Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Jun 1933

Vol. 48 No. 7

Finance Bill, 1933—Committee Stage (Resumed—Amendment 5).

Amendment 5 not moved.

Mr. Anthony

I beg to move amendment No. 6:—

To insert before Section 19 a new section as follows:—

(1) There shall be allowed as from the 5th day of August, 1933, in respect of spirits imported into Saorstát Eireann a rebate of one pound two shillings and sixpence for every gallon computed at proof.

(2) In lieu of the excise duty payable on spirits distilled in Saorstát Eireann there shall as from the 5th day of August, 1933, be charged, levied and paid for every gallon computed at proof of spirits distilled or manufactured by any other process whatsoever in Saorstát Eireann an excise duty of two pounds ten shillings.

There is no necessity for me to read the amendment, and I shall confine myself, therefore, to a very few remarks in support of it. The distilling industry in this country has been crushed almost out of existence. Some people appear to think that this duty of 72/6 has been imposed upon this industry by our own Government in the first instance, whereas the fact is that this tax or duty on spirits was a war duty only, or was intended to be a war duty only, imposed by the British Government in the year 1920. Since that date almost one half of the Irish distilleries have had to close down. Many of these establishments were giving decent and reasonably well-paid employment in their respective areas, but, as the result of this unjust imposition, as I have said, almost one half of them had to close down. It must be remembered also that the distilleries which have survived, like the ones that have gone down, are in the main the property of Irish capitalists who have invested most, if not all, of their capital in these enterprises. I am not going into the relative merits of the Irish spirit and the Scotch spirit, but I do make provision in this amendment for a reduction in the tax on spirits imported into Saorstát Eireann of £1 2s. 6d. in every gallon computed at proof, and in relation to the Irish distilled whiskey I suggest that the duty be reduced by the sum of £2 10s. I would make this appeal to my farmer Deputy friends, that in supporting this amendment they will be very largely helping the farmers who grow malting barley in this country. In the eastern portion of the county I come from many farmers have found the growing of barley to be one of their most lucrative propositions. In the harvest immediately prior to the imposition of this tax of 72/6 it is estimated that the distillers of Ireland used close on 400,000 barrels of Irish-grown barley. This, I understand, represented almost one-third of the available crop of malting barley grown in this country, both north and south. Under present conditions the distillers in Saorstát Eireann scarcely require five per cent. of this crop. That is one illustration of the very disastrous effects of this impost of 72/6 per proof gallon. I also understand that this represents the equivalent of something like £350 tax on every acre of barley grown in this State. That fact alone should make a very strong appeal to farmer Deputies in this House. Ten years ago it is computed that the revenue the Irish Free State derived from the distilling industry was something like £1,000,000 per annum over and above what it is now. That has been one of the disastrous results of the imposition of this tax of 72/6 per proof gallon. If the industry is to be saved, and if we are to prevent further loss to the revenue, I suggest that we should get an immediate reduction, or a reduction as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made, so that our product will be kept within the purchasing power of the people.

Last evening, when speaking on another aspect of this brewing and distilling industry, I mentioned the fact that in Great Britain, notwithstanding the fact that the British people are suffering possibly worse than we are suffering from economic and industrial depression, the Imperial Parliament thought it wise and prudent to reduce their taxation on beer. I also suggested last evening that that would not be a bad example to copy, so as to bring the price of that commodity— just as I say now to bring the price of this commodity, namely, whiskey— within the purchasing power of the people. There may possibly be a stronger argument, from the point of view that there are more consumers of beer in the country than there are consumers of whiskey. Nevertheless, I rely mostly on the equities of the case when I suggest that this amendment should be passed by this House. The fact that we have an amount of Irish capital invested in this industry should make at least some appeal to the members of this House. The fact that they have always given, and, if they had not been interfered with to this rather serious extent, would continue to give reasonably well paid employment, should carry some weight. I suggest, sir, that the House, in all the circumstances, should pass this amendment in view of those facts I have just related, and again in view of the fact which I cannot help stressing once more, that the distillers are large buyers of home-grown barley, That should make a great appeal to all Deputies, whether they represent the cities and boroughs of this State or whether they represent an entirely agricultural section of the community.

I do not want to labour the matter any further, but I do hope that the Minister will be able to see his way to grant some reduction, if he is not able to give the reduction I suggest, which I understand would represent to the consumer something like 4d. per glass. If he is able to do that, he will be doing something to help the industry along. There is another aspect of the case, too, which I understand was mentioned yesterday. If those distillers were approached, and the whole question were put into the melting pot once more as to the price they are prepared to pay for home-grown barley, I do think that in their own interests they would be agreeable to pay the increased price, that is to say, if they feel that the prices they are paying now are inequitable prices, and that they would be justified in giving the increase. In view of the fact that an almost similar question was discussed very fully last evening, I do not propose to delay the House any further than to move my amendment, and hope it will receive the consideration of the Minister and his Government.

Mr. McMenamin

I spoke yesterday on the other aspect of this matter, the question of beer and stout. Just like Deputy Anthony, I have no particular interest in supporting this amendment. Perhaps Deputy Anthony has a greater interest than myself. Perhaps he does occasionally take a bottle of stout or a glass of whiskey; I do not take either. Yesterday I dealt with a particular aspect of this question, the making of illicit whiskey. I submit that so long as a tax of this kind— which is purely a war tax and has no relation now in this country, whatever it had in 1920, when it was imposed for the purpose of paying the debt incurred as a result of the European War—is in existence, illicit distillation will continue. On equitable grounds, without putting it any further, the time for that tax has passed away, and it should be brought into proportion to what it ought to be under normal conditions. Take it in relation to illicit distillation. The reason why illicit spirits are made in large tracts of the poorer districts of this country is the relation between the economic price of spirits and the price of them with this abnormal tax. There is no doubt that is the motive power behind it. So long as this tax, the purpose of which has passed away, remains and is imposed by the Government, so long will illicit whiskey be made. There is no doubt about that. There is another aspect that follows from it, which is not just quite relevant here. We have seen and watched the development of that matter in America. It is clear to anybody who dwelt on the matter that it is going eventually to break down the entire social order in America. I merely want to refer to that in passing.

There are various aspects of this thing. There are, for instance, districts where illicit whiskey is made, and that is due to the terrible gap that exists between the economic price of spirits and the price at which spirits are sold to-day because of this inflated taxation. Yesterday Deputy Norton was dealing with the beer tax and he put very forcibly, clearly, justly and equitably the right of the poorer classes to get at least a reasonable amount of spirits or liquids whenever they require them.

Mr. Norton

I did not say spirits.

Mr. McMenamin

I know the Deputy did not; but he was dealing with beer and, as beer contains spirits, really he was dealing with spirits.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy's advisers must be wrong.

Mr. McMenamin

There is no doubt that in many districts, particularly in the more remote and the poorer districts, where they live long distances from a medical practitioner, they have a local tradition that when someone takes ill, for example, when someone is attacked with influenza, and when they have not the means of sending for the doctor, the most advisable thing to do is to use spirits. It is utterly impossible for poor people under present conditions to get any spirits for medicinal purposes. It would take the price of two sheep now to buy a bottle of whiskey. It is all right for the man with £600, £800 or £1,000 a year. It does not matter to him whether a bottle of whiskey costs 3/6 or 16/-; he can pay either price. But it is a serious matter for the poor when a bottle of whiskey costs 16/6. That really is prohibition.

Yesterday Deputy Dillon talked ad nauseam about the finding of this money. One reason why I oppose this tax is that the modern tendency of Chancellors throughout the world is to maintain excessive taxation. They have developed a rapacity for imposing taxes for some specific purpose, some temporary urgency, and then, year after year, the appeal is made that we must maintain those taxes, because if we do not, where else are we to get the money. So long as assemblies of this kind submit to that battle-cry from Chancellors, so long will those Chancellors, year after year, open their mouths wider and wider until taxation will have reached the pitch when the whole financial system of the country will break down and chaos will ensue.

At the moment there are sixty countries represented at a Conference in London, and they are trying to get themselves out of a mess for which they were originally responsible. Yesterday Deputy Dillon asked where were we to get the half-million required. When this Bill was introduced the same Deputy asked solemnly if he would have another opportunity of discussing it. What is his object in discussing it further unless he is going to resist this increasing burden of taxation which is being piled on the backs of the people? We were told that additional taxation would not be imposed. That is the old battle-cry, the old die-hard battle cry. We have the Chancellors of the world opening their mouths wider every year, until ultimately the taxpayer breaks down. I maintain that this is an exorbitant tax.

There is another inequitable aspect of this thing. This tax was imposed in 1920, and for years honest men, good citizens, worked industriously to earn money in order to invest it in premises so that they could carry on this business legitimately. Now they find that as a result of these taxes the premises in which they invested enormous sums are decreasing in value, and they find their business being taken away from them through the actions of the Government. Is it just or equitable, when a man invests all his money in premises in order to carry on this business legitimately, that the Government should drive him out of business through harsh taxation? The price of spirits should be brought into some relation with economic values in the country. From the social standpoint it is necessary that we should make some effort to restrict illicit distillation of whiskey. It is also necessary that we should endeavour to bring Finance Ministers to their senses, and we should restrict this effort of theirs year after year to gather in more money by way of harsh and unnecessary taxation. It is for reasons such as these that I am supporting the amendment.

Mr. Norton

I think the House will congratulate Deputy McMenamin on his new found liberty as a member of the Opposition. I thought during the Deputy's speech that somebody would have pulled his coat and told him he was now in the Cumann na nGaedheal Party. If he had been in Deputy Anthony's Party one might have understood the extent of the licence which he would get. In a Party of two the Deputy could always be sure that he would never be in a minority. But, Deputy McMenamin being a member of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, the situation is quite different. I suppose everybody except the Deputy found his declarations extremely interesting. He talked about Chancellors of the Exchequer opening their mouths wider and wider; he spoke of their greed, raking in money from the taxpayers. Never once did the Deputy advert to the fact that although efforts were made here time and again during the last ten years to secure reduction in the taxation on beer and spirits, they never were successful. The Deputy is surely aware that when Cumann na nGaedheal were in office his own Minister for Finance consistently refused to yield to that demand.

Mr. McMenamin

I never had a Minister for Finance. This is the time to begin if ever you are going to begin. Come to the point now.

Mr. Norton

The Deputy says he never had a Minister for Finance.

Mr. McMenamin

I never had much finance for any Minister to deal with.

Mr. Norton

If the Deputy possessed some political constancy he might have. Of course, if the Deputy wants to change from Party to Party, always looking for the bone with the most political meat on it, that is a matter for himself. Apparently, the Deputy cannot be in a Party long enough to have a Minister for Finance.

If the Deputy would look at the speech made by the ex-Minister for Finance, Mr. Blythe, in 1928, I think he would find it cancelled out his own speech to-day; and if he does not, I am sure some of the colleagues of the ex-Minister, who have not yet thrown Mr. Blythe overboard, would repeat the sound arguments which Mr. Blythe used on that particular occasion. Then the matter raised in this amendment is quite different from that raised in the amendment yesterday, and which was supported from these benches. The case made by Deputy Anthony for this amendment was strangely unconvincing. The Deputy said that at the present the tax upon an acre of barley, used for distilling purposes, is £350. If the Deputy worked out that figure I am sure he must have been astonished at the result he got.

Mr. Anthony

It represents that.

