Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 22 Jun 1933

Vol. 48 No. 8

Additional and Supplementary Estimates. - Finance Bill, 1933—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question—"That Section 34 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.

SECTION 35.

Mr. Costello

On Section 35 I should like to make this one point. As I propose to make some observations on the general question of excess profits duty on the next section, I would like to confine my remarks to this particular section and just to make one point. This section, as it appears, is introduced in order to remove doubts, and as I understand it those doubts have arisen by reason of the fact that certain taxpayers who were assessed for excess profits duty for the first time in recent months took exception to those assessments on certain technical grounds and the matter came before the courts. The cases are at the present moment awaiting hearing and I understand they will be heard in the course of a few days. Now I would suggest to the Minister that, even though he might insist on this section going through as it stands at the moment, to remove the doubts that exist, and even though we may have very serious objection to the reimposition of excess profits duty even after the matter had been terminated seven years ago by an Act of this House, the Minister ought to consider putting down an amendment on Report Stage to exclude from the operations of Section 35, as it stands at the moment, those cases that are pending before the courts at the present time.

It is a very bad principle for the Legislature to interfere during the actual progress of cases in the courts to take the decision out of the hands of the court and to legislate on the matter before it is determined one way or the other. It may be that the Minister may win this case. It may be that the taxpayers may win, but I suggest to the Minister that as a matter of principle he ought to accept my suggestion, merely as a matter of principle, so that this House will not lay down the precedent of intervening at the last minute, practically speaking, in the hearing of a case pending in court. I think it is a very bad principle for the Minister for Finance or for any Government Department in cases where they may have doubts, or even where they may not have doubts, to introduce legislation of this kind in order to remove any such doubts and take the decision out of the hands of the court. The suggestion I make will not affect more than three or four cases and it will preserve the principle to which I have referred while preventing the creation of a very bad precedent in this House.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not think I could bind myself to accept either in whole or part the suggestion which has been made by Deputy Costello. I would be very reluctant to do anything that would encourage taxpayers to initiate litigation with the Revenue Commissioners, and it would appear to me that there would be some encouragement to that course if I were to accept the suggestion which Deputy Costello has made. It is not our belief that these actions were ever necessary to clarify the law. I think the ground upon which this litigation stands is that the Act of 1932 reimposed or purported to reimpose the excess profits duty for the accounting periods up to 1921. That in fact is not the case. I am advised that the charge always remained. I think that the Dáil always believed that the charge did remain, and we are merely, as it were, codifying the law so that this might quite clearly manifest what it, in fact, always had been. It is true that we did suspend the machinery of the law. That is something different from imposing a charge or making a fresh charge or rescinding the provisions of a section.

I think myself that there could not be any doubt in the mind of any of those litigants as to what the true position was, but there was this hope that by embarking on this litigation they would interfere with the collection of the taxes and that possibly the Government or the Exchequer wearied out by futile litigation might decide to abandon its rights in the matter altogether. Therefore, as I said previously, this litigation appears to me to some extent at any rate to be vexatious. I am asked to grant a certain Act of Indemnity to those litigants, and not merely to those particular cases, but to those who in the future undertake vexatious litigation with the Revenue Commissioners. I think that would be an intolerable position in which to put the Exchequer.

At the same time I do realise that in these cases the litigation was started before the Budget was introduced in the ordinary course. After all there is one period in the year at which litigation dealing with the imposition and collection of taxes is submitted to the Dáil and in the ordinary course of time when that period came around and when it had been made clear that some attempt had been made to confuse the issue, and that the Legislature itself might be confused, I put down the proposal in the Bill which I hoped would clarify the position. I put that down in due course. I did not delay unduly in putting it down. It was put down at the proper time and, therefore, I could not accept the contention that I had waited until the last moment to ask the Legislature to make this the view of the law and its intention on the matter. It is possible that if this thing had been done in 1932 or a little earlier we should not have this litigation. I am prepared to give full consideration to that. As I said before there are many matters to be considered and many points of view to be weighed. I would not be prepared at this stage to concede what Deputy Costello has asked. I shall be prepared, however, to consider the matter. I should like to mention, however, to safeguard myself, that my present frame of mind is such as not to lead me to believe that I would be able to make any substantial concession on the point the Deputy has raised.

Mr. Costello

I am glad that the Minister will, at least, give the matter his consideration, because I am interested not so much from the point of view of the individual taxpayers, who are fighting the actions in court at the moment and about whom I know nothing, but I am interested in the question of principle, the question of this House intervening during the course of litigation to take the matter out of the courts and take the decision as to what the law is upon themselves. I do not suggest that this House should give to certain taxpayers anything in the way of an Act of Indemnity, but that the decision in the pending cases should be left as they are at the moment to the decision of the courts. If the Minister is so clearly advised, as he says, that his decision is correct, then he has nothing to fear from the courts. They will decide in his favour.

What I suggest is to exclude from the operation of this section the actual pending cases. As I say, it is in the question of principle that I am interested and not in the case of the individual taxpayers who are fighting actions. I am not at all impressed by the argument of the Minister that the Revenue Commissioners would ever be wearied out or put off their trail or their scent by litigation initiated or pursued by taxpayers. There are no more persistent followers of a trail than the Revenue Commissioners and I have no doubt whatever that however vexatious—I think that was the word the Minister used—the litigation might be the Revenue Commissioners would pursue it to the bitter end and collect, in addition to their tax, the costs of the vexatious litigation from the unfortunate taxpayer. As I say, I am not interested from the point of view of the individual litigants but I am interested in not creating a precedent in this House that an Act of Parliament should be rushed through, particularly in the case where a Government Department is concerned, declaring what the law is before the Courts have had an opportunity of saying what, in fact, the law is.

Section 35 agreed to.

SECTION 36.

Mr. Costello

I spoke, I think, during the progress of the Financial Resolutions, on what is now embodied in Section 36 and, as I read it, Section 36 of the Act proposes to give statutory effect to the famous Wankie Colliery decision. Deputies will, perhaps, remember that excess profits duty was imposed as an emergency tax in the year 1915 shortly after the commencement of the European War, and the object of it was to enable the British Exchequer to participate in the war profits which were being made, or which it was anticipated would be made, as the result of warlike operations or consequent on the necessity for maintaining the munitions of war from 1915 to 1922. The relevant section of the Act of 1915 imposing this excess profits duty had not been tested or finally decided in the Courts on the question of the liability of a successor in a business to excess profits made by his predecessor. But in 1922, after some prolonged litigation, the House of Lords, in the Wankie Colliery case, decided that although excess profits might have been made in the year 1915 by A., that B., who had in the year 1921 acquired by purchase the business of A., was liable for the full amount of the excess profits made by A. and had no right to claim an indemnity or a contribution from the person who made the excess profits. The result of that decision was that an innocent purchaser, who paid his good money for a business in the open market, found himself liable to pay to the Revenue Commissioners half the excess profits made by a person years before he had acquired the business, and the person who made the profits was entitled to retain the profits for his own benefit.

That decision was somewhat startling, and I drew the Minister's attention, I think, on the last occasion on which this matter was discussed, to the injustice of that decision. I pointed out to the Minister that the ultimate decision was arrived at only after a very serious conflict of judicial opinion. I was speaking at that time from recollection, but I have since looked up the matter and I discover that the decision in the Wankie Colliery case, which is being given statutory effect for the first time in this country in the year 1933, was decided by five judges in favour of the decision and five against it. That is the legal decision that it put forward to the House by the Minister for Finance as being something which is undoubted law and which has been undoubted law in the Irish Free State since 1922.

Mr. Moore

Are all these appeal judges?

Mr. Costello

I shall tell you in a moment who they were, and I may make this remark in passing with regard to that decision, that it is a remarkable fact that from 1922 until the present moment the Revenue Commissioners never brought a case into court to test the question as to whether the Wankie Colliery decision was law in this country or not. It was certainly the belief in legal circles that the Irish courts would not follow the Wankie Colliery decision.

The people who decided the Wankie Colliery case, and who were in favour of the ultimate decision, were two members of the British Court of Appeal and three members of the House of Lords. The judicial authorities who had expressed themselves as against the ultimate decision were two of the law lords who heard the case, Lord Dunedin and Lord Carson; one member of the Court of Appeal in England; and Mr. Justice Rowlatt, who originally heard the case, and who is recognised as the leading income tax authority in England; and Lord Finlay, in another case, which had been heard prior to the Wankie Colliery case, expressed his very definite view against what was the ultimate decision in the case.

So, there you have five leading authorities, five men of the highest eminence, Mr. Justice Rowlatt, Lord Justice Atkin, Lord Dunedin, Lord Finlay and last, but by no means least, Lord Carson, who were in favour of the taxpayer, and five of the other judges in favour of the revenue and, of course, the latter, because of a majority decision in the House of Lords, were upheld.

Mr. MacEntee

They were all equally eminent, I hope?

Mr. Costello

Yes, but it is a remarkable fact that all these high authorities found such difficulty in arriving at a decision which the Minister told the House on the last occasion was the ultimate decision and undoubted law in the Irish Free State since 1922.

Mr. Dillon

Might I ask the Deputy who was Chancellor? Does he remember?

Mr. Costello

Lord Buckmaster.

Mr. MacEntee

He was not sitting?

Mr. Costello

No. I do not think the Lord Chancellor was sitting.

The Attorney-General

Lord Buckmaster was sitting.

