Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 20 Jun 1933

Vol. 48 No. 6

Finance Bill, 1933—Committee. - Part I—Income Tax and Sur-Tax.

(1) Income tax shall be charged for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1933, at the rate of five shillings in the pound.
(2) Sur-tax for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1933, shall be charged in respect of the income of any individual the total of which from all sources exceeds one thousand five hundred pounds and shall be so charged at the same rates as those at which it was charged for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1932.
(3) The several statutory and other provisions which were in force during the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1932, in relation to income tax and sur-tax shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, have effect in relation to the income tax and sur-tax to be charged as aforesaid for the year beginning on the 6th day of April, 1933.

I move amendment 1.

Amendments 1 and 2 might be taken together.

Yes. I move amendments 1 and 2 together for purposes of discussion:—

1. In sub-section (3), line 25, after the word "provisions" to insert the words and brackets "(save as is otherwise provided by this section)" and at the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—

Income tax shall not be charged on lands occupied wholly or mainly for husbandry.

2. In sub-section (3), line 25, after the word "provisions" to insert the words and brackets "(save as is otherwise provided by this section)" and at the end of the section to add a new sub-section as follows:—

Income tax shall be charged on lands occupied wholly or mainly for husbandry at half whichever of the following amounts is the lesser, that is to say:—

(a) the poor rate valuation:

(b) the judicial rent;

(c) the annual interest or payment to the Land Commission in lieu of rent or

(d) the original land purchase annuity.

I am moving these two amendments standing in my name for various reasons. The first and principal reason is that at the moment, and for a long time, there has been no profit from the occupation of farm lands. The collection and issue of assessment notices to farmers is a hardship. It entails considerable work on the part of the officials of the Department and considerable worry to the individuals to whom they are issued. I doubt, in fact, whether the amount realised in the way of income tax from even the few farmers who are able to pay it would recoup the Minister for the amount of labour expended on it. Apart from this, before the Great War, farmers were assessed for income tax purposes at a third of the valuation by the British. It was increased during the war to the full valuation at which it still stands. So that the farmer is paying it, where he does pay it, at three times the valuation before the war. The circumstances of the present time might be compared with those before the war in order to show the unfavourable position of the farmers as compared with their position before the war. A justification for income tax, even on the old scale, could hardly be sustained, but income tax founded on a valuation three times exceeding the pre-war amount even the Minister himself cannot justify. There is another point: the farmers, when they purchased their land, took over a liability which they never conceived they might take. Previous to that the landlord paid the income tax under Schedule A. Since the farmer has reaped the benefits of the Land Purchase Acts he has got to bear a share of this burden under Schedule A. On the whole, the farmer is assessed altogether beyond his means to bear the tax. It is an unjust tax at this moment, especially as everybody knows that the farmers are making nothing. It is unjust even if we take no account of the economic war. Even if things were normal as they were in 1931, and as they will be, I hope, in 1934, it is unjust to impose a tax on the full valuation where hitherto it was imposed only on one-third of the valuation. I alluded to the hardships the farmers have in defending income tax cases. A few nights ago in this House I tried to raise the point, and was ruled out of order, that by the assessment to income tax and the defence of income tax cases farmers are worried almost to breaking point. Several farmers, to my knowledge, were even told by the officials of the Revenue Commissioners—and I hope the Labour Party, of which I see a representative in the House, will take note of this—that they were employing too much labour. We were told from all sides of this House that the middle sized and large farmers neglect to employ labour. Where farmers did employ labour at good wages it was pointed out by the men who were trying to collect this tax that they were employing too much labour at too great a wage, and that women at a wage of 5/-, 6/-, or 7/- a week should be employed in lieu. This all comes of the collection of this tax. The Minister himself knows that the farmer is making no profit. The Revenue Commissioners know it. In the attempt to manufacture a false profit, a profit which is not there, they are trying to almost terrorise the farmer into submitting to the tax and giving up his defence against it. I myself know a few farmers, who, after endless efforts to evade the tax or rather to prove that they were not liable, eventually paid some little thing rather than be put to the further burden of defending it. I do not think it is necessary to make a long speech in defence of my amendments. They ought to have the support of every Deputy in this House. Nobody, I think, will dare to assert that our conditions at this moment are any better than they were in 1914, if as good. Even if they were a little better there would be no justification for an assessment for income tax purposes at three times the amount it was in 1913 or 1914. I think that the Minister, in all justice to the section of the community which is the most important to the Minister and to everybody else, ought to accept these amendments, and relieve the farmers from a burden which cannot be justified by the Minister or anybody else.

The basis of assessment for income tax in this country is the actual income derived from pursuance of an occupation or from the possession of property. In the case of the farmer he has a privilege which is not enjoyed by any other section of the income tax paying community, that of electing the schedules under which he will be charged. He can either be charged for income tax mainly under Schedule A, and in the case of a tenant purchaser mainly under Schedule B and partly under Schedule A, or he can elect to be charged under Schedule D, on the actual basis of his profits and income derived from his business of farming. If charged under Schedules A and B the basis of assessment is an empirical one. It may be some one or other of five things:—(a) The Poor Law valuation of his holding; (b) the judicial rent fixed by the Land (Ireland) Acts; (c) the annual interest in lieu of rent payable to the Irish Land Commission; (d) the purchase annuity payable under the Land Purchase Acts, and (e) payment in lieu of rent; whichever of these five is the lowest and is applicable to his case.

We will consider, first of all, the case of the farmer who does not elect to be assessed under Schedule D. He may not elect to be assessed under Schedule D because in actual fact he keeps accounts, and we must assume if he does keep accounts and does not elect to be assessed under Schedule D that the actual income which he derives from farming would be much greater than what is taken as the notional basis of his assessment under Schedule B. We will take the case of a person who does not elect to be assessed under Schedule D. We will consider what is a typical case. We are talking now not of those who own lands as a sort of side-line to their business. We are not talking of people who own lands for personal enjoyment. We are talking of people who own land and whose sole occupation and sole source of livelihood is their business as farmers. We will take what would be a typical case in that connection. We will take a large farm of good land, a farm say of over 250 acres, the Poor Law valuation of which is on the land £224 5s. 0d. and on the holdings £8, making a total Poor Law valuation of £232 5s. 0d. In the particular case I have in mind the purchase annuity under the Land Acts amounts to £194 15s. 0d., of which £12 15s. 0d. is for sinking fund and £182 for interest. This farmer, not having elected to be assessed under Schedule D is assessed under Schedules A and B as follows:— Under Schedule A the Poor Law valuation of the farm, £232 is first taken, and from that there is deducted an allowance for repairs—on the land one-eighth of the Poor Law valuation and on the buildings one-sixth of the Poor Law valuation. There is then deducted the interest portion of the annuity paid to the Land Commission, amounting to £182. The total allowances made against the assessment under Schedule A amount to £211, leaving a net assessment under Schedule A of £20 18/-. The Schedule B assessment is based on the total amount of the annuity, £194 15s. 0d., and the total assessment made on this farmer under Schedules A and B is £215 13s. 0d. That is the total assessment. This farmer, having a farm of over 250 acres, the valuation of which is £232—and there are only 65 such farmers in the State—does not pay a penny piece of income tax if he happens to be a married man. He goes quite clear, that is, if he is mainly a farmer and only a farmer. What is the justification for the amendment which has been put down by Deputy Bennett?

Would the Minister say how many farmers are brought in as a result of the increased valuation?

There are no farmers brought in as a result of the increased valuation. There are people who do pay income tax on land in regard to Schedules A and B; but they are people who carry on some other business, or they are people who have some other source of income. They are, possibly, people who might derive very considerable income from investments or from business as shopkeepers or butchers or publicans or something else in the village. They are assessed on the full amount of the income, and justifiably assessed on it. Of course it may be held that suppose this man is a single man, then, because his allowance would be much less than if he were a married man, he might fall for assessment. The point would then arise: is this man making more money out of the farm than £215 a year, or is he making less? If he is making less, he has his remedy. He can say: "I will not elect to be assessed under Schedules A and B; I will be assessed under Schedule D on the actual income which I derive from the farm." In view of that, is that man aggrieved in any way?

In order to save him trouble and inconvenience some people will say that this man, who owns a farm of over 250 acres, the Poor Law valuation of which is in excess of £230, should not be put to the trouble of keeping accounts. But we put the shopkeeper in the village, who has the same income, to the trouble of keeping accounts and, similarly, we put every other taxpayer in the State who wants a remission of duty to the trouble of proving that, in fact, his actual income has been less than what the inspector of taxes thought it was, less than what he had been assessed for. Why should we give this person, one of the select class of 65 people——

Why not allude to the other classes?

The Deputy has already accepted my proposition that we should deal with farmers and farmers only. We are not going to deal with the man who has a conglomerate income derived from his business as a shopkeeper, his investments in War Loan and his profits on the land. We are dealing with the farmer, not with the case of the gombeen man. Is Deputy Bennett urging here that, in addition to all the other privileges and perquisites which the gombeen man enjoys, he should also be free of income tax? Is the Deputy anxious to adopt that attitude?

The Minister knows very well that that is not my attitude.

I am endeavouring to show that so far as real farmers are concerned—those who are farmers— solely and not publicaus-cum-farmers— they need not pay a penny piece more than they are justly bound to pay in the way of income tax under the law as it stands. I have already stated that if this notional basis of assessment is not acceptable to the farmer, he has his remedy. He can be assessed under Schedule D and he can satisfy the inspector as to his income; he can satisfy the inspector that the salary which he derives from his business as a farmer is less than that on which he would be assessed under Schedules A and B. If he satisfies the inspector, then he gets a consequent and appropriate remission. As regards the class of farmer who would come within this category, who would be covered by this amendment, I do not think there is any justification for giving him any more exceptional treatment than he now enjoys. He has a privilege which is not enjoyed by any other income tax payer. He can elect to be assessed under one or other of these schedules and, once we have given him that privilege and given him the right to show that in actual fact his income is less than might be assumed under Schedule A and B, we have done everything we possibly can for him. I do not think there can be any justification for giving him a further remission on the ground that he does not keep accounts. A man who owns a farm of over 250 acres and valued at more than £230 who does not keep accounts should not be in the farming industry at all, because he cannot be a competent farmer.

How many farmers, as such, pay income tax in the Free State?

I could not give the Deputy the exact figures, but I will point out that there are only 65 holdings in this country with a valuation of more than £200.

The number of farmers, real farmers, who pay income tax is very small.

Infinitesimal.

Why collect it at all then?

If any farmer chooses to come under Schedule D and shows that he made less than, in fact, he was assessed on, he need not pay income tax?

Quite so, provided his income is below the figure usually allowed.

I do not know if the Minister was born in the country. I do not think he was. If he was born in the country I am sure he would realise the significance of the term he used when he spoke about a gombeen man. Let me tell the Minister that no more foul term of opprobrium can be levelled at any person in the country than to call him a gombeen man. Such a term should not be lightly bandied about the House, least of all by the Minister.

The Minister did not use the term in an offensive fashion at all.

I do not know that I bandied that term about the House.

I urge the Minister to consider carefully the advisability of employing such a term when he refers to people in the country who are engaged in some other busines as well as farming. I have no apology to make to the Minister or Deputy Cleary for belonging to that section of the community. I have never disguised that fact.

Why introduce me?

I did not make any reference to the Deputy. I would like to point out to the Minister that there are large numbers of honourable men engaged in that business and it comes ill from a Minister of State to use, as a generic term, the term gombeen man in relation to anybody who pursues business and agriculture at the same time. As I have said, the Minister was not born in the country and, therefore, he may not realise the significance of the words he has used. They do not sit lightly on a Minister of State. Such a term as he has used is opprobrious and abusive and it ought to be used very sparingly and with great care.

I hope everybody listening to the Deputy will take what he has said to heart.

The Minister has stated that he is making a great concession. Surely he is aware that it is purely a statutory matter and that it has been in operation for quite a number of years. When he says that the Government is making a special concession he might bear that fact in mind. The Minister mentioned the figure of £8 in relation to the valuation on buildings. On a 250 acre farm the buildings bear absolutely no relation to the size of the holding. I have seen a building little better than a labourer's cottage and it had an annual valuation of £7. It contained three rooms and a scullery. It is no crime for a person to have another means of income besides a farm. What would be the sum in question? Suppose, for a moment, a man has £100 a year. Let us say the assessment is for £200. The assessment is a little out of proportion to what the Minister indicated. All persons are not married. This may be the case of a widow that Deputy Bennett has in mind. A farm of 250 acres during the last 12 months, as far as I have learned from any person having knowledge of the subject, or of operating such a farm, has not been a prosperous concern during that period. Deputy Bennett did me the honour last week of consulting me about this matter, and he showed me the communication that had been received from the income tax people in connection with this particular case. Three persons were employed on this farm at 25/-, 26/- and 27/- per week.

How does that arise?