Mr. Norton

It represents that. The assumption is that the produce of an acre of barley bears a tax of £350. The Deputy knows perfectly well, because he is not at all a bad mathematician, that that figure is absolutely absurd. He might as well tell us that the water contained in the spirit is bearing a tax of £100 per acre in relation to the £250 on the acre of barley. That figure is quite unconvincing. I do not know how the Deputy was trapped into using such a grotesque argument as that. If he could find an acre of barley carrying a £350 tax I suggest he ought to see the curator of the museum about it.

Whatever case there is for the second portion of Deputy Anthony's amendment there is no case at all for the first portion. The first portion asks us to grant a rebate of £1 2s. 6d. on every gallon of imported spirit; in other words the legislature is to relinquish its claim to this extent on the import of foreign spirits. Whatever case there may be for reducing the taxation on spirits distilled in the country, there is no case whatever for reducing the duty imposed on spirits distilled outside the country. The only case for the first part of his amendment would be that we should let in spirits here at a lesser rate than we are doing to-day.

Mr. Anthony

Some people have cultivated a taste for Scotch whiskey.

Mr. Norton

Everybody has a right to cultivate his taste as he wishes, but to ask the legislature to reduce its duties because of that is to ask the legislature to do what the Deputy knows is impracticable. But even the second portion of the amendment is not at all on the same footing as the amendment proposed yesterday in relation to the duty on beer and stout. Beer and stout are pre-eminently the drinks of the working class people. Very few, relatively speaking, of the working classes consume spirits because, for other reasons, they are too dear. At any rate, I think that on balance it will be found that as a matter of ordinary national development, encouraging the taste of the people in a particular direction, most people would say that you should encourage that taste in the direction of beer and stout as distinct from spirits. I think the result, on the whole, would be very much better. The case as regards the tax on home-distilled whiskey is not as strong as the case for reducing the tax on home-brewn beer and stout. These latter are consumed in substantial measure by the working class people. The commodity on which the Deputy seeks to secure a reduction of duty is not at all consumed to the same extent.

Having regard on the one hand to the cost of the remission to the Exchequer, and having regard to the relatively negligible benefits that would accrue to the people, although we supported yesterday's amendment, I do not think there is any case made out for this amendment. Both sections of the amendment hang together, and so long as they do there is no case, on any ground, for accepting an amendment which involves the lowering of taxation upon imported whiskey.

As regards the value of this amendment, as compared with yesterday's, I do not think there is nearly as strong a case for this amendment as when we were dealing with commodities such as yesterday's amendment dealt with, and which are consumed so largely by the working class people.

Mr. Anthony

If sub-section (1) of my amendment is withdrawn, may I ask Deputy Norton if he will be prepared to support sub-section (2).

Mr. MacEntee

That is a hypothetical question. I hope that the House will not allow any part of the amendment to be withdrawn. It was put down as a contribution by Deputy Anthony to the present budgetary and economic position. Deputy Anthony is a Deputy who, as Deputy Norton pointed out, is supreme in his own Party. No other mind but his has formulated this amendment—at least I hope not—and he must stand or fall by his amendment as placed upon the Paper. My particular objection to this amendment, and one that ought to prevail with this House, even if there was no other objection—and I am not approaching this from the point of view of the temperance advocate, or from the point of view of the person who believes we should imbibe freely; I am approaching it from the point of view of the person so eloquently castigated by Deputy McMenamin, that is, the person who has to provide the wherewithal to run the country—is that, if accepted, it would cost the country half-a-million pounds. I am sure Deputy Anthony, before he put down this amendment took the trouble to study the returns of the Revenue Commissioners. He did not put the results before us, and he did not tell us where otherwise we are to find this £500,000. Quite true, I have to make the plea which has been castigated by Deputy McMenamin. I have to ask where I am to get the money from. I have to make that plea because succeeding generations of public representatives and succeeding generations of the people have decided that the Government has to accept greater and greater social responsibilities and, therefore, since the Government has to accept these greater responsibilities, it has to ask the people to pay for those responsibilities.

This £500,000 might not be required if we had not to provide so generously for old age pensions. I do not want it to be taken that I am suggesting that our provision for these services is overgenerous. No, but it is as much as we can afford at the moment. Whether it is great or small it has to be paid for. The same applies to our educational service, to our police service and to every other function undertaken by the Government which has to be paid for. The sum total of the cost of these functions is such that this £500,000 is essential. It is not for the sake of collecting the duty that I ask the House to reject this amendment but in order that Governmental services may be maintained and for no other reason.

Mr. Corry

I expected yesterday when an amendment practically similar to this was being discussed, that some of its advocates would refute the statements I then made. Deputy Morrissey pretended to. Deputy Morrissey has found in his 12 years service here that the readiest means of refuting a statement when he has no argument against it, is by abuse. He is a past-master in the art of abuse without infringing the rules of order of the House. He has been well trained in that line.

Mr. Morrissey

May I point out that I have not spoken on this amendment at all?

Mr. Corry

On an amendment yesterday on the same lines.

Mr. Morrissey

No.

An Ceann Comhairle

Not on the same amendment.

Mr. Corry

Practically the same amendment. I can see very little difference. Deputy McMenamin yesterday complained on the same lines. He said that all his voters in Donegal were under the influence of poteen. Deputy Dillon very rightfully excluded his voters from the particular stigma that attached to those of Deputy McMenamin. To-day Deputy McMenamin told us that a man in Donegal would have to sell two sheep to get the price of a bottle of whiskey. I suggest that such a man would be better off if he ate the two sheep. They would do him much more good than a bottle of whiskey. If, in order to carry out the provisions of this amendment, the Minister for Finance removed the bounty from sheep and lambs, the people in Donegal would not be thankful to Deputy McMenamin for his support of this. I do not know much about poteen. I got a taste of it once in my lifetime. We made it in the internment camp in County Kildare when I was a prisoner under Deputy Mulcahy's rule and two spoonfuls of it bowled me over completely.

Mr. Morrissey

You have not lost the effects of it yet.

Mr. Corry

It was far more effective than the way Deputy Morrissey crept around my argument yesterday. When we hear Deputy Anthony as an advocate of the gentleman who goes into a bar and wants a "Scotch," whether he is a representative of the farmers, or whether he be a gentleman who talks here with an accent which nobody in this House could understand but himself——

Mr. Dillon

Is this Lancashire or Oxford?

Mr. Corry

I do not know which. At any rate, I cannot understand Deputy Anthony coming in here and asking the Minister, for every gallon of Scotch whiskey ordered by these gentlemen with these accents throughout the country, to put a tax of £1 2s. 6d. upon the unfortunate taxpayers. Does Deputy Anthony want the ordinary workers in the City of Cork to pay their share of the £1 2s. 6d. tax that he wants taken off those who have cultivated this "taste for Scotch," as he put it himself? Does he want it clapped on to the poor man's tea and sugar? Then the Deputy, who wanted to have the duty on Scotch whiskey removed, went on to talk of Irish barley. There is no doubt that he is a Party in himself. The same argument that I used yesterday applies in this case. Neither the brewers nor the distillers have yet stood up to the statements I have been making here for the last four or five years. We want to know what the distiller and the brewer have done with the 37/6 per barrel that they have taken off the price of the Irish farmers' barley. Deputy McMenamin yesterday said the duty had no relation whatever to this.

Mr. McMenamin

Certainly.

Mr. Corry

No wonder Deputy McMenamin came in here instead of practising law. He tells us that this extra profit of 37/6 per barrel more than in 1921 or 1922 has nothing to do with the duty imposed. Did Deputy McMenamin ever hear of profiteering? We know that the brewers could reduce the price of the pint of stout by 1½d. and still have 5/6 per barrel more profit than in 1922. The same thing applies to whiskey. The price of Irish barley from 1919 to 1922 was 52/- per barrel and the distiller and the brewer made a profit then. I never heard of them boasting that they were philanthropists. They made their profits then. The price of Irish barley for the last four years has been 14/6 per barrel. Only for the efforts made by the Minister for Agriculture last year the price of barley here would have been 10/6. Deputy Dillon waxed eloquent on that point. He wanted to know yesterday why we did not increase the demand for barley, and he has been here morning, noon and night bewailing the one successful effort that was made by the mixing scheme to increase the price of barley. Another Deputy of his Party told us the hens would not lay because they were fed on Irish barley—a Deputy from my own constituency, a barley-growing constituency. However, that is beside the subject. I would not have alluded to it but for Deputy Dillon's nonsensical question, "Why not increase the demand for it," when he is doing his utmost to prevent a demand for it. When the brewers and distillers cease to profiteer, when they say, "We are prepared to pay the Irish farmer the cost of production for the barley he produces; we are prepared to go further than that and to give a little reduction in the price of the article we are putting on the market" let them then come to the Government and I will support them. I will support them after doing that, after disgorging the 37/6 per barrel extra profit they have got from 1922, when the price fell, up to 1932. They complain that consumption has fallen. No wonder. No wonder the Irish farmer, who got 52/- per barrel for his barley then and who paid for a few glasses of whiskey in the public-house before he went home, and who, during the last harvest, when he went into the same market got 14/6 from the distiller for his barley, and when he went into the public-house found that the whiskey was the same price as it was when he got 52/-. That is no wonder at all. No amount of personal abuse by Deputy Morrissey or anybody else will get over that fact. All the twistings and turnings by the Deputies on the Opposition Benches will not get over that fact. Those Deputies are very careful to keep away from the whole kernel of the dispute and the argument. Until the breweries and distilleries in this country cease profiteering at the expense of the unfortunate Irish farmer they cannot expect anything from the Dáil, composed as it is, mainly of Deputies representing agricultural constituencies. They can expect nothing else from them. They have not passed on that reduction in the price of barley to the consumer. Neither has that reduction been passed on to the local publican. It has been held where it is by the mammoths.

I made a suggestion here yesterday and I give it again for what it is worth and that is let the brewer and the distiller come together and give a guaranteed price of 30/- a barrel for Irish barley. Let them then take £1 per barrel off stout and they will still have 2/6 per barrel left over, 2/6 more than what they had in 1919, 1920, 1921 or 1922. We do not grudge them that. If they do that then I will be prepared to go with other Deputies to the Minister for Finance and to argue with him for a reduction in duty. I will fight for that reduction and I will vote for it here just as well. I do not want to see the brewing or distilling industry in this country going down. Though I am as much a teetotaller as anybody else, even though I might spend as much in a public house as anybody but not on whiskey or porter, I am putting up that argument. Let the brewer and distiller first guarantee that the man who tills his land and employs labour gets his cost of production for the article. Let them do that before any Deputy comes in here with an argument like the arguments we have heard. Deputy Morrissey is a great opponent of what is known as sweated labour but during this debate the Deputy has not opened his lips to say that the farmer and the farm labourer should get the cost of production for the barley they produce—that they should get at least their wages out of it. Deputy Morrissey knows very well——

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Morrissey has not spoken to this amendment.

Mr. Corry

Deputy Morrissey has used arguments which would completely come under this amendment.

Mr. Morrissey

I understand the position now. The Deputy was abusing me earlier for a speech I made yesterday. Now he starts off to abuse me for a speech I did not make to-day.

Mr. Corry

I would be delighted to hear Deputy Morrissey any time. But I am criticising him for the speech he made yesterday.

Mr. Morrissey

The Deputy is too late.