Mr. Costello

I think it was Lord Buckmaster, as far as I can find out. I want first of all to make it quite clear that while speaking very strongly against this section I am not interested on behalf of those taxpayers who have succeeded by fraud in depriving the revenue of what is properly due to them, because every taxpayer who, by trickery or fraud evades his duty and his liability to pay tax, thereby increases pro tanto the liability of the honest taxpayers who make a proper return of their incomes, and pay their tax properly, regularly and honestly. I have, therefore, no interest in the people who have evaded even this particular tax by fraud, but I am interested in this section from the point of view of the injustice which it may create, and also from the point of view of which I have personal knowledge of the unsettling effects which it will have on the business community in this city. I will refer later to a case in which I myself am at the present moment engaged, arising out of the introduction of this particular section. First of all, on the injustice that will be created by it, I hope I will not weary the House if I read a portion of the judgment of Lord Justice Atkin, who commented on the contention of the Crown in the Wankie Colliery case. Every line and every word he said in that case are applicable to the provisions contained in this section. He says:

"Now the case for the Crown here is this, that when a business has changed hands a person who has not made profits during the accounting period and had nothing to do with the business at the time at which the profits were made, and may have made a loss while he was concerned with the business, is bound to pay to the Crown half of the profits made by his predecessor, even though those profits remain in the pockets of his predecessor, and he is so bound to pay, and I think this is a most significant fact, and it is admitted in the contentions of the Crown—he is so bound to pay without having any recourse against the person who in fact made the profits and who in fact remains in possession of the whole of the profits, while 50 per cent. of them is being paid by his successor. It sometimes perhaps illustrates a case better to take a concrete example. It means this, that if a person had made during an accounting period before the Act came into operation, in the year ending June 30, 1915, excess profits to the extent of £50,000, a purchaser of that business, after that date, who would have bought the goodwill upon the footing that there was that amount of profits being made by the business, and had paid that price, would have to pay the Crown £25,000, though he himself may have conducted the business at a loss, and though the vendor from whom he bought the business remained in possession of the whole of the £50,000 profits, and he would have no right of any sort or kind against his vendor under this Act or at common law to recover back that sum of money. He would have no right unless there was some express arrangement made that he should have a right of recourse against the vendor, a right which having regard to the fact that this Act is retrospective, it is extremely unlikely he would have bargained for.

Now that is the bold contention of the Crown, and it appears to me to amount to a suggestion of gross injustice, and to a piece of confiscatory legislation which is without parallel in the history of Parliamentary Government in this country, and which, I should think, would exceed the wildest dreams of the most imaginative high prerogative lawyer in the very worst time of our history.

That was the comment on the contention of the Crown in 1922. I suppose the Minister, who pleaded in the courts recently for a high prerogative right against certain members of this House and certain members of the Dublin County Council, will have no hesitation in doing what Lord Justice Atkin referred to, exceeding the wildest dreams of the most imaginative high prerogative lawyer in the very worst time of our history, because that is what is being done under this section. They are doing under this section what Lord Justice Atkin, 12 years ago, said about the British Crown, exceeding the wildest dreams of the most imaginative high prerogative lawyer in the very worst time of our history. He refers again to the question of injustice, and it is a remarkable fact that he refers to an almost similar suggestion to that which was made by the Minister during the Report on the Financial Resolutions, namely, that, of course, the Revenue Commissioners would not do anything unjust or improper in connection with the administration of this Act. I drew attention to the fact that A might have made profits in 1915 and sold his business to B, who sold to C, who sold to D, who sold to E, who sold to F, and F in 1933 would have to pay tax on the excess profits made by A in 1915, and would not have any right to go after A for the amount he had to pay. The Minister said that of course the Revenue Commissioners would not come at F, that they would go after A, or B, or C or D, or E. This is what Lord Justice Atkin said about a similar suggestion:

They say that there is a discretion given, that for relief you are to trust to the good, kind Commissioners, and that if there is any injustice of that kind when the Commissioners have an option, if they think fit, not to work that injustice, To my mind it has has not been the custom of this Realm of England to leave the question whether the subject's property shall be confiscated or not to the discretion of the official tax-gatherer in the confiding hope that he may restrain his predatory instincts, and I should imagine that the commercial world would prefer not to have their heads broken by such precious balms.

The Minister wants us to trust to the good, kind Irish Revenue Commissioners. I have had very long experience of the good, kind Irish Commissioners, and I will say this for them, that they and their staff are the most experienced and efficient staff in this State, and that is saying a lot. Their outlook on the gathering of taxes is this: "If there is a law there which says we are to collect tax we have nothing to do with the justice or the injustice of it; we have nothing to do with the merits or demerits of the case. We have to go after the law or the Comptroller and Auditor-General will go after us, and we prefer to go after the law." I do not trust myself to the predatory instincts of the Irish Revenue Commissioners any more than Lord Justice Atkin had confidence in the predatory instincts of the British Revenue Commissioners. He puts, in words better than I could put it, the injustice that may be perpetrated by the provisions which are contained in this section, and I want the House to understand that all the improper consequences which arose or accrued from the Wankie Colliery decision, and which were pointed out and admitted during the course of the argument, are embodied in this particular section. There is not even the right for the purchaser for value, the bona fide purchaser for value without notice of any claim by the Revenue Commissioners, to have recourse to the person who made the excess profits and who is entitled to keep them in his pocket and pay neither the person who bought the business from him nor the revenue authorities. That is going to have a most unsettling effect, apart from the injustice of it, on purchase and sale transactions in this country.

I am engaged in a case in which a business was purchased and, having had some experience of excess profits duty, I raised the point that the vendor should show me that there was no claim outstanding for excess profits duty. We found ourselves in this position, that the vendor was willing to complete, the purchaser had his money to complete and a mortgagee of the premises was ready to complete, but the Revenue Commissioners said: "We do not care whether you are ready to complete or not. We will not give you a certificate that there is no claim outstanding. We will not tell you whether or not there is a claim outstanding." The net result is that we cannot complete the transaction. I know that the proposal contained in this Bill is having a most unfortunate effect on the sale of every class of property in the country, because nobody knows whether or not there is a claim for excess profits duty and you will not be told. Even if the vendor, as he did in the case to which I have referred, tells the purchaser that he had produced to the Revenue Commissioners verified accounts made up by a properly qualified chartered accountant, that these accounts had been accepted by the Revenue Commissioners, and that he had paid the excess profits duty on the basis of them, we still cannot get from the Revenue Commissioners a certificate that there is no claim outstanding for excess profits duty, nor can we get from them any assurance that they will look to the vendor of the property, and the purchase money paid to him, for their tax. That is the position as regards the ordinary taxpayer.

I felt extremely disappointed when I got the Finance Bill and discovered that there was no amendment providing for the giving by the Revenue Commissioners of a certificate in connection with the payment of tax. It is not in the Bill and there is no amendment, although I gathered from the discussion on an earlier Stage that some such amendment would be brought forth. I hope the Minister will see his way to do that much.

I would also like this assurance, that as far as possible claims that have been settled years ago should not be reopened. I have no sympathy with the fraudulent taxpayer; but where a case has been settled between the Revenue Commissioners and the taxpayer many years ago, where accountants have been brought in at the request of the taxpayer or the Revenue Commissioners and the accounts accepted, that transaction ought not to be reopened on the suggestion by the Revenue Commissioners that there was some sort of non-disclosure or fraud. The person who committed the fraud at that time, if there was a fraud committed, is going to commit another fraud and he will be in a better position to do so now than he was seven, eight or 15 years ago. The honest taxpayer who has made what he conceived to be a proper return will be intimidated by the action of the Revenue Commissioners in sending on this typewritten document which they have been broadcasting as assessments within the last couple of months. These are the people who are most to be sympathised with by the House —the honest taxpayers who come within the net of the predatory instincts of the Revenue Commissioners. The Revenue Commissioners may think a fraud has been committed, but fraud is a very serious thing and it lies not with the Revenue Commissioners to determine whether or not a person has been guilty of fraud.

I suggest there ought to be a provision in the Bill that, unless in cases of actual fraud, settled accounts between taxpayers and the Revenue Commissioners ought not to be reopened. Third parties are by law and equity protected against fraud committed by persons with whom they have no privity and if you find that an executor of a deceased person in the year 1915, when the beneficiaries under the deceased's will were minors, made returns to the Revenue Commissioners and those returns were accepted and excess profits claimed on the basis of them, they ought not now to be reopened, as they are being reopened, against beneficiaries who came of age many years ago. That is a state of affairs which, I think, is very unsettling in the commercial world; it is bad for business and for the country generally.

In conclusion I will revert to the House of Lords' decision in the Wankie Colliery case. Lord Summer said:

I think, however, that considerations of justice and injustice have not much to do with modern direct taxation; they belong to a different order of ideas. Taxation is concerned with expediency or inexpediency.

This section can only be based on pure expediency, bringing into effect a tax which was an emergency and temporary tax for war time and was created in 1915 and abolished by the British in 1926 largely, I believe, as a result of the Wankie Colliery decision. It was abolished by this House also in 1926, leaving outstanding cases of fraud or wilful default. Surely the Revenue Commissioners ought to be satisfied with being allowed to prey upon the fraudulent and not be allowed to prey upon the fears of the timid but perfectly honest taxpayer.

Mr. MacEntee

There was a point raised by Deputy Costello in the latter end of his speech in connection with which I think it is advisable I should give the House some information at this moment. The House may remember that when this Resolution was being reported I undertook to consider the feasibility of asking the Revenue Commissioners to issue certificates in a case which would normally be covered by this section. The drafting of a section to make it possible for future purchasers of business to obtain, through the vendor, a certificate from the Revenue Commissioners protecting purchasers from any future claim for excess profits duty is now under consideration. I hope to be in a position to introduce the necessary amendment on the Report Stage. It has not been easy to draft this, in a form which will protect a person who is faithful in his relation to the Revenue Commissioners, and, at the same time, make sure that no protection is given to the taxpayer who is wilfully fraudulent. However I think we have succeeded in getting a form that will cover the cases that Deputy Dillon and Deputy Costello have in mind and I shall introduce an amendment to give effect to it on the Report Stage.