If the Minister has an objection to make in connection with how it arises, I shall listen to him, but he must stand up and make his case on a point of order to the Ceann Comhairle. I presume he is fit to do that. Wages of 25/-, 26/- and 27/- were paid in this particular case. It was stated in the course of the communication which came from the official in question that female labour could be employed at from 5/- to 7/- a week. People are told that they must keep accounts. Here is a case where accounts were kept and in which, the figures having been put down, objection was taken to the wages paid during the year. That is what is objected to. There is no particular objection to keeping accounts. There is objection to having an alteration in the running of the place in order to meet objections urged by the inspector of taxes, or whoever it is that has the matter in hands. Is the Minister standing for that—that wages of 25/- 26/- and 27/- per week are too much to be paid on one of these farms and that female labour should be employed at from 5/- to 7/- a week, because that is the real point at issue?

I understand that the real point at issue, according to Deputy Cosgrave, in this debate is whether I stand for one rate of wages or another. Deputy Bennett, on a previous occasion, indicated that he was very perturbed about the situation and I understand that Deputy Cosgrave is also considerably moved by it. It is rather an extraordinary thing that neither of them has submitted to me, for submission to the Revenue Comissioners, this hypothetical letter. We have heard about the letter. We have not had the date of it; we do not know the circumstances in which it was written, and, in short, I know nothing about it. Deputy Bennett raised this matter I think about a week ago.

And the Minister objected.

If Deputy Bennett thinks there is any point in the administration of the Revenue Commissioners to which my attention could be drawn, I do not object to Deputy Bennett, or any Deputy, asking to see me or sending me a letter putting the facts before me—that is if he wants them redressed. Of course, if he wants to make a sort of cheap debating point in the House, if it is not out of a desire to protect the farmer that he raises this matter but merely to score a petty point, as he thinks, against the Government I can understand his attitude. That is not my attitude. He has not sent me this communication or given me a single fact which would enable me to identify it. It is quite possible that the inspector might have acted wrongly. On the other hand, the inspector may have seen wages put down and ascribed to members, possibly, of the farmer's family, members who might be at school or engaged in some other occupation. It is his duty if he thinks that expenses are debited against the income of the farm which are not properly chargeable, to take the matter up with the person concerned. I have had no opportunity of ascertaining for myself whether that is so or not, and Deputy Bennett, who is so much concerned, and Deputy Cosgrave, who, as Leader of the Party, I presume accepts Party responsibility for raising the matter here, have not brought the facts before my notice. We have heard them bandied across the House, not because the Deputies feel that the farmer has any grievance to be redressed, but merely because they want to score petty points against the Government.

I want to say that I have neither the time nor the inclination to go to the Minister with any such case. I have seen the document issued from a public Department of State. I was consulted about it. Are we to take it that, because it was issued from the Minister's Department, it has to be seen by the Minister before it is mentioned in the House? Certainly not.

There is a form of Parliamentary question if the Deputy really wanted to get information.

I have had experience of answers to Parliamentary questions and we require a little more.

You, at any rate, set a standard in that regard to which we have not yet come down.

When I had the responsibility there was both civility and courtesy shown in answering questions.

Deputy Bennett had his remedy in either of two ways: if he did not wish to approach me privately, he could have put down a Parliamentary question and directed public attention to this matter, and he could have given the responsible Department and the Minister concerned an opportunity of having it investigated. He has not put it down, and the reason is, I am perfectly certain, that he feels he has not a sound case.

The Minister has departed from his case.

I have not had the privilege of seeing the letter, such as Deputies Cosgrave and Bennett have had.

It is a privilege.

It is a privilege when dealing with opposition which is sometimes inclined to go extra hard when genuine attempts are made in the House to do justice to people who are suffering from injustice. I have not seen that letter, but I have seen another letter, which I am prepared to bring to the Minister in order to let him see that it is worded in a similar strain. It amounts to this. The books of a farmer whom I know are meticulously and scrupulously kept and they are audited by a Dublin chartered accountant. Yet, when the figures were submitted, a letter came from the Income Tax Department in that particular district stating that they did not accept the figures presented to them; that they thought the wages paid to the labourers on the farm were excessive. That is quite a different case from the one mentioned by Deputy Bennett and Deputy Cosgrave. I would not have intervened were it not for the way in which the Minister replied. Otherwise I would have taken up the matter in the proper way, outside the House if necessary.

The Minister, in replying to the amendment, cited a case of his own, as if nobody was concerned except the man with 200, 300 or 400 acres of land. I am not concerned with such men. The Minister, in order to run away from the merits of the amendment, cited a case of which he said there were only 65 in existence. If there were only 65 such cases in existence I would not have put down the amendment. This amendment affects many more cases than the Minister mentioned, and he knows that. The Minister knows that if the assessment for income tax purposes was, as it was during the British régime before the war, one-third of the valuation, instead of the full valuation, there are many farmers who are now assessed who would not be assessed. The Minister knows very well that if he accepted even the second amendment, and reduced it to one-half, that many farmers now paying income tax would not be assessed. The Minister went to great pains to throw, I may say, dirt on the industrious farmer who, in previous years perhaps, put together a few pounds. There are very few farmers who did it. There are a few farmers who managed in the last 20 or 30 years to make a few pounds and who were not able to buy an extra bit of land, and put their little sum of money into some investment. Because of that little investment, the Minister described such a man as a "gombeen" man, because he had £100 or £200 in shares. The point is, he has got the shares and has, perhaps, £3, £4, £5 or £6 coming to him as interest. Income tax was assessed on the shares. You are now getting him into grips with the Revenue Commissioners on land, where he was never dealt with before.

How does the Deputy meet the reply, that men are actually losing money on land, or are not making sufficient to entitle the Revenue Commissioners to assess them? Have they not Schedule D to show that they are not making a taxable income?

I assume that Deputy Dillon is familiar with the type of forms that farmers have to deal with.

Painfully.

If the Deputy is familiar with these forms, and if the Minister is familiar with them, they will know the chance the ordinary farmer—without the intelligence of the Minister or Deputy Dillon—would have in fighting them successfully. It cannot be done.

I can assure the Deputy that I succeeded in showing that there was a substantial loss on my farming. I have no difficulty in doing so.

Deputy Dillon is not an ordinary farmer. The point is that if the British accepted the standard of one-third of the valuation, now, when the Minister states that there is very little income, what harm is there in accepting the amendment? In a few months we are going to have the annuities reduced to half. I suppose the Minister agrees with and will stand by it. Certain people in this country will not get the benefit of the reduction.

Who are they?

Possibly there is the man to whom the Minister refers, in whom I am not very much interested, the man who did not purchase at all. But there is a much more important section of the community. There are industrious people throughout the country who bought out the annuities and who now hold in fee simple, having redeemed. In six or eight months' time the annuities will be reduced by half in the case of farmers to whom the coming Land Act will apply. There is every case for acceptance of the second amendment by the Minister. No case has been made for collecting income tax on land at all. Income from land is non-existent and it is only waste of officials' time to try to get this tax. It must cost a huge sum to assess farmers when eventually nothing is got. The Minister admitted to Deputy Good that there was practically nothing got.

No. We get sufficient out of it to warrant rejection of the amendment. We get £70,000 or £80,000.

Out of 65 farmers. If the Minister gets that from them it is jolly good.

The poor farmers!

Honestly I did not think it was possible to get that much. The Minister has not reverted to the first case I made, that there is no justification for assessing farmers on the full valuation, where the British in pre-war days only assessed them on one-third of the valuation. I am asking the Minister not to go back to one-third, but to accept the half. If he agrees I will withdraw the first amendment.

I am inclined to think that in these days even the most unenlightened and uneducated farmer would have no difficulty in showing that he was not subject to income tax, and that his figures would be such as to convince the hardest-hearted representative of the Treasury. The real case for the amendment is the last point mentioned by Deputy Bennett, that it must be a great waste of time and money to the Government to attempt to collect income tax on land at all.

I think both Deputy Dillon and Deputy MacDermot are looking at this question very much from their own points of view, and no doubt they are going on the point that the keeping of accounts is no great trouble. After all, Deputy Dillon is a trained business man, and I am sure he has a trained accountant who keeps his farming accounts different from his other accounts. Deputy MacDermot says there is no difficulty about showing a loss. No doubt there is no difficulty in doing so if accounts are kept, but anyone who knows the country knows that 99 per cent. of the farmers keep no regular accounts. In consequence they have to fall back upon the value of their land, or to produce accounts which are really shots at their expenditure. Of course, men will know how they dealt with large items, such as the purchase or the sale of cattle, but as to general items of farming they keep no accounts. That is the reason why a considerable number of farmers will rely upon assessments under Schedules A and B. The Minister's statement that he has no sympathy with persons who have money outside farming does not surprise me. These men lived in the good and profitable years of the Great War when they made money which they did not spend. What crime is that? Have these people committed an appalling crime? These men were thrifty. The Minister says he has no sympathy with them, that they are gombeen men for having saved money. Take the case of a butcher in a town. He will want some agricultural land to carry on his business, and if the House is going to have what the Minister styled an empirical method of arriving at the amount he should pay, surely the authorities should, as far as possible, approximate to the truth. It is admitted that it is necessary to do so. It is admitted under Schedule D that the ordinary farmer cannot deal with these matters. Schedule D is a comparatively recent introduction. If a man is assessed under Schedules A or B, surely an endeavour should be made to get as near to the truth as possible. It is a wrong thing for the State, or for the Revenue Commissioners, to endeavour to obtain from any citizen, a sum greater than that citizen really owes to the State. If the amendment is not accepted, to keep on the basis of valuation which was satisfactory, four or five years ago, it follows, since farming conditions have gone down, that a basis which is unsatisfactory and unfair to farmers should not be imposed.

Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney seems to think that Deputy MacDermot and myself are somewhat detached from the circumstances governing the position of the farmers. I venture to say that I am more in contact with farmers than Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney. If the Deputy considers that the average farmer cannot keep accounts he seems to forget the farmers qua farmers who are liable for income tax.

Does the Deputy know?

The Deputy knows damn well. Let Deputy Morrissey keep quiet now. If he wants to talk he can get up after me and do so.

The Deputy should not lose his temper.

Deputy Dillon.

I suggest that I have more regard for the rules of this House than the Deputy.

I do not go into the wrong Lobby.

If the Deputy wants to indulge in cross talk he will get more than he bargains for. I have sufficient respect for the Chair not to follow the Deputy's example. What I am dealing with now is the percentage of farmers who are liable for income tax and who do not keep accounts. I think the vast majority of farmers who may be liable for income tax can, with the assistance of their banks, keep pretty reliable accounts, and do keep them. Where the suggestion was made that they should be chargeable for income tax under Schedules A and B ordinarily, if they had accounts of a rough and ready kind, they could show the Revenue Commissioners they were not liable. What is the Minister's reply to Deputy Bennett's plea, that prior to the war Great Britain levied income tax on the basis of one-third of the poor law valuation, which was purely a war measure, and that basis was then increased to the entire poor law valuation? Why should that be maintained now? Why should not Deputy Bennett's suggestion of one-half poor law valuation be adopted.

I think Deputy Dillon was really leaving out one of the primary considerations in this matter. How many farmers are in fact liable under any schedule for income tax— how many farmers qua farmers are liable? Under Schedule B we collected between £70,000 and £80,000 and Deputy Bennett jumped up and said from 65 farmers.

You said no one else would pay.

I made it quite clear that people other than farmers pure and simple were paying it. Under Schedule B people with public-houses and people who kept village stores were paying under Schedule B. I pointed out that there was a sum of £70,000 involved, but that that £70,000 did not come from those who carried on the business of farming only. It came from people who had all sorts of incomes as well as incomes derived from land. We know that people of that class with incomes derived from sources other than land are endowed with more education than Deputy Bennett has credited the farmers with. They keep accounts, and they keep their accounts well, and there is no reason why, if an assessment was unjust, they should not state so. The fact is that leaving out of consideration altogether the illiterate farmers whom Deputy Bennett wants us to believe represent the farmers of the country, and dealing with those cleverer people who keep a business and who, in addition to running their private business, also manage a farm and who for the purpose of their private business are able to keep accounts, and do so to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners, these people if they had any grievance at all under Schedule B, surely would have no difficulty in presenting to the Revenue Commissioners, as Deputy Dillon has done, an account. They would have no difficulty in showing an inspector of taxes that in actual fact the assessment under Schedule B was in excess of what it should be and that, therefore, they should be assessed under Schedule D. These people are not suffering any injustice and cannot be suffering any grievance. They have three options. They can be assessed on their actual profits of last year, on the profits of the current year, or on the statutory basis of Schedule B, so in no ways is their position prejudiced or are they unfairly treated. They have to keep accounts for the ordinary purposes of their own business. Why not keep accounts for the purposes of their business as farmers as well, and why, if they feel that their assessment under Schedule B is unjust—and that can be the only justification for this amendment under Schedule B that it is unjust—why not produce these accounts to the inspector of taxes and convince him that they should not be assessed under Schedule B, but under Schedule D at a lower rate. They have full opportunity of doing that; they are a class of income-tax payers in the State who have that right, and in view of the fact that they have that right, I do not think there is any justification for this amendment. I think the increase of assessment took place in 1915. In 1910 and 1913 the basis of one-third of the poor law valuation, which stood for years, was felt to be, in the changed circumstances, an unjust assessment.