Mr. Corry

I want the Deputies who come in here looking for a reduction to tell us where they are going to get the revenue instead—where is this duty to be got instead? Deputy Anthony last night gave one item on which revenue could be raised. I should like to see ground rents taxed. I have made an appeal to the Minister for Finance already to tax them. I hope he will do so, but it is not by taxing that we will deal with ground rents. We have another plan for them. Apart from that, Deputy Anthony comes in here with an amendment asking for £1 2s. 6d. a gallon as a rebate for those who have cultivated a taste for Scotch whiskey. Now I am sure that those who have cultivated that taste for Scotch will be very grateful to Deputy Anthony, but if the Minister accepted that amendment and put 1d. per lb. extra on tea or 1d. or 2d. extra on sugar, the labourers of Deputy Anthony's constituency would neither be grateful to the Deputy nor to those who cultivate a taste for Scotch.

Let those Deputies go back and tell the brewers and distillers in their constituencies to give a guaranteed price of 30/- per barrel for barley. That will only be 15/6 per barrel of the 37/6. Let them go further and reduce the price of the barrel of stout by £1. I am sure that I and many other Deputies on these benches and all over the House would support them in getting the Minister for Finance to take off another £1 per barrel. That would bring the price of the pint down to 6d. Let the Deputies do that and we will support them, but let them not come here on behalf of individuals. I cannot see any argument at all in the case they are putting up. Surely to goodness they are not going to argue that the distiller and brewer are paying a higher rate of wages to-day than in 1919, 1921 or 1922? The cost of production has not gone up. They are selling less spirits and beer because they are turning it into a luxury. I say they have not reduced the price of their product to meet the reduction they have made in the price of the raw material. That is the whole issue, and until those Deputies go back and do that I for one will give an amendment like this determined opposition here.

Mr. Dillon

This amendment to-day has, to my mind, no merit. The amendment moved yesterday by Deputies Rice, Morrissey and O'Sullivan, and by Deputy Anthony as well, had some merit intrinsically because it would be a desirable thing to reduce the duty on porter if from the revenue point of view it was possible to do so. I said yesterday evening, and I say it again now with reference to this amendment, that if Deputy Cosgrave, who is the responsible authority for finance in the Cumann na nGaedheal Party and whose views on revenue matters would carry weight as a distinguished ex-Minister for Finance, came in here and said that after his experience of Revenue administration he was prepared to say that in the event of his forming a Government to-morrow he would remove this duty to the extent of £1 per barrel off porter or 22/6 per gallon off whiskey——

Mr. Corry

He did not, because he knew he never would get back.

Mr. Dillon

Had Deputy Cosgrave done that he would go a long way to rebut the estimate made by the Minister for Finance as to the liability that the acceptance of these amendments would impose on the revenue. But Deputy Cosgrave has not taken that course. He has not taken that course because, being a responsible public man, he feels that he could not do that. He feels that he could not recommend the Government or the Dáil to make such a reduction if he were to be responsible for the revenue. That objection, to my mind, is fatal to this amendment. But there is another objection to this amendment which I do not think would apply to the amendment standing in the names of Deputies Morrissey, Rice and O'Sullivan yesterday. I cannot think that as a matter of policy we should try to make whiskey attractive as a beverage. I think that where a commodity such as whiskey can be made to yield a very substantial revenue we should not hesitate to exact it. Personally, whiskey and beer are beverages I do not enjoy. I am by no means a teetotaller, although I have great respect for those who are; but I cannot say that I can look with equanimity at any man with modest means habitually consuming whiskey as a beverage because, with the times that are in it, even supposing we reduced the duty to 52/- per proof gallon it remains an expensive commodity and a commodity which normally is not taken exclusively for its beverage attraction, but because it is a stimulant. It comes under quite a different sphere from beer, and I cannot imagine, taking into consideration the amount of Scotch whiskey imported into this country, how we could seriously consider making a concession of this kind in respect of whiskey at all.

Deputy Corry dwelt at some length on the increase in the price of barley, and he pointed out that I had criticised the Cereals Bill, although I said in connection with the amendment yesterday that it was desirable to increase the demand for barley. The difference that exists between Deputy Corry and myself is that I like to examine all the consequences of anything that I propose to do, whereas Deputy Corry only likes to look at the attractive consequences of what he proposes to do. His motto is: ruat coelum, but increase the cost of barley! Tear down the State if you can put 10/- a barrel on barley! I do not think that is a reasonable attitude to take, and the reason I opposed the Cereals Bill was that the increase in the cost of barley brought about by the Cereals Bill and kindred legislation resulted in a material increase in the price of feeding stuffs and other raw materials to the agricultural community and industry. I believe, and I still believe, that whatever advantage the barley grower has got from the Cereals Bill legislation, the egg producer, the cattle feeder, the cattle breeder and every other section of the agricultural community have been made to pay out of all proportion to the advantage to the barley growers. To my mind, it would have been of far more economical advantage to give the barley growers a bonus per barrel on the barley produced than to put the Cereals Bill into operation. I do not want to pursue that argument, because it only came in as a result of what Deputy Corry said, but, perhaps, he will understand now the reason why I support a project in one set of circumstances and not in another.

Mr. Corry

You have a different constituency.

Mr. Dillon

No, that is not the reason. To come back, however, to what I was saying: There is one man on the Opposition Benches whose special knowledge and valued opinion will carry more weight than that of anybody else in support of this amendment. As I said, I refer to Deputy Cosgrave who was a Minister for Finance of this State and understands the matter from a revenue point of view. If Deputy Cosgrave had said last night that, in his opinion, the Minister for Finance's estimate was grossly inflated from the practical revenue point of view, a very different situation would have arisen. If he gets up now and says that the revenue will suffer no irreparable loss as a result of this amendment it will be different. Even so, I would still oppose this amendment but if he had said it last night it would alter the whole case. He has not said it, however, and I believe that he has not said it because, being a responsible man and knowing what it is to be responsible for the revenue of the State, he knows that he could not say it, and that is the reason I opposed this amendment.

Mr. Anthony

Before the amendment is put I want to correct one or two false impressions. In connection with sub-section (1)—the first part of my amendment—I want to state that there is no desire on my part, and neither is that desire expressed in this sub-section, to increase the amount of Scotch spirit imported into this country. It is a well known fact, however, that for a very considerable period there was a certain volume of opinion in favour of excluding Scotch whiskey altogether but it was thought more prudent then and I think it is the general opinion even now that it would not be a very good thing for this country to do for the simple reason that it might cause retaliatory measures to be taken on the other side. What Deputy Corry says on this Bill, or for the matter of that on any other Bill, does not cut any ice with me because we have begun to regard Deputy Corry as the buffoon of this House.

An Ceann Comhairle

That expression must be withdrawn.

Mr. Anthony

I withdraw the expression if it is unparliamentary, but I say that the display of vulgarity and bad taste and the very grave personalities in which Deputy Corry indulges in this House from time to time have made very many of us hang our heads in shame for the sake of the prestige and dignity of this House. The indulgence in personalities which has been so much linked up and associated with the name of Deputy Corry in this House has caused us many a blush of shame in this House.

Mr. Corry

I should like to say one word on this matter.

Mr. Anthony

The Ceann Comhairle has the hardest job in this House.

Mr. T. Kelly

I submit that the statement made by Deputy Anthony is a reflection on the judgment and impartiality of the Chair.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Chair is the judge in that matter.

Mr. Anthony

The Chair has always done its duty and I submit that I have not gone outside the rules of order in making the suggestion that I have made.

(Interruptions).

Mr. Anthony

He is at it again. He cannot keep quiet.

Ceann Comhairle

Order!

Mr. Anthony

The suggestion was that I wanted to encourage the increased importation into this country of Scotch spirit. That is not so, as I have just endeavoured to prove and I think I have satisfied the House as to that. To anybody with that idea in their minds I would suggest that a closer examination would repay some of the members who have read into sub-section (1) that I intended to advocate further importations of Scotch whiskey into this country. That was the farthest thing from my mind. In discussing this or any other amendment in this House I would suggest that due regard would be had, by Deputy Corry, at least to the ordinary decencies of Parliamentary life.

Amendment 6, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Morrissey

I move amendment No. 7:—

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

Section 25 of the Finance Act, 1932 shall be construed and have effect on and from the 5th day of August, 1933, as if there were inserted before sub-section (5) thereof the following sub-section, that is to say:—

Entertainments duty shall not be charged or levied on any entertainments as respects which it is proved to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners that the entertainment consists solely of a number of races between greyhounds in each of which two or more greyhounds are released from a trap or box in pursuit of a mechanical hare.

This amendment seeks to have greyhound racing tracks exempted from the entertainments tax. I do not know whether the majority of the members of the House are conversant with what I might call the greyhound industry, and whether they are aware of what an important part of our life and of our exports it is. I think I would not be far wrong in saying that it is one of the most important and one of the most valuable industries we have in this country. I think it will be admitted that the racing tracks are so many market places for the sale of greyhounds. They are, so to speak, the showgrounds for greyhounds. I think it will be admitted also that, if we accept the fact that it is an important industry, and that it should be fostered and developed, we ought to do nothing which will retard that development, but rather should give every assistance in our power towards its development. I do not know whether all members of the House received a circular which was sent out some short time ago by the body which is responsible for the greyhound industry in this country. I want to deal first, sir, with the effects which the entertainments tax had on the attendance at the race meetings. I think I could not do better than to give a particular case. Let me take the case of the racing track in my own constituency, Clonmel, and I will be able to demonstrate from actual figures the very great falling off in the receipts. For 18 meetings held in 1931 at Clonmel, the average receipts per meeting were £115. For 18 meetings for the same period of last year, 1932, the average receipts were £58, a drop of almost 50 per cent. That, I contend, was very largely due to the entertainments tax. Let us remember that the tax is 20 per cent. on the gross takings. I should like to emphasise that the Government takes in tax of one form or another roughly 10/- out of every pound that is paid at the entrance gates of those tracks. As I say, those tracks are, in my opinion, absolutely essential to the sale of greyhounds. When we take into consideration the effect on this particular industry of the entertainments tax and of the dispute between this country and great Britain it will be realised that the industry is to-day in a very bad way. On the question of sales, let me again take the track in my own constituency at Clonmel. For the months of April and May, 1932, that was immediately before the start of the economic war, there were 130 dogs sold—those dogs were sold on the track—at a total of £5,592. This year the sales to date amount to only £406.

Mr. MacEntee

For how many dogs?

Mr. Morrissey

For six dogs. I can let the Minister have even the names of the dogs, if he wishes, and the amount which was paid for each. That will give an idea of what has happened and what is happening. I think the Minister himself will agree that if it is at all within his power to do so it is absolutely essential that this entertainments tax should be removed, and that we should try to help those tracks to carry on under very difficult circumstances.

Again I want to try to demonstrate how important the industry is. There were 23,708 new registrations of greyhounds in the Irish Stud Book in the year 1931-32. There are over 30,000 families engaged in the breeding of greyhounds in this country, and the export value of greyhounds in the year 1931-32 was roughly half a million pounds—that is taking sales both private and public. In addition, I am sure that there are greyhounds sold and exported of which there is no record whatever. It must be remembered that this industry is very largely in the hands of the small farmers and workers. The breeders of greyhounds throughout the country are, as I say, the agricultural labourers and small farmers. The only opportunity that they get of displaying those animals is at the local race tracks. Of course, there is another aspect of the matter, and that is that those race tracks, particularly the smaller ones, have been of very great benefit to the towns where they are situated. I myself know that the town of Clonmel, a town that was very hard hit for a number of years as the result of the closing down of a number of industries, and the wiping out of others for one reason or another during the different troubles we had in the country, was in a very poor way, and the population of the town was dwindling, although it was at one time one of the most prosperous towns in the south of Ireland. There was practically no industry of any description until this greyhound racing track started. It has been of great value to the town, and to the traders of the town. It has given, both directly and indirectly, a good deal of employment at fairly decent wages. It must be remembered that it is not only on the evenings that the actual races are held that those tracks are used. They are used practically every day in the week when greyhounds are brought in for trials. A man who has a greyhound can, for a few shillings, have that greyhound tried out to see what his value is. I do not want to labour the point. I have figures and statistics here with which I could delay the House for a considerable time, but I do not think it is necessary. I am sure the Minister himself is better acquainted with the facts than I am. I understand that the matter has been put before him very clearly and very forcibly. I just wanted to give the few figures I have quoted for the information of the members of the House who are not conversant with this industry. I sincerely hope, for the sake of the industry and for the sake of those engaged in it that the Minister will be able to accept this amendment.