Deputy Costello has made great play with the even balance of judicial opinion in regard to the various Wankie Colliery cases, but I think he omitted to inform the House that the weight of senior opinion is very strongly in favour of the revenue. In actual fact of the judges who sat in this case there was a clear majority in favour of the revenue. In the King's Bench the judge was against the revenue. In the Court of Appeal one judge was against and two for the revenue, and in the case of the House of Lords, the final tribunal, two were against and three for the revenue. I may say that that gives a majority of 50 per cent. in favour of the revenue.

Mr. Costello

What about Lord Finlay?

Mr. MacEntee

He did not sit in the case. We are considering the judges before whom it formally came. I think, in view of the fact that the Revenue Commissioners won in the Court of Appeal and in the House of Lords, there can be little doubt as to the soundness of the final judicial decision in this matter.

I have been twitted with the fact that the Revenue Commissioners never carried a case through our courts on this issue. The Revenue Commissioners, never until now, have had to carry the issue there. Since 1922 cases have been settled continuously on the basis of the Wankie decision and settled in many instances with counsel.

Mr. Costello

I settled one myself.

Mr. MacEntee

Precisely, and I am perfectly certain that if Deputy Costello thought there was the faintest hope of upsetting this decision, in the Wankie Colliery case, he would have advised his clients to have a go at it in that particular case.

Mr. Costello

The Revenue Commissioners took less than they were asking for, and they thought it fit in that case to take less than their assessment. It cuts both ways.

Mr. MacEntee

The Revenue Commissioners did not go into court, because they are not, as Lord Justice Atkin said, "the ravening beast" that is going about to seize everything it can, but rather merciful and compassionate, and will take into consideration every fact that fairly should be considered in a matter of this sort. I do not know whether there is much good in a layman bandying judicial opinion with a lawyer, but, at all events, since we have heard from Lord Justice Atkin, I think we ought to hear what was said by another eminent lawyer on the other side. The Master of the Rolls said:—

"I think that what was contemplated, and I do not know that it is unreasonable, was that the Crown, as represented by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, would and might be trusted to exercise that power in a proper case where it ought to be exercised."

Deputy Costello was good enough to give to the House one instance where this power was exercised in a proper case where it ought to be exercised. I am perfectly certain that case does not stand alone and that there are many more in which the Revenue Commissioners exercised in a proper way the powers that we are asking the House to give in sub-section (2) of this section. The Master of the Rolls goes on to say:

"and that they were not to be looked upon, even in taxing a subject as a sort of ravening beast that is going about to seize anything he can irrespective of the injury or injustice which may be done to other people, but may be trusted to exercise the powers given properly and reasonably. That, to my mind, is the real meaning of the section."

Another Judge, Lord Justice Younger, said:

"I agree that it is possible that upon that construction of the statute which I have placed upon it, there may be cases in which real hardship would be caused, but on this I would observe that the tax when it was imposed by the Act of 1915 was imposed as a retrospective tax. It was an unforeseen burden wherever it chanced to fall and what the Legislature in this sub-section appear to me to have done—a procedure to which I think, perhaps, the epithets ‘summary' and ‘rough and ready' rather than any stronger or more flamboyant term are reasonably applicable—is that they have thought fit to throw the duty on the owner in being on the footing I have already stated."

I should like on the point, since reference is made to the retrospective nature of this, to point out that there might be a difference in the case of the Wankie Colliery and a case that might fall for consideration under the section now before the House. The purchase in the Wankie Colliery case was effected before excess profits duties were introduced at all. Though I presume that the person who is properly assessable is the person in ownership at the date of the making of the assessment, notwithstanding the fact that the Wankie Colliery was purchased before the excess profits duty was law at all, the position of the Revenue Commissioners was fully upheld. Now we are dealing with a case of a different nature. We are dealing with a case in which Exchequer excess profits duty was known at the time of the sale and could, of course, have been provided for in the contract at the time. In that connection we have to bear in mind the judgment of Lord Justice Younger, in which he says

"that they have thought fit to throw the duty on the owner in being on the footing I have already stated. If that owner is identified he does not suffer."

Purchasers now and particularly for a year or two must be aware that in the case of a business in existence here during the period 1915 to 1921 there may have been a liability for excess profits and quite possibly a large number in fixing the price for their property and the price that they would get for it kept that fact in mind and did, in the words of Lord Justice Younger indemnify themselves against all contingencies that ever might arise as chargeable under the practice of the Revenue Commissioners which was to rely upon the judgment in the Wankie Colliery case. If the owner is identified he does not suffer. If he is not, the Lord Chief Justice went on:

"There is no reason why the owner of the continuing business, and a continuing business like this, a continuing fruit bearing tree, is not the proper person left to bear the burden imposed upon that business. I should myself suppose that the cases in which a burden of this kind consciously or unconsciously, is not in fact regulated by contract between the transferor and the transferee, are relatively few, and it is perhaps a matter of observation and that consideration that I have just referred to may account for it, that no case of the injustice arising from this construction of the sub-section to which the Lord Justice has so powerfully referred, has up to the present been brought to the notice of the Court."

No case of injustice arises out of the policy which the Revenue Commissioners have pursued in this country ever since 1922—no case of injustice has been brought to the notice of the Dáil. So that what was regarded, I quite frankly admit, as a powerful argument in determining the judgment of the House of Lords still remains to us as a powerful argument in determining the judgment of the Dáil on this matter: that we may trust the Revenue Commissioners to act with a proper sense of justice, not merely with a sense of justice but justice tinged with mercy and compassion for the unfortunate taxpayer who may find himself at this stage of his life compelled to pay up a tax which he ought properly to have paid ten years ago.

As I have already stated, every case receives most careful consideration on its merits. I am perfectly certain that if there are any cases in which it can be contended that hardship is being inflicted the Revenue Commissioners will be prepared to consider those cases specially, as in fact they have done since 1921, and do their utmost to relieve that hardship, if it in fact exists. In that connection I should like to make this also clear, however, that not everybody who cries "wolf" is to be believed in this matter. I have on occasions had cases brought to my notice where we were told we were going to put people out of business. Closer examination of the plea in one case disclosed the fact that the person making it had ample assets invested elsewhere than in the business which he was alleging the Revenue Commissioners were going to put him out of; that without doing any injury to the business whatever, without reducing his own personal comfort materially, he could have paid fully what the Revenue Commissioners were claiming from him.

I have already dealt with the question of the certificate. The fact that in future the Revenue Commissioners will have power to issue such certificates I feel must entirely remove any fear that Deputy Dillon may have had, and any fears which Deputy Costello may still hold, that the operation of this section was going in any way to impede the transfer or sale of property in this State. The fact is now that, for the first time, under the section as I hope it will be amended on the Report Stage, people can get some form of indemnity that will preclude the Revenue Commissioners, either now or subsequently, reopening and making a fresh assessment or claim for excess profits duties in a case in which they have no reason to believe that fraud or wilful neglect has arisen.

Mr. Dillon

I think the concession the Minister has announced is a very important one and it certainly disposes of many practical objections I had to this section. The more I think of it the more I wonder whether the Revenue Commissioners are glad that they raised this question at all. I think the obligation to issue a certificate is going to be a very useful and effective blister on the Board. At the same time, admitting that the certificate does remove a great many of the practical objections, it does remain that you are giving statutory effect to a decision upon which grave doubt has been cast. It means that every person who has bought a business as a going concern in this country since 1916 has fixed over his head the sword of Damocles and he may discover at any moment that the Revenue Commissioners have a statutory right to assess him in respect of excess profits duty that a predecessor in title became liable for, say, in 1917, although, as Deputy Costello pointed out, there may be four or five people in title between him and the person who became liable. The Minister made some play out of the fact that such an adroit and able member of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party as Deputy Costello did not fight the decision in the Wankie Colliery case in this country and suggested that that was in itself evidence that legal opinion leaned towards the decision in the Wankie Colliery case. I recommend to the Minister's attention a book recently published in England "In Quest of Justice," and he will there discover the costs which it was the privilege of a public-minded litigant to pay when he deemed it his duty to contest well-established decisions. I think the Attorney-General will bear me out that in one of the most famous cases of that kind where the law was settled, in Barnard v. Coggs, the costs ran into six figures and the original subject matter of the action was £32. It is quite true that we all have the law settled for us one way or the other ever since. Profound confidence as I have in the Attorney-General's opinion, if he told me that I had either to compromise with the Revenue Commissioners for £120, or else run the risk of costs amounting to £25,000 in order to set right the wrong done in the Wankie Colliery case, I would sooner stake my £120 than put £25,000 on the Attorney General.

Mrs. Concannon

It would be worth it to go down to posterity.