To the Revenue Commissioners.

Unjust to the general body of the taxpayers of the community, unjust to the great majority of the people who sent Deputy Bennett here, and unjust to the great mass of the farmers who do not pay income tax, but who contribute largely through indirect taxation to carry on the government of the country. On that point I make this case. There is possibly not 1 per cent. of people who own land in this country who pay income tax under Schedule B. I do not think there is as many as 4,000 people assessed under Schedule B in respect of land, or could scarcely be at the full rate. Therefore it is not that small, select class who are possibly injured by the existing law, but it is the great mass of non-tax paying farmers who would be hit if assessment under Schedule B did not bear some fair proportion to the profits that might be made out of land and the income out of land that could be assessed under Schedule B. That is why the basis was changed in 1915. The fact that it was changed during the war, and that the change was considered necessary before the war, no more compels us to revert to the pre-war position than the fact that the income tax before the war was only 9d. or 1/- whereas to-day, everyone, not merely in this country, but in Great Britain, and everywhere else have become accustomed to an income tax at a much higher rate.

With the exception of the members of the Executive Council.

The Minister argued in his last speech that what was just for the farmers before the war in assessment of valuation is not just now. There was no public case made before the war that one-third valuation was unjust. There has been a cutting down in the ideas of income since the war, but there is no suggestion that we are at a stage now, except in the Minister's mind, that the valuation made before the war should be increased now. I do not think that that could exist anywhere except in the Minister's imagination. I asked the Minister why such huge masses of people have been billed for income tax. Will the Minister tell us how many people with £100 or £200, who own farms, are assessed for income tax because they own these little sums and have them in investments. I could name many people who by hook or by crook have secured these small amounts, sometimes perhaps sent to them from America by relatives, and have perhaps £200 invested, and who are now brought into income tax by the Revenue Commissioners. It would not hurt the Minister to accept this amendment and he certainly has made no case for rejecting it. There is some concealed purpose behind the Minister's refusal and this concealed purpose he will not admit to the House. The Revenue Commissioners are getting more out of this than they pretend and if they were not the Minister would accept this amendment. If the Minister does not accept it, I am afraid I will have to press the matter to a Division.

Amendment No. 1, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 37; Níl, 64.

  • Alton, Ernest Henry.
  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Burke, James Michael.
  • Byrne, Alfred.
  • Coburn, James.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John Aloysius.
  • Craig, Sir James.
  • Daly, Patrick.
  • Desmond, William.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
  • Dolan, James Nicholas.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Haslett, Alexander.
  • Keating, John.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • MacDermot, Frank.
  • McFadden, Michael Og.
  • McGovern, Patrick.
  • McGuire, James Ivan.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Morrisroe, James.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • Nally, Martin.
  • O'Connor, Batt.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Rice, Vincent.

Níl

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Brian.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Cleary, Mícheál.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Daly, Denis.
  • Davin, William.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Dowdall, Thomas P.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pattison, James P.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hales, Thomas.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Jordan, Stephen.
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kehoe, Patrick.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Keyes, Michael.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Doyle and Bennett; Níl: Deputies Little and Traynor.
Amendment declared lost.
Question—"That Section 1 stand part of the Bill"—agreed to.
SECTION 2.
Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

On this section I think the House will appreciate what the Minister has done to help those who are called in this section "double residents," but I would remind the Minister that in levelling down income tax and surtax he is not dealing with the only difficulty and only grievance from which these people suffer. May I remind the Minister that one outstanding grievance with them is that, in the assessment for income tax in the Free State, holders of War Loan are assessed on 5 per cent. As the Minister knows, the assessment is made on the previous year. In the previous year they receive for the greater portion of the year 5 per cent., but they are paying income tax on the current year when they are only receiving 3½ per cent. and, according to the Free State Estimate, they have to pay on 5 per cent. The Minister knows, and it is scarcely necessary for me to remind him, that there is a special provision in Great Britain whereby holders of War Loan are assessed only on the 3½ per cent. which they received. I ask the Minister, in view of the palpable injustice of such an assessment, to see if he could not alone ease the burden to holders of War Loan in Great Britain, but that he might very reasonably extend a similar concession to holders of War Loan in the Saorstát.

I do not quite appreciate the point made by Deputy Good, because I do not think it has anything to do with this section and it certainly is not covered, I think, by any of the double income tax agreements that I know of. In any event I still cannot appreciate how any grievance arises in the way Deputy Good suggests because I gather that these people are assessed on the basis of last year's income and last year, or at least the greater portion of the year, they did enjoy War Loan at the rate of 5 per cent.

But they are only receiving 3½ per cent. and are paying on 5 per cent.

In the first year they secured this income they were not assessed at all. They are assessed in each subsequent year on the income of the preceding year. However, where there is a case for readjustment they can make a claim. I do not think there is any grievance. There may be grievances there but I cannot see them.

It is a grievance that is common to all holders of War Loan who pay income tax. They are assessed on the basis of 5 per cent. and receive only 3½ per cent. If such procedure were followed in some other walks of life people could be prosecuted for getting money under false pretences but the Government can compel people to pay what they have not got.

I think Deputy Good is hardly stating the case fairly. Deputy Good, I think, in this depressed year is assessed on the profit he made last year which, I understand, was a very prosperous year. Notwithstanding the fact that his income is less this year than last year he pays on last year's income. The same applies to holders of War Loan.

The income-tax authorities on the other side insert a special provision in their claim. I need not read it for the Minister as I am quite sure he is aware of it. Recognising the seriousness of the grievance they insert a special clause dealing with this particular point. All I ask is that the Minister should consider extending a similar privilege to income-tax payers in this State. If it is done on the other side, surely it is just to do it on this side. That is all I ask.

I could not undertake to consider that for next year, but if the Deputy would submit to me a full statement of the case he has in mind I will consider it.

I shall send the figures to the Minister.

Sections 2, 3 and 4 agreed to.

In connection with that the usual tornado of tariffs is being blown up by this Bill but there is one tariff rather more unreasonable than the others. The House will remember where, in the Finance Bill last year, there was a provision imposing a tariff on packages coming into this country. The object of that tariff, we were told by the Government, was to promote the business of packing commodities in the country. Accordingly, some of us who were foolish enough to believe that there would be some degree of consistency in the Department of Industry and Commerce, got apparatus for packing merchandise in this country. One of the principal and most effective packages are containers made by a firm which trades under the name of Mono Ltd. in England. There is a certain apparatus required for closing the containers. In this Finance Act there is a tariff of 33? per cent., put upon the containers. Having first, under the Finance Act, 1932, put a tariff on packed goods, under the Finance Act, 1933, there is a provision to prevent packages coming in. The Minister for Industry and Commerce is happily only temporarily absent. We look forward to seeing him return to his place with all his usual verve at an early date, but I think it would require his ingenuity to explain the inconsistency of that proceeding. I can assure the Minister for Finance that although licencing powers have been taken, and I believe are being used temporarily, unless he makes up his mind to permanently exclude from the operation of this tariff certain forms of containers he is going to cut right across the packing business in Ireland, because there is a particular kind of package, such as the Mono people make, which depends for its existence on a world trade. It is like Jameson's label; it is shipped to all parts of the world. It is quite unthinkable that a product of that kind should be produced in Ireland. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister that a very careful examination should be made of the whole question of containers, to ascertain what are the particular types that ought to be excluded from the operation of this tariff, and what particular types of container may properly be made liable to the 33? per cent. I think there might be something to be said for tin cans. I believe there is somebody out on the canal making tin cans, but I imagine the Minister will find that there are quite a lot of containers which are not producible in this country, and that the lack of them will cut right across the policy of packing goods in this country.

I understand that in fact practically every class of cardboard container is at present being produced in sufficient quantities in this country, with the exception of the cylindrical container, which I presume Deputy Dillon has referred to, and the ordinary cigarette carton. I do not anticipate that there will be any difficulty in producing the cigarette carton, and I do feel that the feasibility of producing cylindrical containers is a matter of which some further investigation should be made. I understand that the Minister is quite prepared to consider applications for import under licence until he is satisfied that the people here are in a position to produce at least as serviceable an article as is being produced elsewhere. I do not know whether Deputy Dillon has approached that class of people who had, on foot of last year's Budget, equipped themselves to undertake packing in this country. I do not know whether or not they have approached the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the matter, but I suggest that they should get in touch immediately with the Acting Minister and take the question up with him. I do know that it is not the intention of the Minister to in any way overthrow what was done as a consequence of last year's Budget.

As a matter of fact at first the people who brought this matter under my attention were refused a hearing. I went myself to the Department of Industry and Commerce and was received there with the courtesy which is habitual to that Department. The case was considered in a very fair and courteous way, and a provisional arrangement was made to afford an opportunity for those people to get in those containers for a period of two months. This is not only a cylindrical container but a container made of impermeable material. All I suggest is that if investigation were made it might be possible to exclude containers made from that kind of wax carbon from the operation of the tariff.

Sections 5 to 10 inclusive put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 11 stand part of the Bill."

On that section I am sorry there are no members of the Labour Party present. I drew the attention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce before to the effect of his policy in imposing prohibitive duties on coats, wraps, costumes, or dresses made wholly or mainly from woven tissues for women. I will not say that is an economic proposition, but it is possible to produce women's clothes in this country. There is a trend in every city such as Dublin, Cork or Limerick for a very low cheap grade of women's outside wear. Heretofore that was imported from the industrial centres of England, where it was produced on an enormous scale, based on the demand that exists for it in the great industrial cities of England. The poor must have that kind of clothing. In the old days young women of straitened circumstances both in town and country wore a costume which consisted of a shawl, a blouse and a skirt. In many parts of the West of Ireland where I live they still wear them, and look very well in them. They look very much better than they do in the shoddy coats, but the demand has grown up in this country for shoddy coats, and they are going to get them. How are they going to get them? An attempt is being made in Dublin at the present time to supply the demand for that class of stuff by labour employed under appalling conditions, for the simple reason that you cannot pay labour anything approximate to a decent wage to produce that grade of goods, unless you do it on a basis of mass production, which is not possible in this country. If you are in a position to cut out 150 coats at a stroke, on one cloth and one pattern, as the Manchester or Leeds manufacturer would, the thing could be done, and even under those circumstances I believe the conditions of labour are very bad. They are trying to do it here, and if my information be correct—and I have made careful inquiries into it—the conditions of labour are indescribable. I put it to the Minister on previous occasions that if he wants to carry out his general policy as regards ready-made clothes, and at the same time avoid that evil, he should say that these duties should be applied to any women's outside garments which at Dublin port are invoiced at a price in excess of 15/-, or some such figure. That would let in free the very low grade garments which give nothing but the worst possible type of employment, and it would give adequate protection to the better class garment which is being produced by the manufacturers in this country.

The principal justification for this section is that at the present moment we are supplying, approximately, only 50 per cent. of the country's requirements of this class of article. We are still importing over £300,000 worth of goods which, in the opinion of the Government, should be made at home. It may be that in making them we shall have to sacrifice something in regard to cut and general appearance; but, I think, if that sacrifice has to be made at all it will be only a temporary sacrifice. The fact that the market for all classes of women's outer wear is of such an extent as I have indicated, £300,000, would indicate its importance. We must bear in mind that the greater part of this market must necessarily be for the cheaper kinds of clothing. It does seem to me that the possibility of establishing the industry here, even on the basis of mass production, which Deputy Dillon seems to think essential, is not by any means negligible. For that reason I cannot see how we could accept a proposition that articles, the invoice value of which at any port in the Saorstat is less than 15/-, should be excluded from the scope of the Bill. It is in the manufacture of articles of that description that the greatest amount of employment is going to be given. Such articles constitute by far the greater part of our imports. It seems to me that that is the widest market, and it is there that we will ultimately find the greatest amount of employment. I may be wrong, but that is the principle upon which the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and the Government generally, have proceeded.

As regards the cost of these articles, it has to be remembered that a great deal of their cheapness depends on the fact that they are manufactured very largely of the cheaper class of cloth, shoddy. I do not say that shoddy has not its uses, both ornamental and economic, but I think that in the long run neither we as a community nor the wearers of clothing will be at all injured if a better type of material is substituted for that which at present constitutes the fabric out of which these clothes were made. It may be that when the substitution is made the cost of the garment will not be considerably increased. I understand that the cost of the material is not a big factor in relation to the cost of the garment. A very large part of the cost is made up of the overhead charges arising out of the selling. The fact that there is much easier access to possible customers here may tend considerably to reduce the price. For all these reasons I think it would not be possible to accede to the Deputy's request.