Mr. MacEntee

I find myself unable to accept the amendment. It is quite true that there has been, possibly in the case of the smaller tracks, some falling off in attendance, and a considerable falling off in sales. But that is in no way due to the effect of the entertainments tax. Rather is it due to the changed conditions on the other side of the water. There was, undoubtedly, a great demand in England for Irish dogs at the time when greyhound racing was a flourishing enterprise in Great Britain, at the time when greyhound tracks were generally maintained in close association with the totalisator machine. Consequent upon the Interim Report of the British Commission which was set up to inquire into this matter, and which recommended that the totalisator should be banned from greyhound tracks, the attraction of these tracks from the point of those who went to them to bet decrease very considerably. With that decrease there was a consequent decrease in the demand for Irish dogs. It is due much more to that fact than to any other that the smaller tracks in this country have been hard hit.

While it may be said that the smaller tracks have been hit, I cannot, on the figures which I have before me, and which I do not think it advisable to disclose to the House, convince myself that there is not available for the general purposes of the State considerable room for tax in connection with this sport. The acceptance of this amendment would cost us some thousands of pounds. The Budget has been balanced, with a nominal balance of something like £32,000. We could not possibly do anything which would jeopardise that position. Matters have been calculated to the nearest penny. So far as we can see, all the estimates have been carefully pruned and cut down. Further taxation has been imposed. As much as could be justifiably borrowed has been borrowed, and, consequently, every penny piece that we anticipate we should get from the existing taxation must come in; otherwise, the budgetary position will be in danger. On that ground alone, even if the case for this amendment had greater merits than it has, I would still be in the position that I would be compelled to refuse to give anything like the general concession asked for in the amendment.

I am aware of the precarious position, in some cases, in which the smaller tracks are. I am not anxious to close them down, and I am investigating the matter to see if I can give them some relief which will not be anything like widespread relief or a general remission. I have not got all the information that would enable me to formulate proposals. I do not bind myself to introduce proposals on the Report Stage which will give relief, but I will look into the matter in order to see if anything can be done in the case of the small tracks. I am perfectly convinced from the figures before me that, so far as greyhound racing in the larger cities is concerned, it has not been adversely affected. Even if it were, I know the profits made in past years by these concerns have been of very great dimensions indeed. I am satisfied they are running at the moment at nothing like a loss. I think the profits are still considerable, and the State, in view of the fact that it is taxing other forms of amusement, to which some people, I not being one of them, might take less objection than has been taken in certain quarters to greyhound racing, could not possibly give the general remission asked for in the amendment.

Mr. Lynch

While I regret the Minister cannot see his way to accept the amendment, I feel that we can be satisfied at the moment in the hope that he may bring forward something on Report to deal with the critical position of the smaller tracks. Admitting, as he now does—he did not admit it last year—that this is a business of very considerable importance, it is difficult to understand why the Minister will not accept the amendment. Exactly the same case can be made for exempting greyhound tracks from entertainment tax as was made for the exemption of horse racing. Horse racing was exempted purely and solely to give a fillip to the horse breeding industry. That is an industry in which there is a great deal of capital involved, but the persons interested are few in comparison with the persons interested in greyhound breeding.

The breeding of greyhounds is very widespread and, as Deputy Morrissey said, it is almost entirely confined to small farmers and labourers. In North Kerry there is not a labourer's cottage nor a farmhouse where you will not find at least one dog and in some places you would be nearly eaten if you went into the yard, as there are at least half a dozen dogs prowling about. It has become an important industry. There is no need to stress the fact that the breeding of greyhounds can only be profitable if there is a local track on which the dogs can be trained and tried. As Deputy Morrissey says, the local track is really the market or, at least, the show ground where the dogs can be exhibited and put on trial. The Minister has stated that he will consider the position of the tracks that are in a precarious position. We will be satisfied with that, although we would much prefer if he would go the whole hog and exempt them entirely.

Mr. Dillon

I am gratified to hear that the Minister will endeavour to see his way to make a concession in regard to this matter. Here is something which is, as Deputy Lynch and Deputy Morrissey pointed out, a valuable growing industry. I think if the Labour Party were here they would confirm me in saying that this is for the man with modest means what horse racing is for the man with ample means. The rearing of greyhounds for racing and coursing constitutes an industry in many parts of the country. It will prove a valuable one, and is well within the capacity of a man in a comparatively small way of business. There is no doubt that greyhound track racing is assuming an even more important position in the greyhound breeding business than coursing.

I think the case made to-day for a concession is a particularly strong one. I hope when the Minister looks into the matter and weighs carefully the advantages that the small man will get from it, both from the point of view of profit in breeding and amusement in attending the greyhound racing meetings, he will be able to see his way to exempt this amusement from the operations of the tax and defend his doing so on the ground that it is a harmless amusement taken in moderation and, in addition, is a valuable adjunct to a growing industry which may prove to be of great value to the smaller farmers in the agricultural community in the years to come.

Mr. Morrissey

In view of the Minister's statement I do not intend to press the amendment, but I would like to ask, can the Minister give me any information as to when he hopes to be in a position to bring in proposals to deal with this matter. Would he be in a position to bring these proposals before the House on the Report Stage, because, if not, I do not see any hope of getting them through this year.

Mr. MacEntee

I hope to be able to say something on the Report Stage in regard to them. I may possibly bring forward an amendment granting some remission. I say "possibly"—I do not go any further. It is not a simple matter. There are a number of tracks that can well afford to pay entertainment tax, but as to the smaller tracks I feel we are taking more from them than they can afford. The question is, can we relieve them without having to relieve everybody. In the present Exchequer position we cannot afford to relieve everyone. I am trying to find a way whereby certain smaller tracks will come in under a special proposal.

Mr. T. Kelly

If you relieve Clonmel it will be alright.

Mr. Morrissey

It is not Clonmel only that I am interested in. I am interested in the industry as a whole. I can assure Deputy Kelly that at the present time there are much higher prices being paid for greyhounds than for the best horses in the country and paid to comparatively poor men. I have a list here of eight dogs which I can show the Deputy——

Mr. T. Kelly

I have been at a dog race.

Mr. Morrissey

I have a list here of eight dogs sold a month ago. I am speaking, of course, for my own constituency, but I know what I am talking about. The Deputy opposite knows nothing about it, so I shall not press the matter further. I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following amendments were on the Paper:—

8. Before Section 19 to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

Section 25 of the Finance Act, 1932, shall be construed and have effect as if there were inserted before sub-section (5) thereof the following sub-section, that is to say:—

On and after the 5th day of August, 1933, entertainments duty shall not be charged or levied on any entertainment as respects which it is proved to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners that the entertainment consists solely of an exhibition of all or any of the following games or sports, that is to say:—

(a) games of handball;

(b) games of badminton;

(c) gymnastic displays not involving the use or participation of horses, dogs, or other animals or the use of mechanically-propelled vehicles;

(d) swimming contests at or in connection with which no money is awarded or paid to any of the contestants whether as prizes, remuneration or otherwise;

(e) any games or sports which are ordinarily played or contested out-of-doors by two or more persons or by two or more groups of persons and do not involve the use or participation of horses, dogs, or other animals or the use of mechanically-propelled vehicles." (James Fitzgerald-Kenney.)

9. Before Section 19 to insert a new section as follows:—

(1) In this section the expression "entertainments duty" means the excise duty referred to by that name in and chargeable under Section 1 of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, as amended by subsequent enactments, including this section.

(2) On and after the 5th August, 1933, entertainments duty shall not be charged or levied on any entertainments as respects which it is proved to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners that the entertainment is promoted by a club duly affiliated to or under the direct control of either the Irish Amateur Swimming Association, or Irish Amateur Boxing Association, or that the entertainment consists solely of an exhibition of all or any of the following games or sports, that is to say:—

(a) gymnastic displays not involving the use or participation of horses, dogs, or other animals or the use of mechanically-propelled vehicles;

(b) any games or sports which are ordinarily played by two or more persons or by two or more groups of persons and do not involve the use or participation of horses, dogs, or other animals or the use of mechanically-propelled vehicles."—(Oscar Traynor.)

10. Before Section 19 to insert a new section as follows:—

Section 25 of the Finance Act, 1932, shall be construed and have effect as if there were inserted before sub-section (5) thereof the following sub-section, that is to say:—

On and after the 5th day of August, 1933, entertainments duty shall not be charged or levied on any entertainment as respects which it is proved to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners that the entertainment consists solely of exhibitions of the following sport, that is to say:—

boxing contests held under the rules of the Irish Amateur Boxing Association or promoted by that body at or in connection with which no money is awarded or paid to any of the contestants whether as prizes, remuneration or otherwise.—(James Fitzgerald-Kenney.)

An Ceann Comhairle

These three amendments seek to exempt certain forms of sport from the entertainment tax. No. 9 covers the subject matter of Nos. 8 and 10. It includes not only the games referred to in amendment No. 8, but it also covers boxing contests in No. 10. I suggest therefore that the whole question could be discussed on amendment No. 9.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

If I might say so, and if you examine it, I think you will find, that what is covered in amendment 9 is not quite the same as what is dealt with in my two amendments, 8 and 10. It is quite true so far as amendment 8 goes, it is covered by amendment 9, except that amendment 9 is wider than amendment 8. Amendment 9 would take in such things as billiards and other games of that nature not covered by amendment 8. Amendment 8 deals with games or sports ordinarily contested out of doors. Amendment 9 does not. It is not at all so wide as amendment 10 for this reason. If you look at amendment 9 you will see that it says "Entertainments duty shall not be charged or levied on any entertainment as respects which it is proved to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners that the entertainment is promoted by a club duly affiliated to or under the direct control of either the Irish Amateur Swimming Association or the Irish Amateur Boxing Association." That is confined to entertainments promoted by clubs. But some of the most important boxing entertainments carried out are not promoted by clubs at all—for instance international boxing. It is not promoted by any club affiliated to any boxing association; its profits do not go to any club, and its losses are not borne by any club. My amendment takes in entertainments promoted by amateur boxing associations. I am sure that Deputy Traynor intended that his amendment should not be limited to any particular class of boxing entertainment. But if accepted in its present form it would be limited, and international contests which I am sure he might wish to include would not be included.

An Ceann Comhairle

I suggest the Deputy's wish might be met in this way—amendment 9 might be moved, and if the Deputy subsequently desires a separate decision on amendment 10 it will be given, but the debate on the whole matter should be on amendment 9.

