Every year there have been recommendations.

Mr. MacEntee

If we have to come back, we will consider Deputy Dockrell's suggestion.

Mr. Briscoe

Might I ask the Minister to consider it from this point of view? There seems to be an anomaly, in this way, that a local wholesaler who would import his pattern books in bulk would have to pay the duty on them, whereas a wholesaler or factory, outside the Saorstát, can distribute pattern books singly to local people here, free of duty, which would give an advantage over the Saorstát trader. I have discussed this point with Deputy Dockrell and I have made inquiries since and I find that there are wholesale distributors of wall papers in the City of Dublin alone. I would ask the Minister to meet the situation one way or the other. These people are not asking to have the duty taken off or put on, but they are asking that they should be put at no disadvantage as compared with outsiders. I think that is the point that Deputy Dockrell has in mind.

Mr. Dockrell

That is my point.

Amendment 24 agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment 25:—

In page 37, First Schedule, Ref. No. 18, in the fifth column, to add a paragraph as follows:—

"(v) vessels and boats which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, are primarily constructed and designed for propulsion by sails, or for propulsion by mechanical means, or for the carriage of goods, or are intended for use in the fishing industry or for the purpose of the lifeboat service."

This arises out of the suggestion, which, I think, was made by Deputy Good, that possibly ships might be described as "articles manufactured wholly or partly of wood." The duty, as originally drafted, was extremely wide in its scope, and the possibilities are, that, if you could get ships on to dry land, they might be liable to duty. The amendment now proposed on behalf of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, exempts all vessels, except rowing boats, not intended for use in the fishing industry or for the purpose of the lifeboat service, and I think it will fully meet the point which was made by Deputy Good.

Mr. Dockrell

I understand that it meets his view.

Mr. Anthony

I would like to know if the Minister has been given any substantial reason why rowing boats should be excluded.

Mr. MacEntee

Make the case against it.

Mr. Anthony

There are rowing clubs throughout Ireland, who buy racing gigs, for instance. The racing gig may be an ordinary tub outrigger boat or what is known as a fine boat, and neither of these is made in the country. They are usually imported from Oxford, from boat builders on the Isis or the Thames, where a large number of wherries come from. In the case of some of these boats, the prices run anything from £60 to £80, and with the tariff it will be very difficult for rowing clubs to get a decent fine "four" or a fine "eight," under say, £100 or £120. That is a very big consideration to numbers of University students, for instance, and to the young men who take part in this sport of rowing in this country. As a matter of fact, I could prove to the Minister's satisfaction that very few of these clubs are solvent, and they cannot afford to undertake the great expense that will be involved now in paying extra for their boats. If we had in this country boat builders who were building these racing gigs, I would certainly encourage this, but, when we are not building these things, I do not see why we should discourage the sport of rowing in the manner proposed by the Minister.

Professor Alton

I wish to support Deputy Anthony. I think the matter of the money involved is very small, but it is a very serious item for these clubs. Rowing clubs in Ireland, as Deputy Anthony has said, are not in a very affluent position—the one I am acquainted with certainly, is in debt— and they can only be run by subscriptions from outsiders. I would press on the Minister that, as he is interfering with sport in other directions—

Mr. MacEntee

Be very careful of what you say, now.

Professor Alton

—he might make this concession.

Professor Thrift

Thirty or fifty pounds is a very small thing to the Revenue, but it is a very big item for a University rowing club. I can assure the Minister that rowing clubs have to be financed in order to be got to work at all. There is another aspect of this. There are many rowing pleasure boats used in this country, which afford working men with their means of livelihood, and, so far as I know, they are not likely to be made here at all. Yet it is proposed to put a tax on them.

Mr. Brasier

I support the views of the last speaker, but I should like to draw the Minister's attention also to the fact that rowing boats are necessary for the recreation of visitors in our various summer health resorts. The Minister will be striking a blow at the livelihood of a deserving section of the community, and I would ask him, in view of the very small amount of revenue he is likely to gain from this tax, to withdraw it.

Mr. Anthony

I do not want to place the Minister in any false position. Rowing boats are made in this country and the very boats referred to by the last speaker are made in the City of Cork, Dublin, Baltimore and other places in West Cork. They are made in this country and very good ones are made here. Very good yachts are also made in this country, and if the Minister came down to my part of the country, I could show him a £10,000 yacht built, quite recently, in Baltimore. The boats to which I refer are not made in this country and I do not see any prospect of their being made here, for some years, at any rate.

Mr. MacEntee

This discussion has been a case of much ado about nothing. I am awfully sorry that Deputy Anthony, who was so concerned about racing requisites, did not take the trouble, before he assumed that racing boats would be taxed under this, to read item 18, because he would have seen there that articles for use in sport would be exempted, and that, therefore, racing boats are definitely not covered by the duty. As to the point raised by Deputy Brasier, in regard to ordinary rowing boats for pleasure purposes, I think that Deputy Anthony has given him what I consider to be a conclusive answer.

Mr. Anthony

Can I get the Minister's assurance that the racing boats to which I referred—

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is the third speech that Deputy Anthony has made.

Mr. Anthony

This is a question. Can I get an assurance that a racing boat, with a sliding seat, will be exempt, and that there will be no confusion at the ports?

Mr. MacEntee

They are covered, of course, by the ordinary duty on sporting goods of 10 per cent. but they are definitely exempt from the heavy duty of 33? per cent., and it is on Item 18 that the discussion took place.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is amendment 25 agreed?

Mr. McGilligan

Why should it be agreed?

Mr. MacEntee

I protest. I have given the House every opportunity of making points on this matter. We are on Report Stage and Deputy McGilligan had an opportunity of speaking before this.