When we have tried out the thing and if what the Deputy says is likely to occur does, in fact, occur, then the matter will be reconsidered. The general policy that we have adopted since the Government came into office in relation to new industries is that we must try to get them established. That policy may involve a certain amount of hardship and possibly a certain amount of inconvenience for the various interests concerned, but we have to try to get those industries established first of all and when we see how they work out in practice then we can modify our tariff policy, if necessary, in the way which seems most desirable. In view of the large market and the general policy which we feel inclined to pursue in regard to these matters, I do not think it would be possible to consider the suggestion that the Deputy has put forward.

I am not here discussing the general question of tariffs, but I think that it is right to draw the Minister's attention to the fact that it is in circumstances such as these that he misses the Tariff Commission. The Minister cannot possibly know the technical side of this trade as I who am engaged in it know it, or as any other person who is engaged in it knows it. Let me say that there are three broad divisions in this trade, the low grade, the middle grade and the upper grade. I should think that in Ireland the bulk of the trade is done in the middle grade, albeit in the lower end of the middle grade. I should imagine the bulk of the trade is done in women's coatings. The Minister says that it may be a better cloth will be introduced into these coats. The danger is that prices may rise unless the Government come in and regulate every phase of the industry, thus necessitating the employment of inspectors by hundreds.

Where there is a demand you are going to get a supply. There is a demand for costumes all over the country. The cheapest cloth you can get in this country at the present moment, suitable for a lady's coat, will work out about 3/6 or 3/9 a yard. If you allow three yards of that it will cost 10/6. Then you have trimmings. What are you going to leave for the worker for making the coat and what are you going to allow by way of a profit for the manufacturer? I am thinking of the class of work that is being created and the conditions of labour which these men must impose on their operatives. If the Minister had the Tariff Commission to advise him they would point out these difficulties. I believe any Deputy who represents the City of Dublin must know there are women working under conditions which are wholly indefensible, producing that kind of stuff. The only effective way to put an end to that is to let the low grade article come in free of duty. If it is allowed to come in it is not going to compete with other classes of stuff. The woman who wears the middle or top grade coat would not be seen dead in a ditch in the cheap article. There is not the slightest danger of that woman turning to it. You can differentiate quite effectively. I will ask the Minister to consider that aspect of the matter and invite the Department of Industry and Commerce to make inquiries.

I represent the city and I do not know of any Dublin factory or workshop where women are employed under such conditions as the Deputy has indicated. I will be grateful if he will supply me with any information directly bearing on that subject. I will have it at once investigated if he does.

The Deputy should apply to Deputy Norton for that information.

Deputy Norton is well able to manage his own affairs, exceedingly well able, and I am perfectly satisfied that he and the men who work with him would not allow such conditions to exist. Deputy Morrissey should not try to make political capital out of this.

I am merely suggesting that the information the Deputy asks for from Deputy Dillon could better be supplied by Deputy Norton. Deputy Norton is in a better position to supply it than any other member of this House.

If Deputy Norton knew such conditions existed I am sure he would mention it. We will be grateful to Deputy Dillon if he will give us the information.

Deputy Norton made a statement along the very same lines.

Deputy Dillon would scarcely make a statement of that sort unless he had definite information to go upon.

I may assure the House that there is no allegation made by me in this House that I am not prepared to substantiate. All the information that is at my disposal will be at the Minister's disposal the moment he wants it. I am well aware that at the moment the Minister for Industry and Commerce is indisposed. It is the general wish of the House that he will soon be with us restored to all his vigour. I will be most happy to co-operate with him in any investigation he may desire to carry out in this connection.

There is one point I want to mention, and that is the statement made by Deputy Dillon, that there is no possibility of the cloth for these coats costing less than 3/- per yard. If, in fact, a cheaper quality of cloth were used than that, a large part of his case would disappear, because the margin which would exist for the payment of wages and all the other manufacturing costs would be considerably increased. I just want to assure Deputy Dillon that 3/- per yard is an excessive price altogether for the cloth. It has not cost, in fact, anything like that.

I can assure the Minister that I am a pretty old hand at buying, and if he will refer me to a source of supply where I can get material that can be made into a lady's coat at less than 3/- per yard I will give him 10 per cent. commission on every yard he gets me.

Section put and agreed to.
Sections 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16 put and agreed to.
SECTION 17.
(1) Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1932 (No. 20 of 1932), shall apply only to tobacco which is shown to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners to have been grown before the 1st day of January, 1934.

On behalf of Deputy Davitt I move amendment 3:

In sub-section (1), line 9, to delete the figures "1934" and substitute the figures "1938."

In connection with this amendment and this section there are a number of amendments down at the end. I think there are six amendments from amendment 18 to amendment 23. We shall come to these later. This amendment is to extend for another four years the situation that existed up to this year. The Minister has not fully explained the whole policy which he and his Department intend to pursue with regard to the development of tobacco growing in this country. This section is somewhat complicated and it has certain implications which have not, I think, been made clear to the House by the Minister during the various stages which have preceded the present one in connection with this Bill. I think it is seven years since the last Committee of this House sat to investigate the development of tobacco growing. Since then there have been many changes both in mentality and in the actual situation. That Committee, as far as I remember, recommended what amounted to a form of protection for home-grown tobacco to the extent of 3/6 in the pound. That suggestion was turned down by the Government of the time because the Government had to be very careful about the revenue. Now we know from the Minister that the revenue is buoyant and such considerations no longer apply. Certainly, the whole situation is different from what it was then. The policy which the Government seems to be pursuing is one which is extremely erratic. In the first place, the Minister suddenly removed all duty on Irish-grown tobacco and then put it back again to a limited degree. I think the degree of duty which the Minister is going to charge will be just sufficient to defeat the purpose which, I presume, he had in mind when he removed the duty last year.

The main reason why it is desirable to extend the period of last year's exemption is that experimentation in tobacco growing is a matter which takes a very considerable time. It has been the experience of all other countries that many years had to elapse before the farmers in these countries tried out the seeds and the different methods to discover what was best for the particular area and the climate and soil of that particular country. This piece-meal legislation by the Minister is not calculated to make it possible to develop any serious experimentation. Previous experiments in this country were largely failures due to the interference of the Government and its failure to stick to one particular course. The Minister is pursuing the same practice in changing from year to year. The object of the amendment is to endeavour to give some guarantee of permanence to those endeavouring to grow tobacco in order that they may have a chance to find the best method of developing it in this country. We shall come to the taxes which are being imposed in the Schedule later on. I do not think the Minister, however, would be doing very much wrong to his buoyant revenue if he were to accept the amendment. Otherwise, I do not think that the experimentation which is going on is likely to come to permanent and satisfactory results. Other Deputies in other parts of the country naturally had experience or heard of the experience of farmers endeavouring to develop this crop. I think they will agree that this constant changing in the policy of the Government is not likely to result in any satisfactory development in this direction.

This amendment is unacceptable. The Government is anxious to foster the cultivation of tobacco in this country, but it is anxious to foster it with some regard to the requirements of the revenue. Last year out of the customs and excise duty on tobacco the Exchequer secured over 3½ million pounds. One cannot easily tamper with a source of income of that magnitude without having very serious repercussions upon the general financial condition of the State as a whole, and without having very serious repercussions upon the general social services as a whole. It had been represented to us that the tobacco-growing industry here was not going to be revived unless we again aroused the interest of those formerly engaged in the industry. In order to do that, we offered them a particularly large inducement. We said we would remove the tax altogether from Irish-grown tobacco. I am happy to say that that experiment was very successful, much more successful than we ever anticipated, because while we had contemplated that there would be a certain number of experienced growers who would engage again in growing tobacco, we found last year that a considerable number of people were immediately interested and that this year an increasing number was interested, so that at least 800 acres would be put down this year. We do not propose to collect a penny piece of tax from the growers in respect of that tobacco. It will probably cost us a very considerable sum next year when the duty will properly fall for collection upon it. In order that the experiment may be kept within some bounds, and that the loss to the revenue may be such as the revenue could properly sustain, without having that loss reflected by a restriction of other services which the people are asking for, we have had to warn the people that next year tobacco growing will have to bear duty at the rates which are set forth in the Schedule; at 6/8 for certain classes and 5/6 for other classes. That will still leave the people engaged in the industry a very considerable margin. We hope, with the protection which is afforded them, that next year people will engage in the business more as a business and less as a sort of proposition; that only people who go into the business seriously and who think they are going to make a success of tobacco growing, will engage in it. Those who are interested in it have had a wonderful opportunity this year. They will be able to dispose of their crop at good prices. The problem of finances, so far as they are concerned, will have been solved, and they will have had, even if they had no previous experience, an opportunity this year of finding that out for themselves, under the fairest possible conditions.

It would not be correct to allow the Dáil to believe that those who engaged in tobacco growing this year are novices. As a matter of fact, most of these people now growing the crop have had previous experience so it is not necessary for them to indulge in the preliminary operations to which a Deputy referred. They all tried their hands before, under conditions similar to these which they demanded from the Committee which was set up by the Dáil to report on tobacco growing, conditions which were denied to them by the Party to which Deputy Esmonde belongs. We are now giving them a chance at some considerable cost to the revenue. We have got on so well that we are anxious that tobacco should be grown in this country, if it is at all possible to grow it, but, at the same time, that the revenue will not suffer and that social and other Government services will not suffer.

I think the Minister alluded to the acreage. From my information I do not think he will be worried with 800 acres next year.

Possibly the Deputy is a bad prophet.

As far as I know several people have already cleared out of tobacco growing bag and baggage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 17 agreed to.
SECTION 18.

On this section, which deals with the excise duty on moneylenders, no attention has been paid to a suggestion that I made at an earlier stage, that there should be a differentiation between Irish-speaking and non-Irish speaking moneylenders. We have heard to-day that one Moneylenders Bill has been withdrawn and that another is to take its place. I hope Deputy Dillon's sinister suggestion is not justified, and that we shall not see that the new Bill leaves out the Irish-speaking clause. It appears to me that the moneylending class is a particularly suitable one for an experiment with regard to the Irish language. In the case of teachers, civil servants or lawyers, they have to have an extensive education in order to arrive at proper efficiency in their professions, and the learning of the Irish language is a considerable addition to their burden. In the case of moneylenders, no such severe course of instruction and apprenticeship is necessary, as is the case with the other classes I have mentioned. Moreover, if the efficiency of moneylenders was to be restricted by their being called upon to tackle the extra burden of learning the Irish language, possibly the public would not appreciably suffer. In fact the public might be better pleased if they were less efficient. Then, again, the moneylending class as a class are in the main drawn from a race which has special talent for learning languages, so the task would therefore be all the easier for them. Part of the idea of a revival of Irish as a spoken language is a revival of interest in Gaelic civilisation, reviving qualities specially associated with Gaelic civilisation.

The Deputy is alive to the fact that there is nothing about the Irish language in this section.

I apologise if I am straying from the paths of order. I will, if I may, say one or two words more. Is it in order for me to suggest that there should be differentiation in this section?

Yes, but not to make a speech about the revival of the Irish language.

I will not, except to point out with regard to moneylenders in particular, that if you could import into their characters the special qualities regarded as Gaelic mysticism, other-worldliness and kindliness, the result would be extremely interesting, and these things, coupled with the native shrewdness and efficiency for which moneylenders are noted, might produce an almost perfect type of human being.

Section 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SECTION 19.

I move amendment 4:—

Before section 19 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) There shall be allowed in respect of beer brewed in Saorstát Eireann on or after the 5th day of August, 1933, the following rebate from the excise duty now payable in respect thereof, that is to say:—

In the case of beer brewed by a brewer for sale for every 32 gallons of beer of whatever original gravity charged with duty and delivered from the brewery, a rebate of one pound, or where the duty now payable in respect of 32 gallons of any beer so charged and delivered is less than two pounds four shillings, a rebate equal to the amount by which that duty exceeds the sum of one pound four shillings; and so in proportion for any less quantity.

(2) The excise drawback now payable on the exportation of any beer or on the deposit thereof in a warehouse for exportation from Saorstát Eireann as merchandise or for ships' stores shall unless it is shown to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners that no rebate has been allowed in respect of that beer under this section be reduced by an amount equal to the amount of the rebate allowable under this section in respect thereof.

(3) This section shall be deemed to have had effect as from the 5th day of August, 1933.

(4) The Revenue Commissioners may make such regulations as they consider necessary for the purpose of carrying this section into effect, and in particular for the purpose of facilitating and controlling the calculation of the amount of the rebate to be allowed under this section and with respect to the method of computing the quantity of the beer in respect of which rebate is to be allowed.

I may say that I am moving this amendment with a certain degree of optimism, because of a letter which was addressed to the Minister for Finance in April last, in which he was stated to have expressed extreme sympathy upon this matter, at least on the position of the licensed trade and the taxation placed upon it. The letter indicated that the Minister had received a deputation a year before, presumably very soon after the Minister's Government took office in 1932. It stated:—

"We were pleased with your reception of us, and we felt we had come to a Minister who was impressed by the justice and strength of our case, and we had hoped for some remission of duty."