Mr. Dillon

Possibly it might, but I would sooner secure cheaper fame. Everybody knows that is why the decision in the Wankie Colliery case has never been upset, because no man is going to lock horns with the Revenue Commissioners when he knows that he is going to be dragged to the ultimate court in the State on the strength of a House of Lords' decision, if there is the possibility of a settlement. In fact, I think we have grown to know in this country that it is cheaper to fly the country than to lock horns with the Revenue Commissioners—to clear out lock, stock and barrel. I think it actually happened in a certain case. I think the effect of the difference in the judicial decisions here is simply to leave the question on its merits. When I first raised this question on the Financial Resolutions I said, as reported in Volume 47, Column 1937, of the Official Reports:—

"I am discussing the thing really on its merits. I do not know what the practice or procedure has been in the past. I am not very much influenced by whether that remedy has been in existence heretofore or not. It seems manifest to me, however, that the only obligation we ought to put on any citizen is to take every reasonable precaution to avoid collusion in any fraud upon the Revenue Commissioners."

I think that remains incontrovertible. There should be no right to penalise a person for something which he has absolutely no intention of being involved in. I am well aware that other precedents for that can be produced in respect of the taxpayer vis-a-vis the Revenue Commissioners, but I do not think we ought to extend it any further. I should like to know whether the amendment which the Minister proposes to introduce on Report Stage will compel the Revenue Commissioners either to institute proceedings, or to grant the certificate forthwith. Will there be a time limit fixed on the Revenue Commissioners of say, three months? I thought the safeguard would begin to melt away when we got down to business.

Mr. Costello

You do not know them as well as I do.

Mr. Dillon

Indeed, I do, and I have the greatest respect and veneration for the Revenue Commissioners. I paid a high tribute to them yesterday and I am prepared to repeat it to-day, but it is perfectly manifest that, unless we can get a guarantee that the purchaser can administer a requisition of title and that the vendor can then go to the Revenue Commissioners and say: "Give us a certificate or make your assessment and allow us to get the thing settled by the court immediately," the certificate is absolutely worthless because I believe that, at the present time, the Revenue Commissioners have power to issue some kind of certificate if they want to do it, but they never do. Before we consent to this section of the Finance Bill, I think the Minister should be in a position to say that, on Report, he will introduce an amendment which will give any vendor the right to go to the Revenue Commissioners, ask them for a certificate or, in the alternative, for an assessment which can be tried out forthwith within a certain given time, and the Bill ought further to give that vendor the right to exact from the Revenue Commissioners a certificate in the event of their failing to make an assessment. Unless we have an undertaking of that kind, this section, in my opinion, is going to do a very great injustice on the grounds so exhaustively set out by Deputy Costello.

The Attorney-General (Mr. Conor Maguire)

I am afraid that Deputy Dillon is not familiar with the conditions here and the amount which can be expended in costs in order to get an authoritative decision when he estimates that it would cost a litigant £10,000 to get a decision on the position in law as regards excess profits. I think, and I am sure that Deputy Costello will agree with me, that, for a sum which I would estimate as between £500 and £1,000, any person during the last ten years who wished to challenge the right of the Revenue Commissioners to recover excess profits duty could have had the question authoritatively decided in the Supreme Court here.

Mr. Dillon

I suppose the Erasmus Smith Trustees thought that, too, until they got into the court and were there for the rest of their days?

The Attorney-General

That case is quite an exceptional case in respect of which there is no precedent.

General Mulcahy

It is a juicy case.

Mr. Dillon

It might be a juicy case if I went in on the Wankie Colliery case.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy would have to be as long dead as Erasmus Smith.

The Attorney-General

I do not think that there is a shadow of doubt that the money could quite readily have been found amongst those wealthy persons who are charged with excess profits duty to have tested this matter in the courts long ago if there was any reasonable doubt in the minds of their lawyers that the Wankie Colliery decision would not have been followed here. I know myself, and anybody who is in touch with the Library knows that it has been frequently mooted here that the decision should be challenged, but it has not been challenged. I never heard it alleged that it was the costs that would be likely to be incurred that frightened persons anxious to get a decision in their favour on this point.

Mr. Dillon

It would have been indelicate to mention that to the Attorney-General elsewhere.

The Attorney-General

I think that what the Deputy has said himself is really the answer to the question that the courts here would have differed with the courts in England and that it would not have allowed to rest, as it has, over such a long number of years if there was any hope felt by the legal advisers to the parties concerned that such a decision would have been got. Deputy Costello referred to the Wankie Colliery case. I think there are two matters which he did not mention in connection with that case. The Minister has already referred to the judgments which commented on Lord Justice Atkin's judgment and I do not suppose that any purpose is served by drawing attention to the fact that what Lord Justice Atkin said there was criticised very severely by the judges who differed with him. It was pointed out that the considerations which he dragged in were really not relevant in the courts and were matters for Parliament.

Mr. Dillon

This is Parliament.

The Attorney-General

I know it is but, in passing, I might observe that Lord Justice Atkin is a Cork man and there was an Ulsterman also sat in judgment on this case, Lord Carson, and curiously enough, although he agreed with Lord Justice Atkin, he did not criticise the legislation in the way in which it was criticised by the judge in the other court. In fact, he pointed out, and throughout the whole case it is obvious, that the only question at issue was whether the Legislature had clearly expressed its intention that a person who acquired a business should be made liable for the debt of his predecessor and all that Lord Carson says about it, in pointing out the difference of opinion amongst the judges, is:

"That shows how unfortunate the Legislature has been in its attempt to clearly impose a tax on the subject."

If ever there was a hard case, this Wankie Colliery case was such a case because, as the Minister has already pointed out, the date on which the Wankie Colliery was wound up excess profits duty was not collectable at all. The legislation imposing it was not introduced until the following year, 1915, and it was only by the retrospective effect of that legislation that the Wankie Colliery Company became liable. The winding up of the company and the transfer of its business had all taken place prior to the Act and, in the courts, great use and very effective use was made of that fact and, apparently, it weighed very strongly with some of the judges that it was a manifest injustice where the original company could not have been aware and could not have anticipated that their business would have been made liable for this debt at any date before they wound up and that those who succeeded them in title should not have taken the precautions, which can now be taken, to protect themselves, that is, by putting in a requisition as to whether such debt was due or whether it had been met and paid so that that case was a case which stands absolutely by itself as a case of hardship. Notwithstanding that, with that case before them and with the strong views which were pressed on them so effectively that they captured the minds of a number of judges, it was decided, after the case had been through three courts in succession that, interpreting what to some were rather doubtful words, the intention of the Legislature to be taken from these words was that it was intended that the debts incurred by the predecessor in title should fall on the person in actual occupation of the premises. One of the judges pointed out that the whole case turned around the meaning of the words "person for the time being". Lord Dunedin said: "The whole controversy arises as to the proper meaning of the words ‘person for the time being'" and when Deputy Costello says that this might not have been held to be the law in this country during the last 11 or 12 years, I think it is reasonable to say this that before 1921 the persons who are now being charged with this excess profits duty were liable under the law as interpreted by the English Courts. Undoubtedly, if this decision given in May, 1921, had been given a year previously no complaint whatsoever could have been made by these people that they would be entitled to the benefit of the change in the legislature and could ask for a different interpretation of the law. But the position is that as the law then stood, as enacted by the British legislature and as interpreted subsequently by the British courts, those person whom the Revenue Commissioners are now seeking to make liable owed this duty. A large number of people have paid it. It has been collected year after year and was being collected before this Government took office.

I suppose it is not really necessary to discuss the merits of the case made as already a decision has been taken by the House on it, but it would appear to me to be most unreasonable that while a number of people should have been called on to pay that a number of other people, who happened by good luck to have escaped down to the present, should now raise a wail of woe because the Minister for Finance comes along and says: "We are going to put you on exactly the same level as all the other persons who made excess profits duty during the war." I am sure Deputy Dillon will agree with me that excess profits duty was regarded during the war period as a very fair tax. During that period prices shot up and unbelievable incomes were being made in business and otherwise. It was only reasonable that the legislature should come in and help to finance the war, and help the Exchequer during the succeeding years, by taking a share out of the profits which were being made and which arose out of the circumstances created by the war. I do not think it can be questioned that it was a perfectly fair tax. That was the position as it then stood under British law. The fact that it has not been challenged up to this justifies us in thinking that those whose opinion counted in the matter —some of the leading opinions in the library on questions of tax—cannot have encouraged this wealthy body, I understand that it is a rich association, which could quite readily have provided the sinews of war to test this matter. They did not do that until the present year.

Liability to excess profits has not been questioned at all. This particular section has not been brought in to review it, but what is being done here is that clear words are being put in; to leave beyond all doubt what the legislature intended and what the British courts held in 1921 the English legislature intended. Four years elapsed after the decision in the Wankie Colliery case before the legislature stepped in and altered the law with regard to assessment of excess profits. During those four years no attempt was made to induce the legislature to correct what it is suggested is a wrong interpretation put upon the law by the courts. If, as suggested by Deputy Costello, the action of the British Parliament in 1926 was due to the Wankie Colliery decision then certainly they allowed a long number of years to elapse before they gave effect to their view. That decision was given in the courts at length, interpreting the intention of the legislature at the date that the Act was originally passed.

As regards one other point, Deputy Dillon said that there is power in the Revenue Commissioners at the moment to grant a certificate. I do not think the Revenue Commissioners have power to grant certificates as regards excess profits. They have power to grant certificates as regards income tax, but I do not think they have that power in regard to excess profits. I do not think it is reasonable for the Deputy to charge the Revenue Commissioners with refusing to exercise this alleged power when, in fact, they have not got it.

Mr. Dillon

My information was derived from the debate on the Report Stage. I will consult the Official Debates and see if I can find my reference.

The Attorney-General

Perhaps it may be so, but I am not aware that it is.