Mr. Traynor

I move amendment No. 9. I am encouraged in moving this amendment by the belief that it will be unanimously accepted by the House. That, I am sure, includes even the Minister for Finance. I am also encouraged by the fact that I myself believe that the exigencies of the period, that enforce this tax, have almost passed away, and that being so, I rather feel that the Minister will not be able to put up any great case against this amendment. Boxing and swimming are possibly two of the most impoverished from the point of view of finance of all sports participated in by the people of this nation. Everyone will agree with me, when I say, that education is regarded to-day as of primary importance to every nation. Second in importance to education, and in fact inseparable from it, is the cult of athletics. If you go to any architect in any country of the world to-day, and ask him to make plans for a college or an educational institute, you could rest assured that, included in his plans, would be generous accommodation for athletics. 75 per cent. of the outdoor space would, I feel, be allocated to athletics. If education and study are to be successful there must be some relaxation,, and that is the reason why every education institute is so concerned with making provision for athletics. There must be relaxation also for the workers, and the relaxation for the workers consists in going to exhibitions of boxing and swimming. Even although they may not be able to participate in the sport themselves, still if they ever indulged either in boxing or swimming, their minds will be running as actively on the sport as those of the contestants themselves. Without sport, education and study would be far from being successful.

We all know the old type of professor, who was usually described as being hopelessly absent-minded, so absent-minded from the long hours of study into the early morning, that he sometimes forgot that there was such a place as bed. We all know the old story of the professor who went up to his bedroom, put his clothes into the bed and hung himself up on the nail. That is something that might possibly happen were there no relaxation through the medium of participation in some form of sport, or even acting as a spectator who shouts his side to victory. Any young man who participates in boxing has to take part in practically every form of athletics. He has to take up running, both on the flat and across country, swimming, cycling, and almost every imaginable form of athletics. As a result of that, the body beautiful is produced. Unfortunately there are not as many of these in our country as we would like to see. But generous participation in athletics will always make for that. For that reason alone I ask the Minister to consider this amendment sympathetically.

Swimming is one of the most impoverished sports that we have in Ireland. Swimming in Ireland is fifty years behind the times. In the capital of the Free State you have one public swimming bath that was constructed fifty years ago and which has been only very slightly improved since. There is one other swimming bath that is no more modern in construction or architecture than the one I have mentioned. Nothing has been done to facilitate the young men in becoming any more proficient in swimming than those of 50 years ago. I can give an example of that. Almost 30 years ago our swimmers were in the forefront in that pastime. One of them, a brother of Deputy Dockrell, who is in the House at present and who is a great authority on swimming, and will I hope support this amendment, competed at an international sports in Paris and won a race in competition against the cream of the world's swimmers. I believe that was because at that period the facilities here were as good as the facilities afforded in other countries. While we have stood still, however, the other nations have advanced, and unfortunately our swimmers, while they have endeavoured to surmount the terrific odds they have to contend with, have not got anywhere near the time of the swimmers of other nations. That, I suggest, is due to the fact that we are not progressive enough. If this particular tax were persisted in, it would almost remove any hope that we shall ever advance beyond the stage in which we are at present.

To come back to boxing for a moment, many young men in Dublin would participate in boxing if they had the opportunity, after they had gone through their training, of appearing in competitions and competitive fights in public. That is something that they all look forward to. To run an entertainment from which money would be expected, and from which a tax would also have to be paid, would be a hopeless undertaking for any small club. The result is that boxing, as far as the smaller clubs in this city are concerned, has very nearly ceased. Young men who have had the opportunity of training and becoming skilful boxers have made a world-wide name for the Free State in athletics. I suggest that in that respect they have done as much as, and possibly more than, our politicians in securing world-wide recognition for this country. Boxing teaches self-control and develops will-power, and because of that I wish the Ceann Comhairle would suggest having a gymnasium here in which Deputies might learn self-control and develop will-power, etc., which would be an advantage from the point of view of the Ceann Comhairle.

Originally the date I had in this amendment was 30th June. I was requested, however, in conjunction with other Deputies who have put down amendments to this Bill, to bring it forward to 5th August. I suggest to the Minister that he might restore my original date of 30th June, if he is giving the sympathetic consideration that I feel sure he will to this amendment, because the 5th of August to Swimming clubs would be of very little value. The season will be coming to a close and whatever might be secured could not be secured by that particular date. The Minister would lose very little as a result of the change and the clubs would gain considerably, because it would mean that at least they would not be forced still further into debt. I move my amendment with great hope that it will be considered favourably.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I agree with everything that has been said in the well-reasoned speech of Deputy Traynor. I should like just to say in passing that, if the Deputy's views are accepted and there is going to be a gymnasium here in which we are going to spar, I should be allowed to choose my sparring partner, and I think I would take the Minister for Local Government in preference to Deputy Traynor.

To get back to this amendment, I will first deal with my support of amendment 10 because I think amendment 10 is an amendment which will commend itself to the House. I put down amendment 10 separately for that reason because it does appear to me that there is a stronger case for the sport affected by amendment No. 10 than there really is for any other class of sport. As Deputy Traynor has remarked, Irish amateur boxing at the present moment stands very high. In the last few years we have done very well at the Olympic Games. That is the position if we take the Irish Amateur Boxing Association or the championships which were decided before the Olympic Games. As showing the high-water mark reached in boxing in the last few years we find that the Irish heavy-weights won twice and the cruiser boxers won on one occasion. That shows that Irish amateur boxing is at a very high peak.

There was one remarkable thing the other day when the Italian team came over. The Italian team is looked upon as the strongest boxing team. That team met, not only one Irish but three Irish teams. It met a team in Dublin and was beaten by that Dublin team. The Italian team went down to Ballyhaunis and there they met a second Irish team not containing a single man who was on the first team. There the Italians won by a narrow margin of one. Then the Italian team went to Cork and in Cork they met a third Irish team which contained not a single man who had appeared in any one of the other contests, and the Italians were beaten in Cork. That shows that at the present moment not only is Irish boxing in an extremely good way, but that it is not a matter of our having one outstanding man in one particular class. We have men in practically every class who are so close, one to another, that it is very difficult to say who is best. I might mention too that it was very remarkable that the heavy-weight champion from Italy, who bore the famous historical name of Medici, was knocked down by the runner-up in our heavy-weight championship. That runner-up was a young Gárda who comes from Sligo, and he is obviously not yet at his best.

Irish boxing is in a very happy position at the present moment except in one single respect. It is in a most unhappy position financially. I have got some figures here which I am sure the Minister has already received. They deal with the visit of this last Italian team. The Irish Boxing Association was a sum of £177 to the bad on that contest, and of that £177 a sum of £83 is because of the tax. In other words, the loss would be only half of what it is if they had not paid the tax. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to another matter —open air tournaments. International open air tournaments can only be held in the summer time. All that the hire of Dalymount Park came to was £35. Until this tax was imposed the I.A.B.A. was able to get during the winter time German and other teams, and they were able to take, as they did on two occasions, the Theatre Royal for these teams. Of course, the expenditure on the taking of the Theatre Royal is very heavy and it was impossible for them to attempt any international test last year because the international test would be out-of-doors.

It is a good thing for sports to have an international test, a very excellent thing. It gives men something to aim at and something to work at. If a man is going to compete on behalf of his country for anything, he trains hard and puts more interest into it than he will do when he is just going to be top dog in this country. That would be specially true if you had one man who was outstanding and had no one to compete with here. I would like to give the Minister just one other figure. The I.A.B.A. had to its credit before the Italian tournament a sum of £173. Now the entire of its credit balance has been completely wiped out. They say it is impossible for them unless they get this tax off to go on as they have been going. That is the communication which I received from the I.A.B.A. I am sure the Minister and other Deputies here have received a copy of the same letter. In that letter they say: "We unfortunately need this money and unless we get it we must go out of existence." That is not anything in the way of a formula at all. It is quite obvious from the figures that they cannot carry on. I would like to point out to the Minister that boxing in this country has been going ahead and going ahead in the most astounding way. Any number of new clubs have been affiliated, not only in Dublin but all round the country. I mentioned that there was a boxing club in Ballyhaunis. Two years ago there was none there. Now they have a very successful club, one that is able to enter into the boxing championships. That is very creditable. There are similar clubs in some of the smaller towns. I am not talking now of places like Cork. I will take an ordinary town like Ballina, which I happen to know, and Clonmel, where they have got most excellent boxing clubs. In Tubbercurry, in Sligo, there is an excellent boxing club. It is an expensive thing to carry on boxing clubs. Boxing gloves have to be bought and there are other considerable expenses as well. Boxing is not a thing that a man learns by nature. He must have instructors and these instructors have to be paid. There are now two boxing instructors in Ireland.

The progress that boxing has made in the last four years is shown by the fact that the number of active boxers has increased from 300 to 3,500. It is, therefore, a sport which is increasing in this country. It is suited to the country and it is a sport in which this country shows very great proficiency. It is now in danger of being put back by this tax, if not of being practically extinguished. I do not say that the I.A.B.A. cannot carry on because of the tax. I do not say that boxing will cease, because the universities will still be able to pay instructors. Boxing will also be carried on by the Army and Gárda, but as a national sport boxing will be destroyed. I would urge the Minister very strongly to take a sympathetic view of this and wipe out the tax. I do not know the amount the revenue derives from it. Neither does the Minister, because I asked the other day and he was not in a position to tell me. But I am quite certain that it cannot be a very substantial sum. As far as revenue is concerned, it must be a mere flea-bite. I would like to point out to the Minister that these taxes on boxing and swimming are really anomalous and unjust at the same time, because there is no tax on ordinary field athletics. There is no tax on running, weight-putting and things of that nature, and it is an anomaly to have a tax on sports such as boxing and swimming, which are very closely akin to ordinary athletics.

I think the Minister would be more logical in his Budget if he relieved the tax on these two particular forms of sport. I think if he did he would be satisfied that he had done a good day's work for building up boxing in the country. It is a great thing in a country to have a sport like this in the winter time. It is a great thing to have the young men trained to boxing and trained to take an interest in it. On its positive side, if I might say so, it is not only developing them physically but also, on its negative side, it is keeping them from association with undesirable persons. I might point out to the Minister that the success of two of the clubs I have mentioned is due to the patronage and activities of priests. In Ballyhaunis, for instance, it is very largely due to a priest there who takes a tremendous interest in athletics and it is just the same in Tubbercurry where the parish priest takes a tremendous interest in athletics. Both these priests value boxing very highly as not merely a physical developer and, as Deputy Traynor has put it, a character developer, but also they value it as keeping the young men out of mischief and getting them to take a healthy outlook upon life.

I dealt with this at greater length, possibly, than I meant to, but it is hard to remain concise upon such a subject. The remainder of my amendment deals with all outdoor sports and games. Again, I do not know what the loss to the revenue would be. Assuming that the cost would be even the same as last year it might be serious as far as some games are concerned. It might be serious I admit, but I do not know and I assume the Minister will tell us. About these outdoor games, however, there are some things I should like to say. Taxation or the entertainment tax most undoubtedly tends to keep them back. I know that one particular game of football is not taxed at the present moment while other games of football are taxed. It is quite probable that somebody may get up and say to me that it is the home game that is exempt from tax and that they are foreign games which are being taxed. As a matter of fact, no matter what their origin may be, they are all games which are being played in this country. I do not think myself—I know it is a matter upon which people who are interested in Gaelic football are divided in their opinions—but I do not think myself that Gaelic football would suffer in the slightest degree if the other games were exempt from taxation and put upon an equal footing with it. Gaelic football, after all, has now been established very well. It is on a firm footing and is perfectly fit to stand up on its own legs without any extraneous assistance of any kind. It is a game which is peculiarly suited to a great number of persons in this country. It is more suited than any other game, because Gaelic football is largely a game of long kicking and, in consequence, the man playing it is not under the same necessity of being in a very high class of training, such as the person who plays the other two games. A great number of the people who play Gaelic football are shop assistants and clerks and people of that kind who are not in a position to train. Therefore, I think that Gaelic football is a game admirably suited to this country and a game which is founded perfectly solidly and which is perfectly sure of its ground.