They did not get the remission then. But they are still hopeful, and, accordingly I have some optimism in moving the amendment, having regard to the fact that the Minister was so sympathetic in his attitude more than a year ago. The amendment deals with what is technically called beer, but which in this country means substantially porter or stout. I am proposing the amendment in the form in which it was in previous years. The proposal is: that there should be remission of duty which would enable the pint of porter and stout to be sold to the consumer 1d. cheaper.

The arguments in favour of that course hardly need restatement. Porter and stout are, in this country, what may be described as the national beverage. They are the poor man's drink. I hope nobody in the House will be impressed by the views of a certain section of the temperance movement who would argue that any reduction in these duties would mean increased consumption and, therefore, an increase in drunkenness. As we know, there is no temperance problem really in this country at the present moment. When I say that I refer to the mass of the people. There are in this country, as there are in every country, a number of individuals who, no doubt, whatever the price of drink may be, will exceed the limit, but, as a national problem, I suggest that drunkenness has really ceased to exist. That is a state of affairs which has come about, not really as a result of increased taxation but it has come about, as I said, speaking in this House on a similar motion some time ago, through a change in the habits of the people, through the growth and development of their self respect.

The increased duties on drink came about as a result of the world war. But those of us who are old enough to remember the conditions, in this country, know there was an enormous change in the habits of the people, an enormous decrease in the consumption of drink between 1900 and 1914. That movement towards temperance has gone on since that time. It may have been stimulated, possibly, by an increase in price, but I do not think that that is a necessary inference, because the growth in temperance that preceded 1914 was so great that we can assume that even if there had not been a great increase in price, in subsequent years the movement towards temperance would have gone on growing, and would grow in the way it actually did grow. I think it shows confusion from the point of view of some of the extreme advocates of temperance, to speak of the reduction of duties on beer, at all events, as tending towards intemperance, because beer and stout are the poor man's drink in this country. It is a recognised fact by physicians and eminent authorities on the subject that this particular drink has particular advantages as a food.

In 1925 when the Intoxicating Liquor Commission sat here the Government brought over a witness who was recognised as probably the greatest living authority on temperance Dr. Shadwell. He had acted as adviser to the British Government during the period they controlled drink during the Great War. He has written a number of books upon the subject. He wrote one book entitled "Drink and Temperance Legislation," and another book entitled "Drink 1914-1922—Lessons under Control." He gave evidence in 1925 before the Liquor Commission and his evidence was that a pint of porter or stout had very considerable food value. He was asked by one member of the Commission as to whether it was his opinion that a quay labourer would put in better work if he got his dinner of bread, butter and cheese with a pint of stout than otherwise. He expressed the opinion that our beer or stout was a highly valuable article of food. I base my observations upon that argument when dealing here with what is known as the poor man's drink and which is, what one might almost call, an essential part of the poor man's food. The quay labourer's dinner very often in Dublin is bread, butter and cheese and a pint of stout. Porter or stout is, as I say, an almost essential food to the workman. In every country, so far as we know, the national beverage, or drink, is encouraged to a certain extent. In France, Italy and Spain the poor people are able to get, at extremely moderate prices, the native drinks. That is to say, a kind of wine which is part of their food, as porter and stout are part of the food of the poor people here.

It may be suggested that the remission asked for here would mean too serious a loss to the revenue. I think when you are dealing with what is practically an essential article for the poor people, the consideration of some loss, if it does occur, in the revenue should be a secondary matter. I am not impressed in the least by the arguments of the advocates of temperance who will, no doubt, say that in this country to compensate for a loss of revenue you must contemplate an increase in consumption. I do not think that, having regard to the temperate habits of our people, some increased consumption in porter or stout would mean, in any sense, a national evil or a national disadvantage. You can raise a tax to such a point as to make it uneconomic. I suggest that has been done here. It was done long before the present Government took up office. It was done during the war and as a war measure, but it was found, as was found in connection with a great many other commodities, that raising taxation to an unreasonable height meant loss in revenue. I do not think our people would be any the worse even if there was an increase in the consumption of this particular article —porter or stout. I do not think the revenue would be any worse off if by reduced taxation consumption was increased. Possibly some people forget the enormous increase in this particular item of taxation in recent years. The duty on porter or stout— I prefer to use these expressions because the word beer is in a sense misleading to us here—has been increased to 13 times what it used to be. It was increased by successive stages and by repeated stages from 7/9 per barrel to £5 per barrel.

The result is, of course, that this article which is an article which the poor and the working people demand has imposed on it a luxury tax. That tax of course was paid during the years of considerable prosperity. I think the Minister will pay some attention to the point I am making now as regards the effect of excessive taxation. If he looks at the figures of the Revenue Commissioners and examines the revenue from beer in the year 1921 and then looks at the figures for 1932 he will see the point of my remarks. In 1924 the tax received from beer was £3,640,416 In 1932 the amount received in tax from beer was £2,761,611. That is a fall of more than 50 per cent. in the receipts from that source of revenue. I do not think that it can be suggested that in the year 1924 there was any excessive drinking amongst at all events the working classes, the people who consume beer and stout. I do not think that any person in this House can suggest that there was any excessive consumption of beer and stout in that year. But obviously if the amount of consumption in those years was moderate and reasonable, then the people have been deprived of more than half of the amount of beer and stout that they were able to drink in those years. They have been deprived of it by excessive taxation. The fall goes steadily on from year to year. The fall from 1931 to 1932 was somewhere about £500,000. I gave the figures already as regards the revenue in 1932—£2,716,611. In 1931 the revenue was £3,216,000.

At the present rate of a fall this revenue is fast disappearing. I suggest that the reason why it is disappearing is because of the excessive taxation imposed on it, combined with the diminished spending power amongst the people. That leads to another aspect of this question—that in destroying this industry you are destroying employment throughout the country. I know, and I can appreciate the difficulties of the Government who have to raise revenue. I can appreciate their hesitation in reducing what appears at the moment to be a certain source of revenue. But I would like to emphasise this point that this revenue, having regard to these figures with which the Minister is familiar, shows a steady and rapid decline. This revenue is fast a disappearing asset and with the disappearance of that asset there is something else that also disappears, and that is employment for a very considerable number of our people. That disappears also. I think that one rather deplorable result of this enormously increased taxation of beer and stout was the closing down of a number of smaller concerns throughout the State. Heavy taxation, while it is a burden on every brewery, is necessarily a greatly increased burden on the smaller concern that is struggling to keep going against greater competition.

However, the fact remains that a large number of the smaller breweries throughout the State have been closed down. The result of that has been a considerable decrease in employment, and that decrease in employment has been progressive. So far as one can judge from the fall in revenue that is going on at the present time, it will happen that very soon the smaller concerns must disappear and with them a great deal of the employment amongst our people. There are Deputies here who have much more knowledge of business than I have. There are Deputies here who have a knowledge of the auctioneering business. Auctioneering firms know that on their books are numbers of concerns engaged in the licensed trade. Their books are full of such concerns and these concerns are offered for sale. They know also that the value of licensed property in this country has fallen to little more than a quarter of what it was some years ago. I suggest that that is a result of this excessive taxation. I gave the figures down to 1932 and I find then on looking at the summary of estimates and the details of the estimated receipts from excise in 1932-33 and from 1933 to 1934 that the following figures stand out. The excise in 1932 to 1933 was estimated at £5,443,000. The excise receipts for 1933-34 were estimated at £5,020,000. There is a fall following an enormous drop in the previous year there. There is a fall in revenue from excise duty in that one year of £423,000.

I do not wish to take up the attitude that we ought to encourage people to drink in order to produce revenue, but I do take up this attitude that the working man at any rate, who is just as much entitled to drink a pint of beer as to drink a cup of tea, ought to have that beer offered to him at a reasonable price. That beer is the product of this country. It is not a harmful drink. On the contrary I could quote many eminent authorities to show that it is a beneficial drink. This tax while it is maintained at its present level is a tax on one of the requirements of the poor. I therefore urge on the Minister to give serious consideration to this matter. I ask him to reconsider, if possible, his attitude of a year ago and to give it consideration different to what he has given it previously. I ask him to give serious consideration to the acceptance of this amendment.

The acceptance of this amendment would cost us £500,000. I do not think it is necessary for me at all to give any other reason than that for rejecting the amendment.

I would like to say one word on this amendment. I have repeatedly in this House for the past four or five years put up a very definite case here on behalf of the farming community who are being robbed by those individuals for whom Deputy Rice is appealing to-day——

Do you mean the working people?

I mean the brewers.

I am appealing for the working people.

I will show how the Deputy's sympathy goes. Ever since 1922 down to 1931 Deputy Rice's Party was here. How much did they reduce the tax on beer? Where did they show their sympathy with the working people then? In what way? How much was the price of the pint reduced from 1922 up to the time the Cumann na nGaedheal Party left here? But in that time the price of barley fell. From the time the Cumann na nGaedhael Party came into office until they left it in 1932 the price of barley fell from 52/- a barrel to 14/6 a barrel. The price of barley in 1922 was 52/-. The duty on beer and spirits was the same at that time as it is now. The price of the pint was the same then as now. What did the brewer do with the 37/6 a barrel that he robbed from the Irish farmer? Who got it? We hear all this sympathy with the brewer. Is there any sympathy for the unfortunate producer, for the man who employs labour on his land, who tills his land and produces barley and then has to sell it under the cost of production to gentlemen who have fat dividends every year after paying the duty? I raised this matter here repeatedly in this House and I would expect those who come in here with a case like this to have at least the decency to put up some argument to refute what I then said and what I say now, namely, that the brewer has got 37/6 which he robbed from the Irish farmer and has not reduced the price of his beer or spirits by one farthing in consequence. That is the case. It amounts to 37/6 a barrel. I would be in a fairly generous mood if I saw those whom I represent, the ordinary working farmers of this country, gaining some benefit, but I object to seeing a case brought in here for profiteers. We are told about the reduction in the consumption of beer. Why not? If a farmer finds that he gets 37/6 a barrel less now than he got in 1920 or in 1921, 1919 or 1922, he has less money to spend on pints and his labourers have less money to spend. If he finds that he only gets 14/6 a barrel for his barley now instead of the 52/- he used to get, and that in the public house the price of the pint is the same as it was at first, I do not blame him for being rather tight about spending money.

I am anxious to see the Irish breweries carrying on, because, after all, a certain number of them do buy Irish barley even though the gentleman in Dublin, who buys foreign barley, fixes the price. But let the brewers come along first and say that they will increase the price of the barley to 30/- a barrel, which will leave the farmer some little profit over the cost of production. Let them come along and say that first. That will leave 22/- to spare over what the brewer paid for barley in 1922 and I think he got fairly good dividends in 1922. Let him reduce the price of stout also and then say to the Government: "Well, we have done our part. We have reduced the price of the stout and we have given the farmer a margin of profit on his barley." If they do that I will back them, and they will find supporters in all quarters of this House. Let them guarantee to the farmer that they will give him back something at least of what they have robbed from him. I cannot help calling a spade a spade and I hold that the individual who reduces the price of an article, used in the production of his commodity, by two-thirds and still charges the same price for his commodity—I cannot call him anything else but a thief. But if they come along now and say that they will pay to the farmer at least the cost of production, 30/- a barrel, and that they will buy all his barley and will not buy any foreign barley while he has Irish barley for sale, I will back them. Let them also reduce the price to the consumer and then come along to the Government and say: "We have reduced the price of the pint by so much; we have provided a decent price for the farmers' barley and we want a reduction in the duty," and I will back them. But let them not come along with their pockets bulging with loot—I cannot call it anything else. We know what happens down in Cork. When you go in with your barley to the brewer he says: "I must wait until Guinness fixes the price. Come back in about a month and I will tell you the price when Guinness fixes it." Every Deputy knows that. Every farmer Deputy here knows it and I would like to hear some of those farmer Deputies, who come from barley producing constituencies, stand up here and make a case—they have grounds enough to make it—and raise a small voice for those who produce the barley, the farmer and the farm labourer, and who get whatever the brewers like to pay for the barley. The brewer that reduced the price of barley from 52/- to 14/6 a barrel can get those advocates to say that these poor people, the brewers, are selling very little now and to please take off the duty and give them more loot.

There was never a more nonsensical case brought into the Dáil than this. I would not mind if this was the first time that I put forward these arguments, but I have put them forward on several occasions. I put them forward three months ago and, four or five years ago, when some Deputies were making a similar plea, I put forward the same argument and the brewers have not answered the case yet.

A terrible affliction on the Deputy!

I do not blame them, but I blame the Deputies who are foolish enough to come in here with that kind of argument again. The poor brewers! The fellows who were able to make an enormous profit from 1922 when they paid 52/ a barrel for barley, who are now buying it for 14/6 a barrel and are still charging the same price for the pint! I am glad that this Bill is in Committee. I would like to hear the arguments of Deputy Morrissey or any other Deputy on that particular case. Deputy Morrissey comes from a barley-producing constituency and I should like to hear whether the Tipperary farmer is satisfied to get 14/6 a barrel for his barley and still pay the same price for a pint. I am anxious to hear from Deputy Morrissey.