Mr. Dillon

On a point of explanation. This is a quotation from a speech of the Minister for Finance:—

"It seems to me that if the House passes the resolution and makes the position clear, it will be open to any person who is going to purchase a business, a business which was in existence in the year 1914 to 1921, to ask the person who was owner of that to go to the Revenue Commissioners and bring from them some sort of proof or documentary evidence that in their opinion the business is not chargeable with excess profits duty at this date. That can be quite easily done. A man purchasing a business will, no doubt, employ just as skilled a lawyer as he would to inquire into the title when he is purchasing a house, and no lawyer will take possession until he has a certificate that there is no liability for excess profits."

I took it from that that the Revenue Commissioners had the power to grant certificates. Following that statement by the Minister for Finance, Deputy Costello intervened and said: "I do not think the Revenue Commissioners would give such a certificate. I should be surprised if they did." I took it from the statement of the Minister for Finance that they had the power, while an ex-Attorney-General said, by implication, that it was in their power to do it.

The Attorney-General

Deputy Costello said that he did not think the Revenue Commissioners would give such a certificate.

Mr. Costello

And I repeat that, except, perhaps, you can draw it out of them with a horse shoe.

Mr. Dillon

I have been charged by the Attorney-General with recklessly making a charge against the Revenue Commissioners which I should not make. I want now to point out that I was misled into the belief that they had the power by the Minister for Finance, and misled by an ex-Attorney-General into the belief that having the power they would not issue the certificate. I ask has any member of the House ever had better authority to rebut a charge made against him?

The Attorney-General

I did not intend to rebuke Deputy Dillon. What I was suggesting was that he was acting on a wrong opinion.

Mr. Dillon

The Attorney-General said that I made a charge and that I ought not to have made it.

The Attorney-General

I think I qualified that by saying that, so far as I knew, they had not the power. I think if the Deputy reads carefully the statement made by the Minister for Finance he will see that what the Minister stated was that the Revenue Commissioners could state "that in their opinion." That would have no statutory effect. I take it the suggestion is that if the Revenue Commissioners gave a written document that, in their opinion, no tax was chargeable a person would probably accept that as sufficient guarantee that he would not in future be called upon to pay, but the very reluctance of the Revenue Commissioners, as mentioned by Deputy Costello, to grant a certificate, or give such a document, shows, I think, that I am right in thinking that it would have no binding force and that, in fact, it would have no protection except so far as the goodwill of the Revenue Commissioners would allow them to treat it as binding upon them. As the law stands, there is nothing, I think, in the shape of a certificate. There is nothing that the Revenue Commissioners can grant which a taxpayer could safely and with certainty rely on as a guarantee against a future claim for excess profits duty. That is academic at the moment because, as the Minister has pointed out, steps will be taken between this and Report to frame an amendment which will enable the Revenue Commissioners to grant such a certificate. I suppose that the adequacy or otherwise of that certificate can be discussed when the proposed new sub-section takes shape. I think that, notwithstanding what Deputy Dillon has said, if he reads what was said by the Minister, it does not quite bear the interpretation that he attempted to put upon it.

Mr. Dillon

Then I must ask the Chair, on a point of personal explanation, to allow me to read it again:

"That can be quite easily done. A man purchasing a business will no doubt employ just as skilled a lawyer as he would to inquire into the title when he is purchasing a house and no lawyer will take possession until he has a certificate that there is no liability for excess profits."

These are the words of the Minister for Finance. I can quite see that a slight slip may have been made. The Minister for Finance may have been thinking of income tax or something of that kind. I wanted to make it clear that the present situation was that they had power but that they would not use it, and I intended to give the taxpayer the right to compel them to use the power of certification unless they were prepared, within a given time, to go to assessment. That is the amendment suggested.

The Attorney-General

I do not know whether that occurs in the same speech.

Mr. Dillon

The reference is column 1,943.

The Attorney-General

I think the Deputy might let it stand. The legal position is as I have stated and I do not think there is anything further I have to say.

Mr. Costello

I am afraid I am not quite as simple as Deputy Dillon, and I shall present the Minister for Finance with bouquets when I see the draft of the amendment proposing to give the Revenue Commissioners power to issue a certificate, and when I see the provision therein contained, which Deputy Dillon in his simplicity thinks will impose an obligation upon the Revenue Commissioners to give such certificate, because I am prepared to prophesy here and now—I may be wrong—that there will be no such obligation on the Revenue Commissioners to issue such certificate. If at the present moment there is no statutory power, as the Attorney-General said, to enable the Revenue Commissioners to issue such a certificate, I am prepared to prophesy that there will be no statutory power after the Act is passed to force the Revenue Commissioners to give any such certificate. I can foresee the type of amendment that will be put in imposing on the Revenue Commissioners the obligation to give such a certificate. This certificate will be so hedged round by safeguards by the Revenue Commissioners that it will be utterly and absolutely useless in the hands of the taxpayer. I should like to make a bet with my colleague, the Attorney-General, that I can produce almost in ten minutes the draft of the amendment which will be there put in.

The Attorney-General

The Deputy is evidently aware of the difficulties.

Mr. Costello

I am more aware of the mentality and practice of the Revenue Commissioners than the difficulties that exist in these cases. I want again to put it seriously to the Minister, from the point of view of purchasers for value without notice, that this certificate will be of no earthly use to such a purchaser because while the Commissioners are making up their minds to give this certificate, which Deputy Dillon is his simplicity thinks the Revenue Commissioners will issue immediately after purchase, the purchaser will have to remain out of his property and the vendor will have to remain out of his money for a long period until the Revenue Commissioners are convinced that they have got, or are likely to get, the last penny in excess profits duty out of the vendor. When they have satisfied themselves about that after months or even years of inquiry and investigation—and I underline investigation—they will present a certificate to the unfortunate vendor and the purchaser which will be utterly and absolutely of no use to them. If Deputy Dillon ever saw the certificate that is issued by the Revenue Commissioners in reference to estate duty he would find that what I have pointed out is true. It is not a free discharge. He will find stuck down at the end of it adequate safeguards for the Revenue Commissioners which will enable them to come again at the unfortunate successor in title of the original taxpayer in certain circumstances. I say that this certificate which brought such balm to Deputy Dillon and called off his attack on the Minister would be of practically no use whatever. I would again seriously press on the Minister the desirability of safeguarding property of bona fide purchasers for value without notice.

Mr. Dillon

How are you going to do it?

Mr. Costello

I am going to suggest that a certificate is of no use in such circumstances. What should be in this section is a provision to the effect that the rights of the Revenue Commissioners, if any, should attach to the purchase money, and not to the particular person who happens to be in possession of the premises. The Minister is very happy about that suggestion, but I intend before I sit down to make him slightly unhappy. I may tell him and the Revenue Commissioners that this section which they think so watertight is not quite so watertight as they think. I make a present of that suggestion to the Minister for Finance.

Perhaps we shall have a little bit of litigation in the course of time if it goes as it stands. If an executor sells the property of a testator, the death duties which are a charge on the property attach to the purchase money and the property conveyed is discharged from those debts. In the present circumstances, in cases where a grave injustice may arise, I do suggest that is the remedy. You may put in any amendment you like to provide safeguards for the Revenue Commissioners but I do suggest that their rights in reference to Excess Profits Duty which have not been met should attach to the purchase money and not to the business or the person who happens to be at the moment in possession.

The Attorney-General referred to the fact that it is wealthy persons who are charged with excess profits. In a particular case in which I happened to be engaged professionally the person concerned was a man who was practically bankrupt. He came within the very words of Lord Justice Atkin in that case. He purchased a public house and public houses at that time were doing exceedingly well. Subsequently they did exceedingly badly and after he purchased the premises he did exceedingly badly because he hit bad times. That was after the Wankie Colliery decision. My recollection is that he purchased the premises before the Wankie Colliery decision and he was faced with a claim by the Irish Revenue Commissioners for duty in respect of excess profits made by his predecessors in the good times, although he was himself losing money and in difficulties. The amount concerned, as far as my recollection goes, was about £1,500, so that the claim was not in respect of a big transaction or a wealthy person. Of course, the advisers of that gentleman were faced with the decision in the Wankie Colliery case which had just been decided. I want to make the point that the Revenue Commissioners accepted considerably less than the amount of the assessment. If they were satisfied that the Wankie Colliery case would have been followed in this country they would not have accepted a penny less. He had a public house which they could have got. The Revenue Commissioners could have laid their claws upon that.

The Attorney-General also said that there should be no complaint by people now, having regard to the fact that in 1921 the Wankie Colliery case was decided by, I think, the British Court of Appeal. That decision was given so far back as 1921 and it is now being put into operation in this country. The Attorney-General overlooked, or forgot, one very important consideration in this respect, that is the fact that we stopped in the Finance Act of 1926 all further assessments to excess profits except in cases of wilful default or fraud. From 1926 until last year, except for a footnote in the Finance Act of 1922 which, unless it was very sedulously looked for, would never be discovered, and which purported to impose liability for excess profits, for six years prior to that there was no liability for excess profits duty except in a small number of cases of fraud. Now we are faced with a situation, that a purchaser purchasing a property cannot in any way safeguard himself. I will present a bouquet to the Minister for Finance, with the most complimentary phrase I can think of, if he produces a certificate which will satisfy me when advising a purchaser.

In the particular case in which I am engaged we are faced with a further difficulty, that when a person advises a purchaser of a business and asks for proofs that there is no claim for excess profits duty arising, the answer is: "There is no claim," or "We will find out from the Revenue Commissioners." The answer is that you are not entitled to ask that question because it is not a requisition on title. The Attorney-General will appreciate that particular technical point, although other Deputies will not. In other words it amounts to this, that excess profits duty not being charged on the property, a purchaser is not entitled to ask or to be told whether or not there is any excess profits duty liability outstanding. At the present moment I know of no way to safeguard the rights of a purchaser.