On this question of foreign games, I think that calling a game foreign as an abusive epithet is rather a mistake. For instance, take the case of Rugby football, which is one of the most popular games in England, but, so far as England is concerned, it is a foreign game. If any Deputy is interested in the history of Rugby football he will find it very completely recounted in an article which appeared in the Cornhill Magazine some years ago. Briefly, the history is that in the County Tipperary there used to be a football game in which one parish played against another parish and the ball was brought to its destination by using any method the players liked—either by kicking it or boxing it with their hands or catching it and running with it. A boy who had played this game in Tipperary was afterwards sent to Rugby College, and while being educated there he went out to play the ordinary game of football, which was, I think, something on the lines of Association football—that it is a foul if the ball touches your hand and so on—but this boy became intensely excited and, forgetting that he was in Warwickshire and not in Tipperary, he caught up the ball and ran away with it as hard as he could. That gave the players and the authorities of Rugby School a different idea, and so the game now known as Rugby was founded. The old principle that you could either kick the ball or run with the ball was introduced by this boy from Tipperary to English football for the first time.

Therefore, Rugby is a foreign game so far as England is concerned, but nobody in England starts up to declare that it is wrong to play it because it is foreign. Take the case of Association football. That has become a world-wide game. You see it played practically in every country in Europe. Austria and Spain, I think, are the principal Continental countries in which it is most vigorously played. In fact, I see now that it has become so popular in Spain that the bull fight has practically ceased to exist, and the place formerly occupied by the toreador in popular estimation is now occupied by the centre forward who is particularly skilled in placing goals. They do not think that they are any the worse Spaniards because it is a foreign game. I would suggest to the Minister that it would be a very good thing if there was no discrimination by the Government as far as games are concerned. Let anybody play any game he or she likes. It certainly will not hurt Gaelic football. As a matter of fact, I think that, apart from the amendment before the House—I may be out of order in making this remark possibly—I think that if the ban were taken off altogether Gaelic football would improve. However, I will stop before I am out of order.

The other games referred to are smaller games. Handball is a good and popular game, and I think that the receipts to the Exchequer would be very small. I think that gymnastic displays are much the same. I will return, however, to where I began, and impress on the Minister that boxing has really the highest claim of all, though I do not say that, if the tax is taken off, it will be in a flourishing condition. It will not. It has a frightful battle in front of it, but it has absolutely no hope of victory if this clause remains.

Mr. Minch

It is a very pleasant thing indeed to see both sides of the House more or less united in sport and anything which will help the conditions and the different forms of games, such as exempting them from taxation, will meet undoubtedly with the sympathy of all. I can quite appreciate the fact that the Minister for Finance is very hard put to it to find every source from which to balance his Budget, and although he may be quite sympathetic to the views expressed here, he may not be able to give those concessions. Deputy Oscar Traynor made a very good appeal, backed up on a larger and wider scale by Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney. There is no doubt whatever that boxing in this country, unless it is put into a financial state in which it can carry on, will ultimately fall back. We are lucky at the present moment in having associated with amateur boxing keen enthusiasts, both inside and outside the ring. I remember comparatively recent times when Irish amateur boxers were known as horizontal champions. At any time when they were brought into the few international contests there were then, they got nowhere at all, due to the fact that their training was haphazard and encouragement was lacking. In other countries, particularly in America, boxing has risen to the top, because it had an opportunity, and because it had gymnasiums, and expert help and advice. Sport is the greatest ambassador in the world. Everybody knows that. Where a country can show fine men, men who can meet the best in the world, whether it is on the track or in the ring, or whether it is in the swimming pool, that country's flag goes up. I think Deputy Traynor was right when he stated that they can do more for a country than politics. He referred to the impoverished state of Irish swimming, and he referred to Deputy Dockrell's brother—G.S. Dockrell. I can prove, even by my memory of figures, the impoverished state of swimming, both from the point of view of time made in respect of races, as well as financially, to bear out his contention. G.S. Dockrell did the 100 yards in 30 seconds; G.S. Daniels did it in 55 seconds; Zoltan De Halmay, of Hungary, did it in 58 seconds. The best now in which they could do it in Ireland is 62½ seconds, whereas in America they are doing it in 53 seconds. Why? Simply and solely because we have not got the financial push and backing. If clubs have not got the financial resources the sport suffers. We have only one swimming bath here, Blackrock. The rest are only swimming pools.

Mr. Dillon

What about Clontarf?

Mr. Minch

It is not big enough for racing. I have been in Clontarf and swam there myself, and I know it. I do not wish to delay the House any further. I think that Irish amateur boxing at the present moment is lucky in its enthusiasts, but that the financial position, being bad, will have bad effects later on. Hence it is that good material is subject to professional attraction. They have not got the facilities around them, and therefore if they are making headway at all they leave this country and go elsewhere. We are proud of the achievements, despite hard conditions and hard times, of our athletes. Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney also brought in Rugby football in his amendment. I need hardly say that all games and sport should be placed together, in justice and fairness, as a national asset. Rugby, a game which I played myself too, has a wonderful attraction for the fighting spirit of Irishmen. It has become an international game all over the world. The American game is something similar to Rugby. It is played in France, Germany, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand. I would ask the Minister to give serious attention to anything in the form of an amendment that will help on our games and help on our manhood. Let those different clubs that exist, the different forms of sport and games, be able to get into a position in which they will have money and reserves on which they can help the nation through sport. I am quite sure that the House is unanimous in asking the Minister to do the best he can in this matter.

Mr. Dockrell

In rising to make a few remarks in support of Deputy Traynor's motion I should like to consider the question of a tax on athletics in its very broadest sense. We heard here all about Irish industries. There could not be any industry more profitably developed in Ireland than the physical well-being of the boys and girls and men and women of the country. In ancient Greece the Greeks had an idea that a healthy mind could only flourish in a healthy body, and they proceeded along the lines that physical development and athletic exercise were really part of the education of the country. I am afraid we have not got as far as that idea here in Ireland. In fact, I do not know if the Government would understand what we are driving at, but there is no doubt that in other countries they are advancing along the lines of the physical development of the whole country. In Scandinavian countries, and I am not sure that it is not in Germany and some of the other countries as well, it is part of the school curriculum that they are brought from the schools and given instruction in swimming. Nobody would suggest that the Government could put that in at the moment here, because I do not know where they would bring them to swim. At the same time there is no reason why they should not aim at that goal, and have that achievement in their minds. I am afraid that some of the present taxes on entertainments are really tending in the opposite direction. I have spoken of the physical development of the whole country in the schools. That is one end of the question of athletics that is not being dealt with at the moment. Possibly, even, it might be considered that it is out of order on this amendment, but I should like to turn the attention of this House to the manner in which excellence in athletics is to be brought about. It has to be brought about by many things. First of all, you must have proper instruction. In order that people should be profitably instructed, they may either have professional teachers or they can have sports promoted such as Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney referred to when he mentioned bringing over the Italian boxing team to Dublin. The Deputy did not develop an aspect that any of the people who participated in those sports would probably tell you about. No person participates in an international contest or sees an international contest without learning something. I am proud to say that our teams were victorious. I venture to suggest that if you went to the victorious team in Dublin, or even the beaten team in Ballyhaunis, they would tell you they had learned something.

I will speak about swimming, because that is the sport about which I probably know most. I do not wish my remarks to be taken in any narrow sense, because they may apply to certain of the poorer forms of sport to which Deputy Traynor referred. The Minister may shelter behind what the revenue is going to lose. I am leaving out of the question what the physical well-being of the country might benefit by it, and I will discuss the matter purely from the aspect of pounds, shillings and pence. I was connected with a body interested in promoting galas. Before this tax was imposed we had been in the habit of bringing over a couple of foreign teams and we were accustomed to sending from Ireland to other countries sometimes male and sometimes female teams to participate in functions abroad. What happened? There were certain teams due to come here. There were no hard and fast fixtures arranged, but we were negotiating with a view to having those teams here and Irish teams were arranging to go away. When the entertainment tax was imposed the promoters felt there would not be sufficient money to pay the expenses of these contests. Accordingly, teams due to go on tour were told pretty shortly that they could not be sent. Visiting teams had to be choked off more courteously and they were informed that, owing to the state of affairs in this country, it would not be possible to entertain them. I do not know what they thought of that, but certainly it was not good for athletics or for the tourist development in this country.

Facts are brutal things and they have to be faced. That was what happened in swimming circles. I am perfectly certain you could go around to minor boxing entertainments and various other entertainments all over the country and you would find that teams that used to be brought here had to be stopped. Similarly, Irish teams that used to go abroad had also to be stopped. They have not been sent out since this tax was imposed. I will indicate for the Minister the position of a club that at the present moment is promoting a gala. If they get a very fine day, an extra attraction, and there happens to be no competing athletic function, probably a profit could be made on the attendance at, say, Blackrock baths. But if it rains, or if there are competing sports, or the visiting team or individual does not happen to be the draw that was anticipated, a very substantial loss may be entailed. That sort of prospect has resulted in certain functions having to be abandoned.

In the case of swimming, the Irish provinces are represented at a meeting and certain championships are allocated to various areas. It is an extraordinary thing that some of the championships that are allotted to Leinster, instead of being promoted in the form of a gala, have been merely put down for decision at ordinary races in Blackrock baths. Ordinary bathers have been interfered with for a few minutes until the swimming races are complete and the cost of the medals for the winners has been borne by the local branch.

I have dealt at considerable length with this question in order to show the Minister that such functions are not being promoted now. The function Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney spoke of took the form of an international entertainment and it should have been an enormous draw. It really resulted in a financial loss. That shows how wise these people are in abandoning the smaller athletic functions. I am sure Deputies are aware of the attraction that lies in bringing over the best types of athletes from other countries in order to show our people what can be done. Certain speakers have deplored the fact that swimming has become less popular. There is a reason for that. For the last 50 years there has been a continuous improvement in the style of swimming. The aim is to arrive at the shortest, easiest and quickest method of swimming. Ireland has fallen lamentably behind in the race because we are not able to send people out to observe the latest improvements in swimming and we are unable to bring people from other countries, noted swimmers, to show the natives here the progress that has been made.

Lest anyone should despair I would like to mention just one fact. The present diving champion of Ireland also holds the English championship. That shows we need not despair, and if swimming is undergoing a temporary eclipse, if the Minister can see his way to at least remove some of the handicaps we are labouring under it certainly will be a benefit to that form of sport and to others. Deputy Minch referred to the question of baths. I am not going into that question, because it is a very big question, and I think it would be rather out of order in our present debate. But I would make an appeal to the Minister, and I would point out to him that he is not losing revenue if he does not get it. If you are not getting revenue, not having taxed certain things, the Exchequer has nothing to lose. Certainly athletic development in this country is the poorer by the continuance of these entertainment taxes.