The Deputy may hear more than he expects.

I am anxious to hear it, but I want to hear the answer that those who advocate the reduction in duty make on that case, and the answer as to what the brewer did with the 37/6 a barrel that he robbed from the Irish farmer.

I do not know which is the more refreshing, two or three pints of Guinness or a speech from Deputy Corry. I know—although I have not drunk very much stout in my time, but I have drunk other classes of liquor—that whilst a few pints of stout might make one inclined, if it is of the value with which it is credited, to swallow some of the statements made by Deputy Corry, I am afraid that in our sober senses some of us who have had to listen to similar speeches from the Deputy are inclined to recollect those former speeches of his. Of course I should say, sir, at the outset that Deputy Rice, the proposer of the amendment, never from the beginning to the end of his speech said anything about the brewers, and, so far as this amendment is concerned, if it is carried it will confer no benefit whatever on either the brewers or the retailers of drink directly. As a matter of fact—I want Deputies of the House to get this into their minds—if this amendment is carried or accepted by the Government it will lead to a reduction of 1d. per pint in porter and stout in this country, and in order to give that 1d. per pint reduction the retailers of beer and stout in this country would have to lose so much per barrel. Deputy Corry raises his eyebrows at that, but if Deputy Corry will consult the Minister for Finance or those who know something about the revenue from this duty they will tell him that what I state is a fact. The Deputy speaks about barley at 52/- per barrel in 1921-2, and 14/6 per barrel last season. Does the Deputy remember contradicting me here at the end of last year, and saying that 16/6 was being paid for barley? He has now dropped to 14/6. Does the Deputy remember that? Does the Deputy remember my challenging him as to where he could get 16/6 for barley and that I would supply 50,000 tons of it?

It was not the brewers paid it.

Does the Deputy remember stating in this House that 16/6 was paid for it?

By the millers in Cork.

How much of the barley that was available in this country was bought by the millers in Cork? It was infinitesimal; it would not count. The Deputy knows that quite well, and the Deputy knows the reason. He talks about 52/- per barrel in 1922 and only 14/6 now. I retort to the Deputy that 45/- per cwt. could be got for cattle in 1922, as against less than 25/- now.

Talk about the price of barley now, and the price of the barley in 1922.

The Deputy wants to have it both ways.

I want you not to leave your argument.

I am entitled to make my own case, and I can say with all respect that I promise the House to make it at least as clear and intelligible as the Deputy made his. If the Deputy contends that barley should to-day be 52/- per barrel we are equally entitled to contend that the same thing should apply to all other products of the farm. Surely the last way to secure for the farmer an economic price for his barley is to keep up the present high level of taxation, or to increase it? The Deputy of course likes to run amok now and again. We know quite well that he does not take himself seriously, as nobody in the House takes him seriously, nor do I think anybody in the country takes him seriously. I will admit that this House would be worse even than it is if we had not a speech from Deputy Corry. I think the Deputy, like a certain figure that performs in other parts of the country, has his uses, but he should have some regard for facts and some regard for the truth. He knows quite well, if he knows anything at all about this amendment that it is aimed at securing a reduction of 1d. per pint on the beer, stout and porter drunk throughout this country, and drunk mainly by the farmers and by the labourers.

I want to make this further point; there is a big difference between a man who takes a pint or even two, three or four pints of stout, and the man who goes and gets drunk. The number of people in this country who, either from desire or from the fact that they can afford it, get drunk now is very few. That is admitted. Deputy Corry knows or ought to know that this, as Deputy Rice said, is an industry which is fading away. This is an industry that has been cut down by 50 per cent. within the last ten years. The Deputy ought to know that the employment given in this industry both directly and indirectly is very great. The Deputy knows that, if this industry is to be slowly strangled by taxation which it cannot bear, the one and only cash crop which our farmers in certain counties have to-day will disappear. The Deputy referred to the fact that part of the constituency which I represent is a barley one. Of course it is, and I live in the heart of it. I, perhaps, know more about barley than Deputy Corry does. I am doubtful if the Deputy grows much barley. I know more about it not merely from the point of growing it but I can tell the Deputy that I gave four and a half years working at it, and converting it from barley into malt. The Deputy gets up here and talks in his usual loose fashion. Unfortunately the people of the country, who do not know him as well as the members of this House, might be inclined to place some weight on the words which he utters here. He talks about Guinness fixing the price. Of course they do, unfortunately, but why does Guinness fix the price? Because Guinness buys 90 per cent. of the barley that is sold to brewers in this country. That, if you like, is unfortunate I agree, but we have to face the fact. So long as Guinness is in the position that he buys 90 per cent. at least of the barley produced and sold for brewing purposes in this country, while he holds that monopoly he will fix the price, and nothing Deputy Corry can say or do will alter it. I want to ask the Deputy another point. He told us in the course of his speech that this is not the first occasion he has spoken about the barley growers and the brewers.

It is not the first time.

Of course it is not. I heard the Deputy, when he was in Opposition, thumping the table and challenging the then Government as to why they were not putting a tariff on barley. I have not heard the Deputy say much about a tariff on barley since his Party got into power.

Because the tariff is on it.

If that is so, if the tariff which the Deputy was demanding when in Opposition is actually imposed now, then I take it Messrs. Guinness have ceased to have a monopoly and to have the power to fix prices. We must remember that when the Deputy, in Opposition, put forward his claim for a tariff on barley the reason he gave was that he was anxious to smash Guinness's monopoly. The Deputy cannot have it both ways. I think I have demonstrated that Deputy Corry, like many members of his Party, find themselves in a rather uneasy position with regard to this amendment. I dare say the Deputy does not contribute much to the revenue in so far as this part of the Finance Bill is concerned I only wish he did. Perhaps if he did contribute something he would not be so keenly opposed to this amendment as he now pretends to be.

That is hard on those defending the amendment.

Those proposing the amendment? Not at all. We are quite prepared to admit that under this Government we feel it is our duty to contribute as much as we can to the national revenue and so save the country from going bankrupt. Some of us are straining our purse strings in order to help the Minister for Finance to carry on although we are opposed to his policy. If the Minister for Finance were to depend on the members of his own Party, or on a lot of the members of this Party, the income from the beer duty would not alone have fallen by 50 per cent., but would have disappeared altogether. Fortunately the general run of the people in the country have much more sense than most of the members of the Fianna Fáil Party. In so far as it is possible to induce the Minister by force of verbiage to consider this amendment carefully, I submit we have put up a very good case. Far from weakening our case, I think Deputy Corry's contribution has strengthened it very much. Usually Deputy Corry's statements may be taken with a grain of salt. Hearing him to-day one could easily recognise that at heart he was in favour of the amendment, but circumstances forced him to oppose it.

I would like to support this amendment. It is not wise to kill an old industry unless those who kill it have a new one to put in its place. The brewing industry is a very old one in this country. It has given a very large amount of employment. The Minister for Finance, when he was replying to Deputy Rice, made the shortest speech on record as far as this House is concerned. He has a very worthy substitute in Deputy Corry, who seems to be the man behind the scenes whenever the Government want mud to be flung during the course of a debate. Deputy Corry has seen fit to throw mud at the brewers. That is very cute on the part of Deputy Corry. He confined his remarks entirely to brewers. I suspect the reason that prompted Deputy Corry to be so severe on the brewers was that they are few in number and possess very few votes. On the other hand, the Licensed Grocers and Vintners' Association has a big membership and the members are numerous in Deputy Corry's constituency. He made a gallant but unsuccessful attempt to make a case more or less in favour of the licensed grocers and vintners and the farmers, and he reserved all his wrath for the brewers.

As Deputy Morrissey pointed out, this amendment has not been introduced at the instigation of the brewers. The amendment has for its primary object the saving of a very great industry. For that reason it deserves very serious consideration. I represent a county which, though the smallest in the Free State, has always gone in for the growing of barley on a very large scale. Every one connected with barley growing knows it is about the best cash crop a farmer can grow. It is essential that this industry should be preserved not alone for the farmers in Louth but also for the farmers in counties like Wexford, Carlow, Leix and Offaly, and part of Tipperary.

When amendments of this nature are introduced I do not think it is fair that Deputy Corry should draw the old red herring across the path. He asked what did Cumann na nGaedheal do for this industry while they were in office. It is time to drop that type of argument. The Government must face the situation as it appears at the moment. It is not a question of what Cumann na nGaedheal did not do; it is a question of what this Government is prepared to do. Deputy Rice has spoken about the employment given not alone in the breweries where they manufacture porter, beer and stout, but also in trades ancillary to the brewing business. There are large numbers so employed throughout the Free State. There are, for instance, shop assistants, storemen and hundreds of others employed in the distribution of the products of the breweries. I think the time has arrived when the Government should give serious consideration to this very important industry.

Deputy Corry pointed out that the brewers are pocketing the difference between the price paid for barley in 1922 and the price paid to-day. The Deputy forgets that his own Government in last year's Budget gave a slight remission to the brewers. I admit that that must be put to their credit. It is very strange, in view of that fact, to hear the Deputy saying that the brewers are pocketing this money. It might seem strange that this Government should give a remission in last year's Budget for the purpose of helping the brewers, but I think the Minister saw the difficulties that beset the brewing industry when he gave that slight remission. I will not prolong this debate any further. I merely want to say that I am supporting this amendment, but if I do so that does not necessarily imply that I am in favour of any increase in so far as the consumption of drink is concerned. I believe in the use and not in the abuse of drink. These products are typical national products in this country. I do not support this amendment in order that there may be any increase in the consumption of drink. I must say, however, that I very seldom met a man who took a bottle of stout who ever did much harm. There are a great many people in this country who boast of their temperance principles who may not have as clean a record as the man who takes a bottle of stout. I do not think that it is right or proper to level charges against the trade unless they can be proved. The members of the Licensed Grocers and Vintners' Association, and those associated with them, have taken a very important part in the national and industrial life of the country and, in my opinion, are deserving of some consideration on the part of the Government. Their lot in life has, I think, been worsened more than any other section of the community. The capital invested in the business, which represents their life savings, has been reduced almost to a minimum, and, as has been stated by Deputy Rice, the value of licensed premises at present is very low. For that, and many other reasons, the House, irrespective of Party politics, should give very favourable consideration to this amendment which has as its object the preservation of a very old industry in this State.

I beg to support the amendment. I do not quite understand Deputy Corry's attitude on this matter when he put up a counter hare to the amendment. What has the price given for barley by the brewers to the farmers to do with this amendment? Nothing at all. This is a purely revenue matter and has nothing to do with the price given to the farmers by the brewers. It certainly speaks very badly for the aggressiveness of Deputy Corry if he has to take that price from Messrs. Guinness for his barley, If he is as aggressive a man in Cork as he is here, why does he take it? The price of barley has nothing to do with this. This is a tax put on to fight a war. It is not contended by anybody that we are under any obligation with regard to war debts. Hence, there is no moral justification for keeping the tax at its present level, admitting that some tax is necessary for revenue purposes.

Have we not a war of our own?

That was paid for in another way. There was a direct tax of 6d. in the £ put upon the people of this country to pay for that war.

I mean the economic war that is progressing.

That may be. We are told by the Minister for Finance that there would be a loss of half a million pounds in revenue if the amendment were accepted. I am not concerned as to whether it would be half a million or a million pounds. I support this amendment for another reason—on the ground of the public well-being. In the constituency I represent it is a notorious fact that owing to the high duty on spirits and beer it is impossible to suppress the making of illicit spirits. This terrible traffic in the making of poteen proceeds there in spite of the greatest activity on the part of the Guards. I have seen no less than 14 Guards in one small area in one day, but they never caught anybody. Yet there are hundreds of gallons of illicit spirits being made in that district. Within the last year in one area in my constituency two men have lost their lives by this horrible practice. The whole countryside is degraded and debauched by it. School children have been known to drink it. They have been found drunk from it. They had it in a bowl and were drunk from it.

There is nothing about spirits in this amendment.

This is a tax on spirits and I am giving my reasons for supporting the amendment. I do not drink either stout or whiskey; I never had a bottle of stout in my life. If there is any amendment on this Paper that should be accepted, it is this one. The House should remember that this £5 per barrel is a war tax imposed to pay for the European War. Nobody can contend that that applies now. In the second place, in the areas which have been habitually making illicit spirits, this tax has accentuated the practice and the Guards are unable to put it down. For that reason I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.