Mr. Dillon

Even if goodwill is included in the bargain.

Mr. Costello

All the more if it is included. That is the answer that is given. I do not say that there is no right, but this matter would have to be brought to court and decided. I think I have said sufficient, at all events, to persuade the Minister that there is a genuine case being made by me on behalf of genuine persons. In connection with this section the only consideration should not be the Revenue Commissioners. The public should be considered as well. Dealing with excess profits duty no consideration is being given in Sections 35 and 36 to anybody's interest except that of the Revenue Commissioners. It is only right that the bona fide and the honest taxpayer should get a fair deal from this House. If he gets a fair deal here he will get a fair deal from the Revenue Commissioners. Otherwise he will not, because the Revenue Commissioners will follow the strict letter of the law. I do not want to put myself in the position of advising anyone who is in such a position that he will have to rely upon the Revenue Commissioners to temper justice with mercy. The Minister should consider the position of the ordinary bona fide purchase and sales transaction. The certificate he proposes to give is, I assume, from the practical point of view of no value whatever, no matter what form he puts it in. I am quite convinced that there will be no obligation on the Revenue Commissioners to give it. I am also convinced, if there is an obligation to give it, that it would be so hedged round with safeguards for the Revenue Commissioners that it will be no use in the hands of the purchaser.

Mr. Dillon

Once an Attorney-General, always an Attorney-General.

Mr. Costello

I wish that was so. Unfortunately it is not.

Mr. Dillon

I did not mean to convey that all the advantages of the office remain, but that all the vices do.

Mr. Costello

All the disabilities remain, if you like to put it that way.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Costello cannot conceive that this House could impose anything on the Revenue Commissioners. We are told that no matter what this House wants the Revenue Commissioners will say that such and such a thing shall be done.

Mr. Costello

So they will. Wait and see.

Mr. Dillon

I know that may be so. As I said, once an Attorney-General, always an Attorney-General. It would seem as if they were afraid of their lives of the Revenue Commissioners.

Mr. Costello

I am only stating facts.

Mr. Dillon

It may be said that while Deputies are all fire and flame here, after half an hour with the Revenue Commissioners they come back to the Dáil, in a chastened mood. That may be so. I am learning that from the Deputy. It may be so with the Attorney-General or with the Minister for Finance, that while they are prepared to defend the rights of the subject here, as the ex-Attorney-General has done, after half an hour with the chairman of the Revenue Board they come back here as mild as milk. I am trying to put a little bone into them, so that when they go to the Revenue Commissioners they will be as bold with them as they are here. What I ask them to do is to insist that the individual for whom Deputy Costello spoke shall have that right, vis-a-vis, the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

Mr. Costello

I want it to be given.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy cannot dream that any certificate given would give him security against the Revenue Commissioners. What the Deputy means to say is that the Revenue Commissioners will point to so many different difficulties that they will succeed in intimidating the Minister for Finance, and the Minister will take back an emasculated and spineless document. I am asking the Minister for Finance simply to insist that after the lapse of a certain time, when an application is made, the Revenue Commissioners will give an absolutely clear discharge in respect of the business, without reservation of any kind in respect of the liability imposed by the Finance Act of last year.

Mr. Moore

Irrespective of whether the place was sold or not.

Mr. Dillon

The Deputy says: "The Revenue Commissioners will hold you up so long that it would be useless." Again I say the citizen has some right. His right is to go to the Minister for Finance and to say that no matter how efficient these people are there must be a limit. We are entitled to demand that whatever enquiries are to be made will be made forthwith. If the time be long, and if the conveyancer thinks it a practical proposition, I do not see why Deputy Moore's suggestion should not be incorporated. Anybody has a right to go and negotiate with the Revenue Commissioners and expect finality in the making of assessments for excess profits duty. If we start such enquiries we can take the consequences. We want to have it clear that the Revenue Commissioners will make such enquiries on request as they want and give the individual citizen a discharge from liability. I know that that is heresy from the point of view of the Revenue Commissioners. From the point of view of that distinguished Board, a man must be in thrall to it from the day he opens a banking account or from the day he puts £5 in his stocking. Notwithstanding the reverence in which I hold the Revenue Commissioners, I think that the Dáil should insist that the citizen has some rights as against them. A person should be entitled to go to the Revenue Commissioners and say "I want a discharge." He should be entitled to a discharge without loopholes, albeit the Dáil should place the obligation upon the businessman of opening his affairs to the Commissioners and being ready to meet an assessment, if one is made against him within a reasonable time. I do not think that the debt should attach to the property purchased because the purchaser has as much right as the vendor to be freed from liability to the State. A man should have the right to get rid of his liabilities to the State in any form. So far as I know, no Statute of Limitations runs against the Revenue Commissioners. If, in the case of an ordinary contract debt, a creditor were to act in this way, Deputy Costello would wax eloquently about his monstrous conduct. Tears would come to his eyes and his voice would tremble. But where it is a case of the Revenue Commissioners, the debtor is an evildoer who is suppressing information and who has at last been brought to justice. I do not think that that is right. I think the same law should run against the Revenue Commissioners as runs against the ordinary citizen in respect of time. If they do not make their claim within a reasonable time, another situation will arise.

I recognise that you must fix the liability somewhere in cases of fraudulent concealment. I do not propose to follow Deputy Costello into the more intricate details of the law in that regard, because I am not fitted to do so. It may be that in cases where the Revenue Commissioners are in a position to prove fraud, liability should attach to the purchase money in order to deliver the successor in title from the liability. But I do not think it is necessary to allege fraud under Section 36.

Mr. Costello

No.

Mr. Dillon

The vendor ought to be given the right to ask for a certificate of discharge and the purchaser should be entitled, by requisition on title, to call for such a certificate when he is buying a business as a going concern. In any event, I think that the ex-Attorney-General is chopping logic with me there. This could easily be brought into the bargain on behalf of the purchaser.

Mr. McMenamin

What effect would that have?

Mr. Dillon

An obligation could be placed on the vendor to produce that evidence before the bargain would be completed. There could be a condition of sale.

Mr. Costello

Undoubtedly, but you might easily have no control over the conditions of sale. The sale might be a public auction.

Mr. Dillon

Once the purchaser knew a certificate of this kind could be produced, he could create a situation which would render it obligatory on the vendor to produce it. We should insist, before passing this section, that the Revenue Commissioners be compelled to grant any person who applies a complete discharge in the most emphatic terms in respect of excess profits duty, so that the certificate can be tendered to any purchaser desiring to purchase the business.

Mr. MacEntee

Quite a number of interesting considerations have arisen in this debate and a number of very useful suggestions have been made. I am not at all averse to establishing finality in respect of people who may be liable for excess profits duty. We are anxious to get the whole thing wound up as speedily as we can but I do not think it is quite so simple a matter as Deputy Dillon suggests. I do not think that the Revenue Commissioners should be put in the dilemma that they must issue a certificate within a certain time or that the person concerned should go scot free of excess profits duty. Quite obviously, a man who knew he was liable for duty would go to the Revenue Commissioners, apply for a certificate and refuse to give the Revenue Commissioners the information they would naturally ask before they could satisfy themselves that he was not, in fact, liable. He could put every obstacle in their way, hoping by the mere effluxion of time to be rid of any liability which attached to him for excess profits duty. That is the one big difficulty I see in regard to Deputy Dillon's suggestion. At one time, I myself, thought that an advance might be made along this line but I am no longer satisfied that that is practicable. I think that the only thing we can do is to give the Revenue Commissioners power to issue certificates in cases where they are satisfied that no liability for excess profits duties attaches to the business. I do not see how the matter could be operated in any other way. The fact that the Revenue Commissioners have power to issue a certificate of this sort will speedily become known and any prospective purchaser of a business will be at pains to satisfy himself that that certificate has been secured before he becomes a serious bidder for such a business. I think that that fact will compel people who contemplate selling their business to take time by the forelock and go to the Revenue Commissioners before the business is put up for sale or negotiations for sale opened, so that they may be enabled to make a transfer of the business free of liability for excess profits duty.

At the moment, we are rather beating the wind. As I have already said, we propose, in an amendment which will be before the House next Wednesday, to give the Revenue Commissioners power to issue a certificate which will, in certain circumstances, be a clearance between the vendor and the purchaser. This debate might be more usefully continued when the exact conditions under which that certificate will be issued are before the House.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 37.

(1) Where a deceased person would, if living, be chargeable with and assessable to excess profits duty in respect of any accounting period, the executor or administrator of such deceased person shall be charged with and may be assessed to excess profits duty in respect of such accounting period in like manner and to the same extent as such decased person, if living, would be so chargeable and could lawfully be so assessed.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment 12:

In sub-section (1), line 10, to delete the word "charged" and substitute the words "a person chargeable."

The intention of Section 37, as introduced, was that, while the Revenue Commissioners should be at liberty to charge the executor in case of death, they should not be forced to do so in cases in which this would be unjust. The purpose of this amendment is to make the intention of the Legislature clear. It is considered that the effect of the section will not be altered by the amendment but that the purpose will be made clear. In the absence of this amendment, it might be argued that the executor was the only person chargeable and, in certain types of case, this might be unfair to the residuary legatee. Accordingly, I propose that this amendment be adopted by the House. In doing that, I propose that the section itself, as amended in this way, should also be adopted.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment 13:

In sub-section (1), line 13, after the word "assessed" to add the words "but no such executor or administrator shall be liable for any such duty in excess of the assets of such deceased person which such executor or administrator has received or might, but for his own neglect or default have received.

