And the money that is deducted all the year round from those who have fixed incomes under the control of the Minister—there is no yield, I suppose, from that—at the higher rate. At this time when, as I say, income tax is completely failing as a tax to give the yield it is estimated to give, it is presumed now that the country can stand the burden of this £1,152,000 although some counsel, whose advice was taken by the Minister, have advised that this money should not be paid. And the Minister is not acting on that advice, and this is on a footing with the land annuities, and if there is any belief at all in the event of the success of the movement with regard to it, it is time we got whatever hope there is cashed to some extent, because if ever the people wanted remission of taxation in the country, they want it now. The Budget was estimated on the basis of extremely high direct taxation, and warning was given that the high direct taxation would fail in its object; that it had gone far beyond the regulation point, and proof has been given that it has failed. On the other hand, we had also the burden of the high prices that were caused by the mixture of tariffs that were thrown on hurriedly, and we are told at any rate that by reason of the extra tax imposed on them by reason of buying goods that there would be employment in the country. We have seen that also has been falsified, and in fact, the unemployment is worse than ever it was, and at the same time 80 per cent. of what was looked for from tariffs has been gathered in in the first six months of the year. People are paying all round, no protection, no better employment, and huge direct and indirect taxation, and on top of that comes this sum of money. What about the people who are fooled by this business of what Fianna Fáil was going to do? Did they expect that that meant that once counsel gave an opinion these moneys could be retained, that the moneys were going to be collected—that was going to be a continuance of the imposition upon them —and have the satisfaction of knowing the Government had these moneys in a Suspense Account, no more than they expected that the land annuities would continue to be collected. It is put in the third paragraph after the land annuities being second, and the hope was definitely inculcated in the people here that these payments would cease too. These are portions of the payments which at the moment every bit of trade we have in the country is suffering. We know there is a special duty with regard to certain things to collect these moneys, and these moneys are being collected from taxation to start with, and despite what counsel have advised they are not being returned to the people, and the people are not being asked not to pay them. People are paying them, and at the same time the whole trade of the country has been upset by special duties in order to collect these moneys and other sums of money, and we are within three weeks of another very definite blow being struck at the trade we have left.
On the 15th November, unless there is a very definite change for the better in the relations between this country and the country from whom we are withholding these moneys, certain goods, which at the moment are not tariffed, which are getting in free to Great Britain, are going to be tariffed to bring in this £1,126,000.
Has anybody who is interested in this money taken the trouble to look up the articles which have been tariffed? Under the British Import Duty Act of February of this year, from which we were exempt and continue to be exempt until the 15th of November, and after which date, the exemption will cease unless we get specific provision made by the British exempting us, is it recognised that biscuits will fall under the 10 per cent.? Is it recognised that stout will fall under the 10 per cent? Is it recognised that whatever woollen export trade we have—and we have a considerable export trade in high-class goods—will fall under the 10 per cent?
We had one of the things last night, one of the foolish tariffs, on jute bags, of which there is a considerable export from this country. Is it recognised that these, too, will fall under the 10 per cent., because some counsel, whose name cannot be mentioned here, has advised that some money may be retained here and the Government decide to retain that money while still collecting it? And that is going to lead to a better situation in the country with regard to employment. Supposing the biggest export we have is taxed to the extent of 10 per cent., what is the likelihood of employment becoming better or worse in this city? Supposing biscuits are taxed to the extent of 10 per cent., and have to suffer that in competition with the English manufactured biscuit on the other side, and that one firm in this city alone suffers, what is going to be the return in the way of employment or unemployment? Is all that you can do in the way of tariffs for the home trade going to make up what may be lost in the export trade in woollens alone?
What is going to happen in Athlone with the trade which is its best export trade, and what is going to happen in County Cork with its export trade in woollens, if those people who have established a fairly good reputation for a certain class of high class goods find themselves suddenly, on the 15th of November, by reason of the fatuity of counsel, and the still greater fatuity of people who acted on that advice, up against the 10 per cent., which, at the moment, is imposed only on the foreigner and not on any member of the Dominions? Yet we have this Estimate mentioned here, and all the Minister can say, in the most slighting way, is that this will be retained against the happy event of the payments not having to be made to Great Britain. A great deal has to come before that happy event, and one of the things that the House should know about before it votes this money is on what reputation this probability of that happy event depends and who is the lawyer who has advised on this. Is it beyond the bounds of possibility that it is the same old team that has got us into the mess we are now in in relation to the annuities or is it the same team? Is it now considered that the men who were capable of advising in the way in which they did on a problem like the land annuities could be expected to go one further and advise in a similar way with regard to these payments?
This is one of the critical votes the House has got to take, and the House knows that it is no theory that has been put forward with regard to the hampering of trade. The House knows that what I have said with regard to what is likely to happen on the 15th of November, although it is not a fact at the moment, is the nearest thing possible to a fact. Let us just take, as being on one side of the balance, the export trade we have in stout, biscuits and woollens and put against that the possibility or the probability of the happy event being successful and that we will not have to make these payments to Great Britain. Is it worth the struggle? Supposing we are going to be successful, what is the force in asking the people to pay this money by way of taxation, to get this money collected by way of taxation, and to have it hidden here in a Suspense Account, or in some secret way here and kept here and no word of explanation given with regard to the distribution of this money or any likely use of it immediately, while the very dreaded day of the 15th November comes nearer and nearer, bringing with it, as I say, almost definitely, the extinction of two big businesses, and leading to a considerable upset in the whole woollen manufactory of this State—such an upset as will not be equalised even by the granting to this country of the complete woollen market at home?
It is time that on this, as well as on these other problems, the Government made up its mind. It has or it has not a good case, but whether it has or has not a good case it has a good chance of winning in some way or another, and it should make up its mind also to this point, that if it is going to win these moneys there is no necessity to collect them, and if it is not going to win these moneys it is impossible to put it to the people that they should pay twice: first, through taxation indirectly on goods and direct taxation on their incomes; and secondly, by the loss of trade they are going to suffer, with all that that will mean right through the country. Why should we run the risk of five or six thousand people extra being put out of employment in this city in order to retain a sum of money which we still collect from the people? Of course, what we are discussing here has an analogy with every other payment called into dispute which is still being collected, and which the people of the country are paying in another way. This demands something more from the Minister for Finance, who has recently been dragged across to London if it was only to hold up his leader's hands. I wish he had not been dragged across to London because, personally, I do not believe that his leader would be sufficiently foolish to put forward any nonsense about Britain going off the gold standard if his influence was not about.