Mr. McGilligan

And, under the agreement, he is still within his rights in moving, simpliciter, an amendment to the amendment before us.

Mr. MacEntee

He ought to have moved it before the discussion concluded.

Mr. McGilligan

I take no direction from the Minister as to what I ought to have done. The Chair alone rules me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the Deputy moving an amendment?

Mr. McGilligan

I was suggesting that I might be allowed to move one.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I do not think that, at this stage, the Deputy is entitled to do so.

Amendment 25 agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment 26:

In page 37, First Schedule, Ref. No. 18, in the fifth column, to add a paragraph as follows:—

"(v) sections for beehive use."

The Minister for Industry and Commerce announced during the Committee Stage of the Bill that he would exclude sections for bee-hive use and this amendment is designed to give effect to that.

Mr. Dillon

I think it was at my instance that the Minister made the concession. I asked him if he would also exclude the component parts thereof, because I believe they are sometimes imported in shooks and they come under the timber tax.

Mr. MacEntee

I think it is covered by this because this says "sections for bee-hive use."

Mr. Dillon

The sections are small square boxes. They sometimes come in shooks and they stick them together. They will come under the timber tax. Will that tax be remitted?

Mr. MacEntee

They are covered by this.

Mr. O'Hanlon

I should like to draw attention to a matter under No. 18. The Minister for Industry and Commerce gave an undertaking that printer's blocks would be exempt. He has carried out that undertaking so far as lead blocks are concerned, but they can be taxed under the heading of "wood"—blocks mounted on wood. I ask the Minister to insert printer's blocks and type. Wooden type would also come under it.

Mr. MacEntee

I am advised that printer's wooden blocks and wooden type would be exempted as tools under Item 8.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment 27:—

In page 39, First Schedule, Ref. No. 28, to insert in the fifth column the following provision:—

"This duty shall not be charged or levied on any articles or component parts of articles which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, are of a type designed and intended primarily for laboratory use."

This, I think, gives partial effect to amendment 183a put down by Deputy Thrift on the Committee Stage. It is not proposed to accept the amendment in the form originally proposed, that is to say, excluding photographic apparatus, etc., for use in any educational institution, as it is not clear that cameras and photographic apparatus of a normal type are in fact used in schools and colleges to any great extent. If they were so used, it is possible that they would be frequently availed of by private individuals for purposes other than those of an educational nature. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, however, is convinced that there is a case for exempting photographic apparatus of a specialised or laboratory type. It is proposed to accept the principle of the amendment, and this gives effect to it.

Professor Thrift

I am obliged. It goes a considerable way.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment 28:—

In page 40, First Schedule, Ref. No. 34, in the fifth column, after paragraph (n) to insert a paragraph as follows:—

(o) brass rules for printers' use.

I think Deputy O'Hanlon raised this matter on the Committee Stage. It refers to printers' brass rules.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment 29:—

In page 41, First Schedule, Ref. No. 36, in the second column, before the word "coir" to delete the word "and," and after the word "yarn" to insert the words "and plaited or cable-laid sash cords."

Mr. Dillon

Will it be possible to secure that the cordage which forms part of fishermen's nets will be let in, as the nets are at present, free of duty?

Mr. Brasier

I should like to ask the Minister to accede to that. In salmon fishing a special quality of cord is required which is not manufactured in this country. I think that the Minister will be administering a very serious set back to the industry if he does not agree to that. I am speaking from personal experience. We have to import cordage for that purpose.

Mr. MacEntee

It is rather unfortunate that these points were not raised earlier.

Mr. Dillon

I raised the point about cordage when the Minister for Industry and Commerce was here.

Mr. MacEntee

Did he give any undertaking with regard to it?

Mr. Dillon

He did not give any more specific undertaking than to say that the matter would be favourably considered. Cases have been reported to me. First, nets were held up. Then directions were given that nets were to be admitted and duty not collected on them as cordage. Then I was informed that nets were admitted, but that the cordage attached to the nets was assessed for duty.

Mr. MacEntee

If the cordage is attached to the nets it is free, because it forms part of the nets.

Mr. Dillon

Then if such a case arises again I shall mention the matter to the Revenue Commissioners and they will deal with it.

Mr. Brasier

I also raised this point about cordage in the case of salmon fishing, where they require the nets to be renewed every year and cordage has to be imported. It would be a serious blow to that industry, which is already suffering enough, and I appeal to the Minister to let the cordage in free. The special class of cordage is not manufactured in this country and the tax would be likely to hit them very hard.

Mr. MacEntee

I will consider that matter between now and the time the Bill gets to the Seanad. It is a new matter.

Professor Thrift

I move amendment 30:

In page 43, Second Schedule, fifth column, to add 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."

The Minister for Industry and Commerce agreed to accept this suggestion. It makes a similar proviso with reference to libraries in the Second Schedule that had been made already in the First Schedule. I think the Minister will admit it is necessary.

Mr. MacEntee

I am accepting the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When will the Fifth Stage be taken?

Mr. MacEntee

It can be taken now.

Mr. McGilligan

By no means—tomorrow.

Mr. MacEntee

Why not now?

Mr. McGilligan

Because it was not so agreed.

Mr. Anthony

I should like to draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that I discussed with the Minister for Industry and Commerce the advisability of letting in free of duty a commodity known as telegraphic slips. There is no mention of it here. I understood the Minister was to put down an amendment to that effect. I also discussed the matter with the President.

Mr. MacEntee

I am advised that we can let it in free.

Fifth Stage ordered for to-morrow.

Top