Mr. MacEntee

I am afraid I must begin my speech with the usual unpopular pronouncement that the exigencies of the revenue do not permit me to accept, in full, the principles embodied in amendments 8, 9, and 10. We do secure, notwithstanding what has been said a considerable amount of money—over £15,000 in one year—from the imposition of entertainments taxes upon certain outdoor functions. At the same time I realise, and it has been brought very forcibly to my notice in the past couple of months, that there are certain forms of athletics which have been much more heavily hit than others by the amusement tax. Boxing is one; swimming is another, and there may be one or two more, but both of these have undoubtedly been heavily hit. I frankly admit that I feel that if we were to continue the imposition of the tax upon the function of boxing and swimming, we should be in danger, not of killing the sport, but of probably destroying the organisation that controls the sport. And from that point of view I am prepared to meet, to some extent, the wishes of those who made themselves responsible for these amendments. I could not give the widespread remission asked for, but I am prepared in connection with entertainments in the nature of amateur boxing and swimming and possibly lawn tennis, carried out by recognised associations, to consider them, and, if it can be done, to bring up, on the Report Stage, an amendment that would meet the position of these particular games. I cannot go further this year. It is my hope that we shall be able in better times, to extend the remission further, but, in that connection, I would very much like to make it clear so far as I am concerned, and so far as the Government is concerned, that these duties are not imposed because of a desire to penalise any particular game. I recognise the full force of the argument as to the danger of killing games promoted by Irish athletes, and which are Irish games. But there is this fact; they are entertainments as well as games. They are not merely games for those who participate in them; they are entertainments also for those who look on and find amusement in them. A tax on entertainments has been a long, and well recognised, source of revenue to the State and must continue to be so. So long as there is an appreciable amount of money to be got from this source, and the Exchequer knows that, we are perfectly justified in seeking it. On the other hand we would not be justified in carrying that principle to the extent of disorganising the games or of disorganising sport. I feel there are certain forms of sport that are in danger of disorganisation, not suppression or extinction, because of the tax, and in these cases I am prepared to see whether I cannot exempt them altogether.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Having regard to what the Minister has said, I ask the permission of the Committee to withdraw my amendments.

Mr. Traynor

I also am prepared to withdraw my amendment and ask leave to do so.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Amendments 8, 9 and 10, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 19 agreed to and added to the Bill.

Sections 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 agreed to.

Question proposed: "That Section 28 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

What is the meaning of Section 28? It seems to me to be an example of legislation by reference.

Mr. MacEntee

It proposes to amend certain duties introduced last year. They were introduced merely at the request of the Minister for Industry and Commerce as the result of experience of the working of these duties. They are virtually in force as a result of resolutions passed by the Dáil.

Mr. Dillon

Are they set out in the Schedule and as part of this Bill?

Mr. MacEntee

They are in the 5th Schedule.

Mr. Dillon

I find that Item No. 9 in the 5th Schedule in paragraph 4 deals with "shaped parts of uppers." Indeed the obscurity is not limited to the section. Section 9 sub-section (3) talks about deleting the figure 2/- and inserting in lieu thereof the figures 1/3. We may contend we know all about that but in fact we do not. I do not believe there is a single Deputy in the House understands it. Greatly daring, I suggest that the Minister for Finance does not know what it refers to.

Mr. MacEntee

I shall in a moment if the Deputy will be patient.

Mr. Dillon

I am quite prepared, if it conveniences the Minister, to defer inquiry on this to the Report Stage.

Mr. MacEntee

I shall be ready in a moment if the Deputy wishes. We are dealing now with umbrellas.

Mr. Dillon

The question arises under similar heads in Sections 29, 30, and other sections, and I propose to postpone any further inquiry until the Report Stage.

Sections 28, 29, 30 and 31, put and agreed to.

SECTION 32.

Where any doubt, question, or dispute arises as to the category or class of dutiable articles into which any particular dutiable article falls, or as to whether a particular article falls within a category or class of dutiable articles or a category or class of non-dutiable articles, or as to whether a particular articleprima facie dutiable does or does not fall within a category or class of exempted articles, the Revenue Commissioners shall allocate such articles to that category or class of dutiable, non-dutiable, or exempted articles into which such article in their opinion properly falls and duty shall (as the case may require) be charged or not be charged on such article accordingly.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment 11:—

In line 2, to delete the word "class" and substitute the words "several categories or class or several classes" and, in line 7, to delete the words "articles to that category or class of dutiable" and substitute the words and brackets "article to (as the case may be) the category or several categories or class or several classes of dutiable articles or the category or class of."

This is an amendment to this section, the purpose of which is to enable the Revenue Commissioners to grant relief when, on account of overlapping of enactments, an article is unintentionally liable to two duties. As drafted, however, the section would go further, and would prevent the Revenue Commissioners, in many cases, from charging two duties on any one article, even when it was clearly the intention of the legislature that both duties should be charged, or at any rate, put a considerable doubt on the right of having both duties charged. The section, as amended, will afford power to the Revenue Commissioners to achieve the object which it was originally intended to accomplish.

I do not know whether the House would like to know the particular cases we have in mind. Supposing a duty were imposed by Emergency Order it might possibly be held, if the section, as it stands, were not amended in accordance with the terms of the amendment before the House, that we had no power to impose the emergency duty, or that merely the emergency duty, and not the original duty, should be borne by the article. It is not the intention of the Government that that position should prevail. Similarly, articles upon which a specific duty was already charged might be imported as parts of articles upon which a specific duty was already charged because they were manufactured in this country and could be bought as separate components and imported as parts of another article upon the total value of which an ad valorem duty at a lower rate than the specific duty on the component might be charged. It is not the intention of the Executive Council to permit these articles, which would be chargeable at the specific rate if they were imported as separate articles, to be brought in as the component of an article and chargeable at a lower rate of duty, because the rate of duty upon the composite article might be lower than the rate of duty upon the component part. The purpose of this amendment is to secure that the Revenue Commissioners, in cases of that sort, will have power to allocate the article to the two categories.

Mr. Dockrell

The Minister's statement is very refreshing. At the same time, it does not bring one very far, because, apparently, it gives the Commissioners power to decide. The Minister has not given us any guide which would tell us along what lines their decision is to proceed. Does this mean that we will not be able any more to debate in this House whether certain articles should be dutiable or not; that we would be referred to the Revenue Commissioners and told that their decision is final? Naturally the Revenue Commissioners have their own ideas about certain things. At the same time, to people connected with the trade, some of the decisions seem very absurd. The Minister mentioned that an article may be dutiable under one class and also dutiable under, say, an emergency duty. I wonder if he could be a little more specific and tell us if that is one of the articles about which I have been endeavouring for a long time to get a reply, namely, the cast-iron gutter. That comes in here as a gutter, and there is no doubt that it is a gutter and that it is cast iron. Then there is an article known as a channel, that is, a rolled steel channel. Some individual has looked up what a channel is, and discovered that it was for carrying off water. The Commissioners then said that a gutter is a channel and a channel is a gutter. I drew the Minister's attention also to the question of a mangle, the component parts of which, the rollers, would be dutiable as furniture. Some individual then said it was a machine, and, therefore, the iron was subject to machinery duty. If that is the sort of thing that is going to be covered by this section, and all discussion and redress is going to be shut out, I certainly think that the section is going much further than the Minister has stated in giving an explanation of the official amendment. I do not think anybody finds fault with a duty that is clearly imposed by this House, but there are certain border line cases, and there is nothing so important as that people in commerce should know where they are and that they should know there is not a continuous and progressive increase in the articles liable to duty, particularly in the case of certain articles on which duties have been imposed. I certainly am nervous, and I hope the Minister will be able to allay my fears, that under this Section 32 it will not be competent hereafter to raise a question such as that of which I have given instances. I do not wish to weary the Minister by keeping him for the rest of the evening going into other instances. I merely mention this as more or less the line on which I would like a definition as to what, in the Minister's mind, is underlying the idea in this section. Is it going to prevent all discussion in the future as to what the interpretation of certain taxes means?

Professor Alton

There is just one point in connection with this section to which I would like to draw the Minister's attention. It is with reference to the duty which was imposed last year in the tax upon any leather or imitation leather. I would like to direct the Minister's attention to the rather loose way in which imitation leather is interpreted by the Revenue Commissioners. At least its interpretation seems to me absurdly in their favour. The taxes they now claim upon any imitation leather are taxes upon any books bound in boards or cloth and they are charging an absurd duty on rare and essential books bound in imitation leather. I will bring a specific case up before the Minister if he thinks it would be more convenient. I thought this was a good opportunity of raising the subject.

Mr. MacEntee

If the Deputy would be good enough to give me particulars of the cases I will have them taken up with the Revenue Commissioners. At the same time I would like to make this clear, that the general intention—and I think it was quite clearly indicated to the Dáil in the original proposal before the House— was that this duty would be strictly administered. It is strictly administered. I do not know in regard to these articles to what degree the books referred to by the Deputy resemble leather or that the Revenue Commissioners hold they resemble leather. I do not know to what degree, if there is no imitation of leather in appearance, they might be held to be liable. However, if the Deputy would be good enough to give me specific instances I will bring them to the notice of the Revenue Commissioners and consult with the Minister for Industry and Commerce as to whether it was his idea that these should be subject to duty.

With regard to the general purpose of the clause, I have to say that the clause is designed as relief for the importer. As the matter stands at present, even where it was not the clear intention of the Legislature to do so, the Revenue Commissioners may have to charge a duty on articles under more than one category. In consequence, a much higher duty than originally indicated would have to be paid by merchants or a considerable amount of time would be wasted, either the merchant's time on the one hand or the time of the Revenue Commissioners on the other hand, in determining exactly to what category the article belonged. This section would give the Revenue Commissioners an opportunity of placing the article definitely in one category or another and be able to say clearly to the importer: "This is the duty which you are to pay." It does not mean that a person who imports an article or pays the duty cannot raise the question again. He can take up the matter with the Revenue Commissioners or with me, and if he does not get satisfaction from either of us, he can raise the matter here. If there is any doubt on the matter, as to any particular point which would seem to occasion hardship, possibly it can be amicably settled here.

The general purpose of this section is to grant relief to the importer, to facilitate the clearance of goods and to convenience the importer as much as possible, at the same time paying due regard to the requirements of the Revenue. I have here some instances of what I have in mind. For instance, as the law stands at present, an article might be liable under two headings. Take a cast-iron wheel. Under the Finance Act of 1932 it would be liable under the heading of agricultural machinery and chargeable under another heading under the No. 2 Finance Act of 1932. It might be chargeable under both. The intention now is that in future and henceforth it will be definitely allocated to one category, so that it will be chargeable only to one duty. The same holds good in the case of the cast-iron pillar and the brass name-plate which at present would be chargeable under two Acts. Then there is the duty on brushes. This would at present depend entirely on the nature and the type of brush. It might be chargeable under two heads. Laundering boards and clubs would be charged as wood manufacture under the Finance Act No. 4 of 1932 and again under the Act of 1925. There are a number of anomalies which this section is designed to remove. It gives the Revenue Commissioners power to relieve them.

Mr. Dillon

Surely we are now embarking on an entirely new departure. I yield to no man in my admiration for the Revenue Commissioners and their staff. My experience of both is that they are highly efficient and an extremely courteous and considerate body when you go to meet them. In so far as they can possibly help it, they will expedite your business and they spare no trouble to do so. But much as we may admire them for the way in which they discharge their functions it is scarcely desirable that we should set them up as a kind of second Dáil Eireann to make law. That is what we are doing here. I quite agree that it is very unfortunate that the tariff schedules should be drawn in such a loose way as to make one article liable to several different tariffs. But then that is not the way we ought to draw tariff schedules. If anomalies of that kind are there it seems to me that the proper way to manage is to introduce amending legislation as has been done at other times. There have been some schedules already amended and there are some schedules in this amending Finance Act. Bringing in legislation amending previous legislation of this kind is a laborious way of doing the job, but at the same time it is clear that we are in this Bill giving the Revenue Commissioners power that I certainly never heard of their having previously.