My old friend and colleague, Deputy McMenamin, I am afraid, is sometimes a little carried away by the tide of his eloquence. I should like to rebut the suggestion that Donegal is a raging bedlam with poteen. There are, as in most other counties in Ireland, a few somewhat enterprising persons who rig up the worm from time to time and produce a little illicit spirits, but I do not think Donegal is very much worse in respect of the practice than any other county. I have no doubt that I shall have the cordial support of Deputy McMenamin in that contention. We have our faults in Donegal; we are fond of taking a chance; but we are no worse in the matter of poteen than many another county. Deputy McMenamin went on to say that he did not care whether this cost £1,000,000 or £500,000. To my mind, that is the whole snag. I must say I expected Deputy Morrissey and Deputy McMenamin to deal more fully with that aspect of the question because, after all, desirable as this arrangement might be, one has to be practical. Is it practical in existing circumstances to ask the Minister for Finance to forgo £500,000 in the present financial year?

He advanced no other argument except that.

I can see the Deputy's point, but I expected that Deputy Morrissey, whose name is down to this amendment with that of Deputy Rice, when he rose would have counteracted that suggestion. I have no doubt the figures are at present lying before the Deputy and that he would have gladly made them available to Deputy Morrissey. I take it the Minister was speaking authoritatively when he mentioned half a million. I do not think this is a practical proposition. I do not think it is possible to ask the Minister to relinquish so much revenue in the present year. Deputy Rice spoke of the fact that the unfair taxation on beer has resulted in a very large number of licensed houses going on the market, and selling at a breaking up price. That is quite true. Of course the truth is that there are too many licensed houses, and that it would be for the good of trade as a whole, if some equitable scheme could be devised whereby the numbers could be materially reduced.

Deputy Corry spoke trenchantly, as he usually does, on the subject of barley. It occurred to me when the Deputy was speaking, that, perhaps, one of the most effective ways to increase the price of barley would be to increase the demand for barley, and that if, within reasonable limits, the demand for stout could be increased, it would greatly strengthen the position of barley growers. The trouble at present is that Messrs. Guinness and other brewers can get as much barley as they want in Ireland. Probably there is always a surplus. Where you have a surplus the tendency is for prices to fall. Barley growers would probably get better prices if there was a better demand for stout. That would certainly help the situation. In principle I like this amendment, and for a reason that was not advanced by Deputy Rice or by Deputy Bennett. I believe it would be greatly to the advantage of the people if everything that could be done were done to make them a beer drinking people rather than a spirit-drinking people. The number of persons who become chronic drunkards from consuming beer is infinitesimal. In nearly every case where a man has ruined himself or his family through drink, it will be found that he has done it with whiskey and spirits. It is very seldom you find a hopeless drunkard who consumes nothing but beer. My experience is that the beer drinker does not run at all the same risk of becoming dipsomaniac as the spirit drinker. I think there were too much spirits consumed in this country in the past.

I have not the slightest hesitation in saying in public that I would be no party to a reduction in the duty on spirits. I think the last penny ought to be got out of spirits and I would trust the Civic Guards to get the poteen evil under control. While the price of spirits should be at the high level at which it has been, it would be a good thing if something practical could be done towards addressing ourselves to the task of getting the price of beer reduced and brought more readily within reach of the ordinary working people. It is a nutritious drink and in 99 cases out of 100 is harmless. It is unlike spirits, the nutritive value of which is low, and almost as dangerous as drugs when consumed as medicine. I could not conscientiously vote for an amendment of this kind for that one reason. I do not think I could honestly go to the Minister and say drop half a million on the reduction of this duty. I think the Minister and any Government should address themselves to the task of bringing the price of beer down, and shaping their entire policy towards the licensed trade as one to keep whiskey dear and beer cheap.

My contribution to this debate will be extremely brief, but I think it desirable, nevertheless, that the point of view of this Party should be explained. I am concerned in this matter not from the point of view of the brewer or the licensed trader, but for the people who consume intoxicating liquor. Rightly or wrongly, for good or evil, it is part of the habits of our people to consume beer and stout. In many of our industries, particularly in our heavy industries, the nutriment value of beer and stout enables many under-paid working men to perform tasks which require considerable physical effort. I believe that beer and stout are consumed in rural areas at agricultural work, not in excessive quantities, and I believe they help in the performance of tedious and physically difficult tasks. Similarly "the docker's pint" as it is known is something that means considerable assistance to men requiring the physical prowess necessary for their tasks. Therefore, whether the State or whether the legislature likes it or not, we are faced with the position that a very large section of our people consume stout and porter. I do not think there is anything wrong in that.

The one danger to the licensed trade is that there is always the possibility that in an infinitesimal number of cases the use of alcoholic liquor may be abused. You cannot legislate for border-line cases of that kind. No legislation that this House could devise could cover cases of the kind, short of the absolute abolition of intoxicating liquor. If ever legislation contemplated that, the experience of the American people should be remembered. We saw recently where that nation went "wet" again, because of the demoralisation produced by the abolition of intoxicating liquor. I do not think it is desirable for the State to contemplate the abolition of intoxicating liquor.

The consumption of intoxicating liquor in the form of beer is good for the physique of our people. I think it is a beverage which they have taken to, and which helps them in many cases in their daily tasks. From that I go on to ask myself: what is the purpose of heavily taxing beer and stout? As Deputy McMenamin stated, this tax was imposed during the war atmosphere at a time when there was a considerable inflation and artificial prosperity. The tax has remained substantially the same since that period of inflation and artificial prosperity. Taking the standpoint that many of the working people take intoxicating liquor in the form of beer and stout, which nobody has any right to deprive them of, when it is taken in reasonable moderation, I ask whether it is right and fair to legislate by a method of taxation so that liquor will be available for the person who has sufficient money to buy it, but not available for the person who has not sufficient money to do so? The consumption of these liquors represented a certain proportion of the domestic expenditure of ordinary workers. That was in the period of inflation and artificial prosperity. Their expenditure on intoxicating liquors represents a certain sum of money in their domestic budget, but it is a very much greater fraction now than the fraction which entered into their budget at the time the tax was imposed.

In a period when wages are falling, it seems to me not unreasonable that a person whose taste and avocation is such as to encourage him to drink beer or stout in moderation, that he is reasonably entitled to submit to the legislature a claim for some reduction in the cost of refreshment which, in many cases, he is often compelled to take in substitution of food, and which is an aid to him in his physical tasks. That is the standpoint from which I view the matter. I am not concerned with the viewpoint of the brewers' profit or the licensed traders' output. I am concerned from one standard only, namely, the working class people whose wages are so low as to make it impossible for them to partake in reasonable moderation of beer and spirits. If they are entitled to take beer and spirits, as it seems to me they are, just as those better endowed with this world's goods are entitled to do so, I see no reason whatever for the legislature imposing such taxation on beer and stout as to make it prohibitive for workers to obtain reasonable quantities of that liquor, while, at the same time, greater taxation does not debar wealthy persons from having as much as they need and, perhaps, on occasions, much more than they need.

What about the Revenue aspect of the question?

I am not prepared to debate that matter now, and I do not think it is necessary to debate it.

It is a vital question.

Deputy Dillon says it is a vital question. But surely the position is this: If I impose upon a person, quite unreasonably, a certain penalty and derive from that penalty a very substantial income, is it a justification for me to make the plea to that person: "What am I going to do if I lose the income from this penalty which I have unreasonably imposed upon you"?

Where is the Minister for Finance going to get his £500,000?

As far as the Minister for Finance is concerned, he has shown himself a financial wizard and I am sure it is not above him to produce the mesmeric effects he spoke of in other days when necessary. I am certain that the present measure of taxation upon beer and stout is such as to impose upon the working people, having regard to their present rate of wages, a position that it is not possible for them reasonably to bear. Taking up that standpoint and concerning myself only with those people our Party will support this amendment.

Like Deputy Norton I do not intend to occupy the time of the House at any great length, and my speech will be all the shorter owing to the fact that Deputy Norton has forestalled a good many of the things that I would like to have said. Now, in the first place, we have got to look at this country as it is in its present position. It is a fact that the workmen in this State do drink stout. That is the ordinary drink they take. It is good to face that fact readily. I do not think that the most rabid temperance reformer would, at present, contend, or would have contended for some years past, that there had been an excessive consumption of stout by the working classes in this State. If that be the case, and if the real wages of the workmen are falling then I do not see any argument which can be put forward against the acceptance of this amendment by the Minister. Deputy Dillon appeared to me to argue against the amendment, but he did so in such a fashion that until the very close of his speech I certainly was of the opinion that he was in favour of it. The ground that Deputy Dillon put forward for voting against this amendment appeared to me to be the sort of ground which, under normal conditions, would not be the class of argument which would appeal to any person with the intellectual abilities which Deputy Dillon possesses.

Let me take Deputy Dillon's attitude. It is this. "I would support this on every ground, as most desirable, but the Minister for Finance says that it would cost half a million and that is final." In other words now we have it that Deputy Dillon must cease, and already has ceased to think and must sit down in admiration of the Minister for Finance and say: "We have this or that on the ipse dixit of the Minister for Finance. Rome has spoken and Deputy Dillon must remain completely silent.

I did not hear Babylon reply.

The Minister was very brief, if not curt, in his reply. He did not really deal with the problem at all. He came out with a statement: "This will cost £500,000." I question that the acceptance of this amendment would cost the State £500,000 or anything at all. It is sometimes well to look about and to see what has happened in other countries. Look at what happened recently in England. When the beer tax was put so high that it was impossible for people in England to purchase beer, the revenue, instead of increasing, diminished, as any ordinary person who ever studied the first principles of political economy would have concluded would happen. If you get a tax that is too high upon any article, or if it is at that particular position, and you increase it, then instead of increasing your revenue it simply decreases it. That is the A.B.C. of public finance which I would have thought anyone, and particularly Deputy Dillon, would have mastered. Exactly the same thing that has happened in England happened here. It is quite true this year there has been no increase in the taxation upon stout and porter. But there has been a steady lessening of the purchasing power of the community and this tax has now become a tax much heavier than the commodity can bear. In consequence if the tax remains as it is, at the present moment, the drop in revenue next year will be enormous, and that will be because consumption has dropped owing to the fact that people have not got the money now to buy. That seems to me also to be the A.B.C. of this matter. No one will contend that the State and the individuals in the State are as rich now as they were two years ago. But supposing that you cut down the tax and that where the people paid 8d. before they will pay 7d. for the future, it is quite on the cards that the consumption will remain as large next year as it is this year and that there will be no loss or, at the most, very trivial loss in revenue. If consumption goes down, as it may go down to between one-quarter or one-eighth of what it was last year, there will be a very desperate fall in revenue.

The Minister has not in the slightest way told us upon what basis he has estimated this loss of £500,000 a year. Let me look at this from another point of view. We have heard a great deal about the workingman and the loss to him of his pint of stout and his inability to pay for it. I am not going to repeat those arguments. They have already been put before the House but I am looking at it from another point of view. Take the ordinary man who is not a workingman in the usually accepted term. Take the ordinary clerk or somebody of that kind with a very small income. That man was accustomed for very many years to have the little luxury of a bottle of stout every day for his dinner and I do not think that anybody ought to grudge him that. Now, when his income is tumbling down and everything else is going up in price he has got, possibly, to cut off that bottle of stout. That would be a very real hardship on him. If he were to get his bottle of stout at 7d instead of paying for it, as he is, 8d. it would be possible for him to have that small indulgence which nobody would grudge him.

The amendment is not designed to reduce the bottle of stout by one penny.

The effect of it would be to reduce the price of the pint by one penny.

A bottle of stout is only half a pint. As a matter of fact, the price of a bottle of stout is 6d.

Mr. Lynch

Not in Dublin.

I leave it to Deputy Dillon. I always thought it was 8d. The Minister is keeping up the tax and that tax is too high. That tax has reached saturation point. That reduction actually would do no harm to the morale of his case, because more revenue would actually come if this tax were reduced. I would urge the Minister to accept this amendment. I would impress upon Deputy Dillon also to think again and to think better than he did a few minutes ago.

Possibly the final decision upon this amendment must be deferred until the Minister for Finance gives us a little more detail as to how he arrives at his figure of £500,000. But I certainly cannot feel that this is a year in which we could afford to risk losing any such sum as £500,000. When I hear the Cumann na nGaedheal Party so strongly defending the principle of this amendment I cannot help wondering why they did not make a reduction when they were in office themselves and when the risk of the loss of revenue could have been taken much more reasonably than it could be taken at the present moment. I also cannot help wondering why the Cumann na nGaedheal Party did not offer some suggestion as to an alternative source of revenue. They oppose economies on the one hand, and they oppose taxation on the other.

What economies? Will the Deputy tell us what economies?

The Economies Bill.

A war measure.

The other evening when Deputy McGilligan was speaking on the Economies Bill he said that if the Government absolutely needed that money they could have increased the income tax. In view of that being the Cumann na nGaedheal view and that they also considered that this amendment should be passed I am surprised that there was no motion down in their names for increasing the income tax in the Committee Stage.

It could not be done. The Deputy knows nothing about the Standing Orders. It is only a Minister could put down a motion or an amendment to increase any tax.

Is there not a stage in the Finance Bill when the Opposition can suggest increases?

No, and if the Deputy knew anything about procedure in the House he would know that.