This amendment is intended to meet Deputy Costello's point that the executor or administrator should not be liable for duty in excess of the assets coming into his hands. It follows closely the drafting of (3) of Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1894, with regard to an executor's liability for estate duty to which I think Deputy Costello referred some time ago.

Mr. Costello

I am satisfied with this amendment. The only point I wish to make arises out of this amendment or I should say out of (5) of the section.

An Ceann Comhairle

We may take it that the amendment is accepted?

Mr. Costello

Yes.

Amendment 13 agreed to.

Mr. Costello

Section 37 (5) provides for the giving of a certificate to the executor or administrator discharging him from all claims for further excess profits duty. I asked the Minister on the last occasion whether that certificate would operate to discharge the beneficiaries under a will or the next-of-kin in the case of an intestate from future claims for excess profits duty. To the best of my recollection the Minister said it would not. I do suggest that such a certificate should have that effect. Possibly it was intended that it should have that effect. I do not know. I am raising the point for the purpose of finding out what was really intended. But it seems anomalous, an executor of a deceased person having discharged his liabilities in the case of a deceased person for excess profits duty, that it should be found perhaps some years afterwards, that the beneficiaries would be liable; that while a certificate had been given the Revenue Commissioners ascertained, subsequently, that the executor did not give the full measure of duty that he should have given and that, therefore, innocent beneficiaries would be liable. I think that is open, under Section 37, taken in conjunction with Section 36.

Mr. MacEntee

I think the Deputy's interpretation is quite correct. Section 37 relates only to executors. The certificate is intended only to relieve them of their personal liability in those cases in which they did their duty honestly both to the estate and to the State. A person who would inherit property in respect of it and who is liable to excess profits duty would be in exactly the same position as the person who would purchase the property. Under Section 36 the beneficiaries would continue to be liable as they have always been liable for excess profits duty.

Section 37, as amended, agreed to.

Section 38 agreed to.

SECTION 39.

Mr. Dillon

What does Section 39 do?

Mr. MacEntee

Formerly stamp duty was imposed on a certain part of the pool on each sweepstake carried out under the Temporary Sweepstakes Act of 1930. At the present moment there is before the Seanad a new Bill which regulates the manner in which these sweepstakes are to be carried out and the allocation of the receipts. This section applies to that part of the pool of sweepstakes carried out under the new Bill. It applies that tax to the same part of the pool in those sweepstakes carried out under the new Act that was taxable already under the old Sweepstakes Act.

Mr. Dillon

It simply re-enacts that future sweepstakes would pay in the same way as the old sweepstakes?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Section agreed to.

SECTION 40.

Mr. Dillon

I have not the faintest notion of what this section means either.

Mr. MacEntee

I explained this section on the Second Reading. Technically the receipt given by the county registrar for money, including fees received by him in connection with the discharge of duties transferred to him under the Court Officers Act of 1926 is liable for duty. The county registrar is at present liable to pay these fees to the Exchequer and to recoup himself for the sums expended by a claim on the Department of Justice. There is no purpose served by that. It is a sort of dual proceeding and this section proposes to abolish it.

Section 40 and 41 agreed to.

SECTION 42.

Mr. Dillon

What is the significance of Section 42?

Mr. MacEntee

This section is trying to remedy a peculiar anomaly which at present exists. Where a debtor not resident in the Saorstát possesses assets in the Saorstát and owes money to Saorstát creditors the latter can take proceedings and, by leave of the court, serve him outside the Saorstát either in Great Britain or elsewhere. Now, in the case of debts due by that person to the Revenue, the position while it is the same for countries other than Great Britain, is not the same in regard to Great Britain. Service in Great Britain for a debt due to the Saorstát Revenue cannot be effected even though the debtor has assets here in the Saorstát. On the other hand, the British Revenue authorities are in a much more fortunate position in so far as they can and do arrange that a person in the Saorstát who owes money to them can be served in the Saorstát. This section is designed to remove that anomaly and to make it possible to effect service in Great Britain in the case of a person owing money to the Revenue.

Mr. Dillon

Did the British Government take these powers recently?

Mr. MacEntee

No, they always had them. These anomalies arose originally by reason of the Adaptation of Enactments Act. It was provided there that the term "United Kingdom" should be interpreted as meaning also the Saorstát. Formerly there was this provision for Revenue summonses for the United Kingdom and when the Adaptation of Enactments Act was under consideration it was presumed that this would be dealt with under the rules of court. We have been so long getting the rules of court that for ten years this has remained and we feel that this is the easiest and the best way of removing the anomaly.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I think the Minister is misinformed of the questions of the rules of court. The High Court rules were amended and the High Court rules were brought into operation a very considerable number of years ago, some time about 1926 or thereabouts. I do know that there is a difficulty that, while a writ issued by the English courts can be served in this country, a plenary summons issued by our courts cannot be served in England. While the Minister is taking this step with regard to Revenue cases, I should like to know why it is not made of universal application and that all plenary summonses should be served in England as they were previously, and as English writs can be served here.

Mr. MacEntee

As to the last point, I do not think that the Ceann Comhairle would certify this Bill as a money Bill if it were proposed to deal with all plenary summonses. I am merely dealing with sommonses issued by the Revenue Commissioners. The position is that when the Rules of Court were being drawn up here Revenue sommonses were excluded because there was a special procedure for Revenue summonses covered by an Act of 1894, I think, and therefore it was thought to be all right because the Adaptation of Enactments Act covered that but the Adaptation of Enactments Act merely provided that where the words "United Kingdom" occur the words should be interpreted as "Saorstát Eireann." The consequence was that Great Britain was excluded from the area covered by the Revenue Commissioners.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

I was only interested in the Rules of Court.

Sections 42 to 45, inclusive, agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.

Mr. Dockrell

I move amendment 14:

In Ref. No. 5, second column, after the word "separately," to add the footballs and soccer footballs sold from 12/6 down to 3/6."

In suggesting this amendment I did it in the interest of making quite clear what is meant by this Reference. I do not know if the Minister has it in his mind to cover all footballs that are not made in this country. I understand that at the present time there is a certain grade of footballs made in this country and I do not think that anybody would object to giving protection to them. At the same time, there is a high-grade class of match ball which is a patented article and imported into this country. I am sure that the Minister will not suggest that a patented article could not be made in this country.

The other item that I wish to make clear is what the Minister means by a football. I do not suggest for a moment that if a standard match ball were put on the table in front of the Minister that he would have any difficulty in recognising it, but at the same time there must come some point at which the line will be drawn, I suggest that footballs get smaller and smaller down to a point at which they are really only Christmas toys. I am sure we are all familiar with having seen children at Christmas time playing with footballs that are really very little better than tennis balls, and I suggest that the Minister might properly exclude that type of ball, especially as it is not made in this country. I do not wish to delay the House except to ask the Minister how far he can afford to meet this amendment.

Mr. MacEntee

All covers made of leather for balls, whether used for the game of football or any similar game, say, the game of water polo, would be liable, I think, under this section. That, at any rate, was the original intention. As long as they are covers made wholly or mainly of leather and imported they come under this. I think the original intention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce was not to confine it merely to balls which would be used in the game of football. I do not know that I can do anything to meet the Deputy in regard to the amendment he has put down. I think it would render the duty utterly unworkable and give rise to unfair and unwise discrimination against the game of Rugby. The Revenue Commissioners felt that it was impossible efficiently to administer a duty the liability of which was on the sale price, whether wholesale or retail. Under the amendment as proposed Rugby and Gaelic footballs, not patented, would be liable to duty while patented balls, if for Association football, would be eligible for exemption. The general intention was that the leather industry in this country should be protected and there is quite a considerable manufacture of football covers in the country already; it might be that they are not quite so perfect for their purposes as the patented articles which the deputy proposes to exempt by this amendment, but then I think they are quite good enough and on that ground I do not think we could grant the exemption.

Mr. Dockrell

I am sorry the Minister cannot see his way to grant this request because I would like to assure him that there are patented Rugby footballs as well as patented Soccer footballs so that there would be no discrimination in that respect. I think that where an important match has to be played it only means that there is an additional burden on the promoters of the game. The Minister also said that a water polo ball is the same as a football. If you got a crack on the head from one or the other you would know the difference. I do not see how the Minister can describe a water polo ball as a football. However, I suggest that is one of the things he had better look into. I do not see how anybody could contend that a water polo ball was a football. It seems to me that his whole contention falls to the ground. With regard to the question of the price of a ball, I am quite prepared to admit his contention. At the same time I suggest to him that he should draw the line between a football and a toy. However, that is a matter that I would ask him to consider.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not think I could accept the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Dockrell

I move amendment No. 15:

In Ref. No. 6, second column, after the word "busts," to add the words "but excluding fire bricks and fire blocks, fireclay sunk fires and fireclay backs, including interiors, boiler and flue blocks and flue linings."

The purpose of this amendment is to exclude something which is not at present being made in this country and which I do not think is likely to be made in the country. If the Minister at any time finds that it is, he could quite easily give a preference to the Irish manufacturer. I suggest that there is no fireclay in this country, and in accepting this amendment the Minister would really only be saving the mercantile community and the Ministry of Industry and Commerce the frightful amount of labour involved in issuing permits for practically every single group of articles imported into this country under one consignment.