Mr. MacEntee

They did not have it heretofore.

Mr. Dillon

Was there such power anywhere else?

Mr. MacEntee

I am not prepared to say there was.

Mr. Dillon

This section gives them power, and it never occurred to me before that they should have power to settle a matter of this kind. If difficulties of the kind the Minister has referred to arise, it is much more desirable that the Revenue Commissioners should place the dilemma before the Minister and ask him to come to Dáil Eireann and have the difficulty cleared up. Of course, that is cumbersome, but it is the only correct way. The position brought about here now as referred to by the Minister is one of the faults of the reckless imposition of tariffs. It is not the fault of the Parliamentary system. If you are going to go in for an ill-considered precipate policy you are going to come up against these difficulties and you are not going to mend it by setting up another Parliament.

The Minister says, in effect, to the Commissioners: "We will put them all in blocks and leave it to you to sort them out and tell the people what to do." From time to time we tell the Revenue Commissioners that we find we are doing something that we had not intended to do, but we say, in effect: "It does not matter; you can straighten it out and whatever comes out in the washing will do." But it is whatever the Commissioners think we ought to have done that matters. If we considered these tariff proposals with the same degree of care that the Revenue Commissioners give to their consideration afterwards a great many of these ill-considered tariffs would never have been imposed. In order to make it easier to go on in our mad career of clapping on tariffs we "pass the buck" to the Revenue Commissioners and say to them "here is a tangled mass; please disentangle it and whatever comes out it will do." It is the Minister's duty to examine these and then to be prepared to stand over them. I have told him, and other Deputies have told him, again and again, that the tariff proposals were half-baked and not properly considered and he had not the proper information when he came into the House.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce, whose good spirits please us so much, simply tossed his head on one of these occasions and said "Nonsense. Deputy Dillon thinks he knows everything." One thing is certain, at any rate, and that is that the Minister for Industry and Commerce himself does not know much about the Bills he brings in here because he has reduced the whole thing to such a state of chaos that he is obliged to say that the Revenue Commissioners know their business but that he does not.

Mr. MacEntee

It is very amusing to listen to Deputy Dillon but what he says does not happen to be correct. We are not giving the Revenue Commissioners power to impose additional taxation or to make new laws. We are merely giving them the power, when an article is brought before them, such as a cast iron pillar, to determine for themselves whether it is a gate post and to be taxed, as such, under Ref. No. 20 of the First Schedule of the Finance Act of 1932 or whether it comes under the heading of fencing material and, as such, to be taxable under the Financial Resolutions of the 10th May, 1933.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Minister at this moment know what it was that Dáil Eireann intended to do?

Mr. MacEntee

Certainly—to put a tax on gate posts and also on fencing material.

Mr. Dillon

Other than gate posts?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes. A cast iron pillar is produced and the question that the Revenue Commissioners have to decide is whether it is a gate post and taxable as such under the Act of 1932 or whether it is part of fencing material and taxable as such under the Resolutions of 1933. The same would apply in the case of a brush with wire bristles. The Revenue Commissioners would have to determine whether it is fundamentally a manufacture of iron or whether it is a brush and they would have to determine whether it was taxable as a brush or in the other category.

Mr. Dillon

Suppose it is fundamentally both?

Mr. MacEntee

It cannot be. I am not going to put myself in the position of the Revenue Commissioners and settle it for myself but, if it is a brush with wire bristles, I would say that its essential character is that of a brush and I would not tax it as wire but as a brush or broom.

Mr. Dillon

Cannot they do that now?

Mr. MacEntee

No, they cannot. The purpose is to give them power, not to make new laws, but to determine what class or category an article belongs to. The Dáil itself has never claimed that power. If a dispute arises the ultimate tribunal would be the courts and not the Dáil and no form of words in the wit of man could entirely shut out or exclude from one category or another an article which might appear to have dual properties or dual characteristics. The sole purpose of this is to say that "In our judgment as Revenue Commissioners, charged with the revenue, we think this article comes under one category and is to be charged accordingly." If the person is aggrieved he can go to the Revenue Commissioners and take the matter up formally with them or he can come to the Minister responsible for the Revenue or to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, if it is a protective duty, and argue there whether this is an article which belongs to some other category than that in which the Revenue Commissioners have placed it. If it appears, in the opinion of the responsible Minister, that his contention is right, and that, on the other hand, the law as it stands precludes him from taking it out of that category he can come here and have the law amended and take the article specifically out of the category in which it has been placed. The main purpose is to give power to the Revenue Commissioners to allocate a particular article to one particular category or another.

Professor O'Sullivan

I quite understand the Minister's difficulty and I think that anybody with experience of cataloguing will understand the difficulty also of determining in what category to place any particular article. It might be impossible or at least extremely difficult to decide definitely by detailed legislation beforehand whether or not an article belongs to one category or another. Apart from this, however, there are many things in the Minister's reply which have left me in some doubt. I think he amended portion of the answer he gave, and I think he said: "I am informed that as the law stands at present the article, as dutiable under two heads, must be charged." Apparently power is being given now to the Revenue Commissioners to charge it only under one.

Mr. MacEntee

They feel constrained, as the law stands at present, to charge it. I should put it this way, that they feel constrained to charge it under every possible head so that, irrespective of whether that was the intention of the Legislature or not, duties would be cumulative. The Legislature might have intended that they should be cumulative, in which case it would be all right; but if that was not the intention of the Legislature, it would be wrong. As the law is at present, they feel constrained to charge an article under every head.

Professor O'Sullivan

That is quite clear. I simply take the two cases. There might be cases where it would be catalogued under three or four heads and that would apply also. However, does not the Minister see the particular case that the Revenue Commissioners are given the power to tax or not to tax? The Minister also said that power is being given to the Revenue Commissioners of allocating the article to one category or another, but in reality are they not acting as an official court of appeal? In other words, the Minister is giving judicial functions to the Revenue Commissioners in this matter, and I doubt if he can do that under this particular Bill. He is giving these functions to the Revenue Commissioners, and I am not sure that there is any power to do so. The Minister, in one portion of his reply, mentioned the courts and that there is power given to the Commissioners to decide in any particular case that the post in question is not a cast-iron pillar but a portion of a gate, or that a wheel is not part of a cart but a portion of agricultural machinery. In reality the Revenue Commissioners are in fact, and that is the purpose of the section as I understand it, interpreters of the law, and final interpreters of the law. I suggest that in future the Revenue Commissioners and the Minister may have some trouble if the Revenue Commissioners are given that particular power of interpreting the law. I am taking now merely what I understood to be the Minister's meaning. He said they may allocate; but they allocate only by interpreting. They may have to do it administratively. They are doing it more than administratively here because they are having the last word on it.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not think that is so, because after the Revenue Commissioners have interpreted the law they have to determine whether an article is dutiable or not. They have to determine it on the appearance of the article, and in accordance with the definitions laid down in the taxing Acts.

Professor O'Sullivan

There may be an appeal to the court.

Mr. MacEntee

There is an appeal to the court, and there would be an appeal to the court here because the question might be as to whether the Revenue Commissioners had determined improperly, even if they had the power. Again, I should like, if I can, to clarify the position. At the present moment if an article might in any circumstances be held to be chargeable to more than one duty the Revenue Commissioners feel constrained to charge it to every possible duty. That, I think, is not the position which is contemplated by us. This amendment is to relieve the Revenue Commissioners of the disagreeable necessity of doing that, and the importer of the disagreeable necessity of paying the tax in consequence. It allows the Revenue Commissioners to say: "This article belongs to one or, in certain cases, to more than one category and is chargeable to one or more duty as the case may be."

Professor O'Sullivan

I fully appreciate the Minister's difficulty. I only want to warn him of a trouble that may occur, and that he may have to go a little further than he goes here. He will probably have to have a constitutional amendment to do what he wants to do. I can see fully the Minister's difficulty. It may be difficult to get any way out, and it may be necessary to have a constitutional amendment.

Mr. MacEntee

It may not be the final way out, but it is a step on the road.

Professor O'Sullivan

But possibly not an effective one.

Mr. Dockrell

I take it that the Minister really gave us the kernel of this amendment when he said that it was to be operated as a relieving section. Of course that would certainly give relief if it is going to go into one section or the other. I take it the Minister said: "You have your appeal to the courts if it is wrong." I take it just to illustrate the point I have mentioned, and I notice the Minister steadily kept off it, about the mangle. It will be either charged as an article of furniture or a machine.

Mr. MacEntee

On the question of the mangle I made that clear. Because it is an article of steel manufactured in Great Britain it is subject to the overriding emergency duty, apart altogether from the duty on furniture. I will put it this way. Supposing this particular mangle were not manufactured in Great Britain, but in France, it could only be chargeable either as machinery or as an article of furniture.

Mr. Dockrell

And because it was manufactured in Great Britain you want to call it both?

Mr. MacEntee

No. It is subject to the ten per cent. emergency tax.

Mr. Dockrell

With great respect to the Minister I would suggest to him that my difficulty is that he must either approach the question with the view that the mangle is an article of furniture, and then it comes under both sections, or it is a machine, and then it comes under machinery.

Mr. MacEntee

It is a manufacture of iron.

Amendment No. 11 agreed to.

Section 32, as amended, agreed to.

Section 33 put and agreed to.

Question proposed: "That Section 34 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

On this section, do the penalties envisaged by this section cover the breach of a condition imposed by any licence given by the Minister for Finance, or by the Minister for Industry and Commerce with the consent of the Minister for Finance, to import any commodity free of duty, or is it only the commodities mentioned in this Finance Bill?

Mr. MacEntee

Any of the commodities imported under licence.

Mr. Dillon

Am I to take it that prior to this Section 34 there was no power to impose a penalty for a breach of a condition?

Mr. MacEntee

I do not quite get the Deputy's point.

Mr. Dillon

I will explain to the Minister what I mean. We imposed a tariff of 5/- a sack on flour. We gave the Minister for Agriculture or the Minister for Industry and Commerce power to admit flour free of duty, provided the Minister for Finance consented. Here is a penalty for a breach of a condition, and there is a similar condition in the previous Bill. I propose to raise again what I have raised before. I submit that there is no necessity for the insertion of this section, because it is not being used. I have drawn the attention of the Minister before to a situation that has arisen in the County Donegal, where he issued a licence or was a party to the issuing of a licence for the importation of a specified quantity of bakers' flour. There was a condition attaching to the licence that that flour should be used for the baking of bread in a certain part of Donegal. It was represented to the Minister that the licence was required because this baker was unable to get bakers' flour from Saorstát Eireann on account of the railway strike. When the permit had issued flour was imported on the foot of that permit, but a large part of the flour imported was not bakers' flour but what was called household flour, and it was imported free of the tariff of 5/- per sack. The individual who imported household flour on this permit proceeded to sell that flour to the customers of his trade rivals at cut prices, and flaunted before the whole countryside that he had put one over on the Minister for Agriculture, the Minister for Industry and the Minister for Finance, and that he got flour in free of duty while all the other people had to pay the duty on it. I believe one or two other permits of that character were issued in the Co. Donegal. With reference to them, I have no information of misfeasance, but I have pointed out to the Minister before that if he goes down and inquiries from anybody in that part of Donegal, which I shall mention to him in private, he will find ample corroboration for what I am saying. Where that was done is the Minister going to insist on the penalties prescribed by the Act being imposed on the individual who did it? I move to report progress.

Progress reported, the Committee to sit again to-morrow.