The Deputy might be a little more chivalrous than to harp on the fact that I am new to the procedure of the House. I certainly am.

The Deputy ought to be sure of his facts.

It certainly ought to be open to the Cumann na nGaedheal Party to make their view clear that there should be an increase in income tax. That has not been done except through that one remark of Deputy McGilligan the other day. They are taking the risk now of wiping out an income of £500,000 in the Revenue at a time when everybody has to bear a sacrifice. It is absolutely irresponsible on the part of Cumann na nGaedheal and indeed on the part of Labour when pressing for this reduction not to suggest some alternative source of revenue.

I have not much to say on this amendment; but it is rather amusing to see the stand the Cumann na nGaedheal Party are taking on it. They say that the country could well afford to pay that £500,000 now, but on their showing it could much better afford to make the reduction a year or two ago. Why did they not make that reduction then? At the moment they are playing politics. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney was the Minister for Justice here two years ago and if such an amendment were introduced at that time he would brush it aside with a wave of his hand. When in office they always got a member of their own Party—or at least a member of their own Party got up—to introduce an amendment and after making the necessary propagandist speeches the amendment was withdrawn.

That was done by Deputy Corry.

That was the usual method of propaganda, but now we have different propaganda. When he was a member of the Front Bench, Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney would wave an amendment like this aside with scorn. Now he supports it for propagandist reasons. I think if the amendment suggested by the Opposition Party were accepted by the Minister he would not have one penny piece left in the Budget now for social services of any kind in the country. That would be the position if all the amendments suggested by the Opposition were accepted. I suggest that it is unfair to delay the time of the House here for no reason than for propagandist purposes. The man about whom Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney talked, the workingman who was drinking his bottle of stout, was also drinking his bottle of stout when Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney was Minister for Justice.

The man could afford it then.

He was able to pay for it then.

Deputy Brennan might, but the poor man could not.

At that time, we had Cumann na nGaedheal advocates standing up here saying he could not and asking for a reduction. They were making speeches then for propagandist purposes. This amendment is nothing else but propaganda. It was taken up by Deputy Rice to play up to a certain section of the community. If an alternative method could be shown as to where the £500,000 necessary could be got, I would not mind reducing the price of the pint of stout, but in the absence of any other suggestion it is plain that the Minister has to find the money to balance his Budget, and it is better to take it out of this source. Deputies opposite told us that this was a warlike method. It was a war tax during the time Deputy Cosgrave was in office. It was kept up long after the war was over. The claim made now could have been put up every day just as much as to-day. But very little recognition was then given by the Cumann na nGaedheal Government to the arguments that were made to-day by Cumann na nGaedheal Deputies. In the absence of any other means of finding the money to balance the Budget the money must be got in this way and it is better to get it in this way than to tax the absolute necessities of life, and that is what would have to be done.

I hope the Minister will speak again because if he leaves this debate with the contribution made already I must say that he would be treating the House with scant courtesy. The Minister has suggested that if this amendment were accepted there would be a fall in revenue receipts of £500,000. I think it is usual for the Minister for Finance in dealing with a matter of this kind to give some reasons and figures to justify the arguments he puts forward. The Minister has done nothing of the kind here.

The Minister talks about the danger of a loss of half a million in the revenue of this year. I pointed out that on the present scale of taxation and, as I suggested, owing to the present excessive scale of taxation, there was a loss in the last year for which we have the figures of half a million. The estimated loss for the present year on excise is £423,000. I do not think that the main consideration before this House ought to be, as I have said already, the fact that there will be a certain loss of revenue and I am not intimidated by the views of those people who say that the loss in revenue would be accompanied by an increased consumption because I do not think that any national evil would be brought about by an increased consumption in beer or stout. The people who want to drink to excess will do it whatever the price may be. If you introduce not merely taxation to crush this industry but prohibition, as was tried in America, the people who want to drink to excess will continue to do so and they will drink in spite of legislation.

The way this subject has been treated by the Fianna Fáil Party is rather extraordinary but quite comprehensible. Deputy Corry gets up and indulges in a diatribe about the brewers. Not one word was said by me, in introducing this amendment, about the brewers, and no benefit could possibly be derived by the brewers through the passage of this amendment. Some advantage might be got by the farmers, whom Deputy Corry says he is so anxious to serve. We had the usual exhibition from the Centre Party of a sympathetic speech coupled with an intimation that the vote is not to follow the sympathy. Deputy MacDermot, who is the leader of that Party, resents that I said last week that that was the usual attitude of the Centre Party, but we have had another illustration of it to-day. Deputy Dillon has made a most sympathetic speech but is going to vote against it, and, as I suggested last week, we will have again the performance put on the records of this House of people making sympathetic speeches but voting in the opposite direction so that the people who do not like the speech can read the vote and those who do not like the vote can read the speech. I do not think that is the proper attitude to be indulged in by representatives in this House.

Deputy Cleary spoke on the subject of why the late Government did not reduce these duties. I thought I answered that argument in introducing this amendment when I said that one great argument in favour of this amendment was the reduced purchasing power of the people. At the time when the Cumann na nGaedheal Government was in power the people were able to pay those prices. At least, they were far better able to pay them than they are now. It is no argument against this amendment being carried to-day to say that this reform in taxation was not introduced four or five years ago. The people are not able to pay now in the way that they were able to pay four or five years ago, or, to bring it down to a closer date, that they were able to pay up to the month of February, 1932. It is certainly a somewhat extraordinary attitude for the Centre Party to take up to oppose this amendment, because it is an amendment in favour, mainly, of the people who returned the Centre Party to this House.

Question.

There is no question about it at all, because, as Deputy Morrissey pointed out, the main consumption of porter and stout in this country is by the farmers and the agricultural labourers. It will certainly be an entertaining sight to see the representatives, or those who claim to be the representatives, of the farmers and agricultural labourers going into the division lobby to oppose this amendment.

The estimate which I gave to the House as my principal reason—a reason which I think is unanswerable—for rejecting this amendment has been challenged. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney said that even if the consumption remained as large as last year there would be no loss. I hope I am not doing the Deputy any injustice. I think I heard him correctly. I think that is what he did say, that even if the consumption remained as large as last year there would be no loss.

I should like to make myself clear. That is not the effect of what I said. The Minister is taking one sentence out of a paragraph.

I did gather that the Deputy was arguing that there would be no loss and that the figure of £500,000 which I submitted to the House was an incorrect one and was without any foundation. The quantity of beer consumed in the Twenty-Six Counties last year was over 660,000 barrels of 32 gallons. This amendment deals with barrels of 32 gallons, and the approximate effect of it is to reduce the duty paid per barrel by £1. 660,000 multiplied by one gives £660,000, which would be the loss to the Exchequer if the consumption were maintained at the same level as last year. On the other hand, it is probable, or possible, that there might be a slight increase in consumption. I should like to safeguard myself and say that it is possible, but I do not believe it is probable. It is possible because the decline in the consumption of beer and spirits has not been due so much to a change in the economic conditions of the people but rather to a change in the tastes of the people. A new generation has been growing up since the war, a generation who, at the outset of their careers, found that the purchase of alcoholic drinks cost much more than they were prepared to pay. In addition they have a greater variety of occupations and amusements; the picture houses, motor cars, buses and a great many other things that were not available to preceding generations are now available to the present generation. If we take these things into consideration, it is very probable that there would be no significant increase in the quantity of been and spirits consumed in this country if we reduced the duty by £1 a barrel. But, for the purpose of argument, let us assume that there was an increase of, say, ten per cent. in consumption, the net loss to the Exchequer as a consequence of accepting this amendment would be, I repeat, not less than half a million, Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney shakes his head. I suppose he is still of the same opinion notwithstanding the facts which cannot be contradicted and which will be available to the Deputy inside six months when the figures are available. He still shakes his head and is firm in the belief that no loss will arise to the revenue if we accept this amendment. The only basis on which he could found that would be that the increase in consumption would be so large as to wipe out the loss. The yield last year was something like £2,450,000. Deduct from that the amount of £1 a barrel in the reduction of beer duty which, as I pointed out, would amount to £660,000 and we are left with a net yield, on the basis of present consumption, with £1,790,000. We have got to make that up to the former figure of £2,450,000.

In order to do that, the consumption of beer and stout and porter in this State would have to increase by 37 per cent. I do not think any person with any business experience is going to say that if you reduce the price of a commodity by, I think, something like 14 per cent. you are going to get an increase of 37 per cent. in consumption—not if the population remains sober. Therefore, I again say that if the Deputy will examine the position as I have stated it to him he will have to admit that there will be a very significant loss, and I am putting that loss at £500,000. The question is if the House is going to vote for this amendment, and the Revenue is going to lose £500,000, what are we going to do to redress the balance? Are we going to curtail any single one of our present services? This is a dilemma out of which there is no escape. On the one hand we have at the present moment the things we do for the people; on the other hand there is the money we have to get in order that those things should be done. If we decide that we are going to drop £500,000 of that money, collected in a certain way, we have either got to reduce certain of the social services, we have to economise in education, we have to economise in the police, we have to economise in the old age pensions, we have to economise in some activity of the Government, or else we have to find £500,000 in some other way. Deputy Norton has adopted the attitude of Pilate in this matter. He says: "I do not care for £500,000. I am going to vote for this amendment, which is going to cost the Exchequer that sum, but after I have done that I have no further responsibility. The Minister for Finance is a financial wizard." The Minister for Finance or any other person in this House cannot find £500,000 out of nothing. It has to come from somewhere, out of some pocket in this State. It has either to come out of the taxpayers' pockets in the form of increased taxation or in the form of increased duty on tea or some other necessary of life, or it has got to come out of the pockets of the old age pensioners, of the school teachers, of the Gárda Síochána and of every one of the public servants, whom the Deputies on the other side were so vocal in defending last year; and the saving we would have to make then would not be of the order of £280,000, but £500,000 or possibly more.

Did the Minister say tea was a necessary of life? It was a luxury last year according to the Minister.

The Deputy never was necessary anyway, and, at the present moment, he is merely a nuisance.

What was a luxury last year is a necessary this year. That is very good and very true.

I say Deputy Norton cannot wash his hands of the matter like that. The Labour Party cannot have it both ways on this question.

Hear! Hear!

They have either to vote to maintain our present revenue, and to maintain our present social services with it, or if they vote to reduce our present revenue then that vote is a vote for the reduction of the present social services and nothing else. It is not sufficient for a Deputy, merely in order that he might catch a little passing popularity, to get up and say that he believes the poor man's pint should be reduced if he is going to make the Exchequer bear the cost of the reduction—if, in fact, the increase in the cost of beer and the increase in the cost of spirits is entirely due to the present duties which those commodities bear. I do not know whether Deputy Norton or any of the other Deputies in the House have considered what the pre-war position was in regard to beer and spirits. Pre-war whiskey was retarled at 4d. a glass and of that 4d. duty represented 2d. The duty on whiskey now amounts to 10¼d., but the price of whiskey has gone up to 1/8. Surely there is a margin there for reduction if reduction is necessary or if reduction is desirable. On the question of whether a reduction in the price of whiskey is desirable or not ....

On a point of order, are we discussing whiskey now?

I assume that the Minister is going to make the connection now.

It was ruled out a minute ago.

No. I intervened to say that a discussion on the manufacture of poteen in Donegal was not in order, but I conceive that the Minister is pointing out that there is profiteering in spirits, and possibly that there was profiteering in what this amendment refers to.

Surely a discussion on spirits is not in order under this particular amendment?

By way of relation to each other.

There is no relation.

There is clearly relation.

Take the case of stout or porter. Pre-war, this was sold at 2d., now it costs 7d. The pre-war duty was one-third of a penny at that time, now it has gone up to 3d. In pre-war days the brewers and publicans had to get their profits out of a margin of 1¼d. per pint; nowadays they have a margin of 4d.

Nowadays income tax is 5/- in the £.

There was a question that I wanted to put to Deputy Norton, if he were here, or to members of the Labour Party, who when protectionist measures were submitted to the Dáil were urging the Government to take measures to deal with profiteering. Now they come along here and say that the price of the pint must be reduced by 1d., and must be reduced as I have already pointed out, at the expense of the State, which inevitably means either at the expense of the taxpayer, direct or indirect, or else at the expense of those who are in the employment of the State or enjoying some benefits or advantages in the form of social services. If this reduction is essential, even to meet the point of view which Deputy Norton purported to express, the point of view of the poor man, they do not for a moment consider whether that reduction might not be made at the expense of some other person, or some other party or some other interest, rather than at the expense of the State. That comes from a Party which is concerned to stop profiteering, when it would seem to me that, on the figures at any rate which I have put to the Dáil, there is a prima facie case for asking whether the people who are taking this 4d. a pint now out of the trade are justified in taking so much at all.

Will the Minister send it to the Prices Commission then?

That would put 1½d. more on the cost of the stout.

That is a very definite allegation.

Progress ordered to be reported.

The Dáil went out of Committee.
Progress reported.
Top
Share