Mr. MacEntee

The Minister for Industry and Commerce is opposed to the acceptance of these amendments on the grounds that they whittle down the extensive scope of the duty on clay products, and that in fact the issue of licences will meet any case of real hardship which may arise. I think, in view of the fact that there is a general licensing provision here in this section, that the explicit exemption asked for in the amendment is not necessary. I do not know whether a time will come when we will be able to make first class fire bricks, fire blocks, fireclay sunk fires and fireclay backs, including interiors, boiler and flue blocks, and flue linings. I quite admit we are not making them now, but I do not despair in that regard, and I do believe that some day we shall be able to make them.

Mr. Dockrell

I should like to reassure the Minister that I do not despair of that either. At the same time he has really given his case away when he admits that those articles are not being manufactured here at present. I suggest to him that if at any future time he wants to give preference to any manufacturer who has put up a case for manufacturing them he can do so. I am not suggesting that this should remain on for all time.

General Mulcahy

Is it not a most unsatisfactory state of affairs that where a tariff is put on, which in fact is a revenue tariff, the Minister for Industry and Commerce takes in respect of that particular item power to give a licence wherever he wishes to do so, so that you may have a certain person applying for a licence to import these products and being refused, and a certain other person applying for a licence to import them and having it granted? I think the Minister will realise that that is a most unfair way of dealing with a matter like this, and I suggest that he should accept the amendment.

Mr. Coburn

Might I ask the Minister what he means by a licence? Are those licences to be confined to the merchants in the cities, or are they to be extended to the merchants in provincial towns? I am strongly in favour of this amendment. In fact, I intend to speak on the Schedule governing the whole range of articles made of clay. I shall have quite a lot to say on that. I am in favour of the amendment proposed by Deputy Dockrell, in view of the fact that those articles are not at the moment manufactured in the country, and as far as I can see or learn there is no immediate sign that they will be manufactured here in the near future, and that those tariffs are increasing very much the cost of those commodities. They are inflicting a hardship on the bricklaying trade to a certain extent, not alone these tariffs but also many other tariffs, and it is also a hardship— although it is not quite relevant here— that cement is being used at the moment as against brick. I think that in view of the Minister's own statement he should accept this amendment of Deputy Dockrell's, until such time as some manufacturer in this State will be able to supply those commodities. I think, after all, it is about time we should cry halt on this policy of imposing discriminating tariffs, thereby increasing the price of the commodities and decreasing the capacity of the people to pay the increased costs.

Mr. Dillon

With reference to amendment 15, and also amendment 16 which is really very much the same and arises from the same consideration, I do not attach much importance to the objection to licences from the point of view of discrimination, because certainly my experience has been that in the ordinary way there is no discrimination at all. You simply go to the Department and if you have a case you get the permit, and that is the end of it. There is never the slightest difficulty. If you make a case you get your permit. What is a very great difficulty, and what Ministers are likely to forget when they are not engaged in everyday business, is the nuisance of going to get the permit. You have to define very accurately what it is you are going to import. It usually means that you have to submit your invoices. Remember that with every tariff resolution you are bringing in you are multiplying the occasions for licences. If the Minister would make an expedition to the Department of Industry and Commerce at Lord Edward Street it would be most illuminating. The place is knee-deep in files. They are up to their eyes in applications for licences, and the result is that there is a very great measure of delay. I quite admit that if you go into Lord Edward Street and represent that the matter is urgent they will pick out your file and put it through with all despatch, but everybody cannot go to Lord Edward Street, and the result is that there is sometimes considerable delay in getting a permit. Supposing you are in anything like general business —and Deputy Dockrell will understand it well—where you have a vast range of articles, such as there is in the building trade, or where you have a wide variety of articles such as you have in general business, you would want to keep a man for nothing else but applying for permits. The vast majority of those permits are made necessary because the Minister for Industry and Commerce likes using a term such as "all things made out of clay," the reason being that he is too lazy to sit down and make a schedule. A phrase like "manufactured articles, which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, are made wholly or mainly of clay, and are completely unglazed and are not of the nature of statues, statuettes, or busts," simply means that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is too lazy to make out a schedule, and so he thought "We will take them all in and let the fellows down the country, the poor innocent business men, make applications and we will give them permits." That is what is happening. It is not happening in respect of this item alone; practically every one of them is an omnibus item, and the merchants down the country have to do the work that the Minister for Industry and Commerce or his officials ought to do. They want to catch certain things; they proceed to catch everything and license some, which is making business virtually impossible.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

It appears to me that the Minister has taken up rather a strange attitude in this matter, Deputy Dillon says that there is never any discrimination; that anybody who really has a case will be sure to get a permit. Therefore, everybody who wishes to import those things—and nobody wishes to import them merely for the fun of importation —will get a licence. What is happening is simply that you are going to say that everybody who wishes to import those particular articles will get a licence. You cannot hold it back from any particular individual, because that would be discrimination. Therefore, you might put it in your schedule as I have already put it, "everybody who wishes to import those particular articles shall apply for a licence." It is going to be no gain to the revenue.

Mr. MacEntee

I propose to consider the exemptions covered by amendment 15 if the Deputy will withdraw that amendment. I am not prepared to go so far as that in regard to amendment 16. If the Deputy wishes to take his chance, he might withdraw both amendments and submit them again on the Report Stage.

Amendment 15, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment 16 not moved.

Mr. Dockrell

I move amendment 17:—

In Ref. No. 11, second column, after the words "or cisterns," to add the words "but excluding galvanised steel storage cisterns of 400 gallons capacity and upwards."

This is within even a narrower limit than the preceding articles. This amendment is concerned with storage cisterns up to a certain size. One manufacturing firm in the Saorstát has a tank and another firm is installing a larger tank. This amendment is submitted with the idea of allowing in only cisterns that are incapable of going into galvanising tanks in the Saorstát. If at some future time some manufacturer goes to the expense of installing a larger tank—and that necessitates a considerable outlay—the Minister can rule this proposal out. I suggest, however, that there is no possibility at the moment of a cistern being manufactured and galvanised in the Saorstát of the capacity which I have indicated. I do not suggest that these large storage cisterns are used in Dublin. The reason is they are too big. Any cistern which would be used in the city can be manufactured in the Saorstát. There are large cisterns required for the country for storage purposes, and in those circumstances I suggest the Minister ought to accept the amendment.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not think it is possible for me to accept the amendment. As the Deputy is no doubt aware, there is a licensing provision in the Schedule in relation to this item. While it might be true to say that it would not be possible to get galvanised steel storage cisterns of 400 gallons capacity and upwards at this moment in the Saorstát, I understand arrangements are being made by possibly two firms to manufacture them in the near future.

Mr. Dockrell

Does the Minister suggest that at present you can get a licence for the importation of a 400 gallon galvanised steel cistern?

Mr. MacEntee

The licensing provision is in the Schedule and the Minister has the power; but I am not going to say that the Minister for Industry and Commerce will recommend that a licence should be granted in every case in which an application is made for a 400 gallon galvanised tank. It might happen that there would be tanks available, possibly not galvanised, and they would equally serve the purpose for which the galvanised tank would be intended.

Mr. Dockrell

Does the Minister mean that you could use twins?

Mr. MacEntee

Possibly.

Mr. Dockrell

If the Minister will apply his mind to that he will find it is not a practical proposition. It would be much easier to pay the extra duty than to go to the expense of connecting two cisterns. He has not answered my question as to whether one can get a licence for a 400 gallon cistern at the present time. The Minister has mentioned that a particular manufacturer is installing a galvanising plant. If the Minister assures us that a manufacturer is installing a plant which is capable of galvanising a tank of 400 gallons, I am quite satisfied. I suggest, however, that it is not likely for some time to come that cisterns manufactured in this country will be galvanised here. If the Minister will look into that matter, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. MacEntee

I am not in a position to say that 400 gallon cisterns are being made here.

Mr. Dockrell

Or are going to be made.

Mr. MacEntee

I was just coming to that. I understand that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has reason to expect they will be made here.

Mr. Dillon

Just like the bottles.

Mr. MacEntee

Even in regard to the bottles, expectations are being fulfilled —not in toto, I admit. The position, at any rate, is that while I am not prepared to say that any person who wants a licence for a 400 gallon galvanised tank for any purpose whatsoever is going to get it, I do feel, as the licensing provision is there, that if the Minister for Industry and Commerce is satisfied that it is necessary to import a 400 gallon galvanised cistern, or a cistern of greater capacity, the licence will be freely given. Once a licence has been issued to one person I am sure it will be issued to any person who may apply and show good reason.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

Can the Minister give us any idea of the number of tanks imported of a capacity exceeding 400 gallons?

Mr. MacEntee

I am not in a position to give that.

Mr. Dockrell

My information is to the effect that there is no manufacturer installing a plant or likely to instal a plant that will galvanise a cistern of 400 gallons. If the Minister has information that there will be such a plant installed in the near future, I am quite satisfied.

Amendment 17, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Anthony

I should like to ask a few questions in regard to Part I, Reference No. 1 of the First Schedule. The articles to which I want to refer are "articles which in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners are sole leather or insole leather," and there is a tariff at the rate of 37½ per cent. and a preferential rate of 25 per cent. I respectfully submit, if this tariff becomes operative, it will inflict very great hardship upon a very deserving class of the community, namely the small shoemaker and boot repairer in the small towns and, also, to some extent, in the larger towns and cities. If we had, in this country, a sufficient supply of sole and insole leather there would be some justification for this duty. There is no doubt that shoemakers and boot repairers will be very largely affected by this particular item. In the Report of the Tariff Commission No. 11 dealing with the tariff on leather we find in paragraph 72 the following:—

"The boot manufacturers, with their present access to cheap markets for leather, are able, in many cases, to sell the better quality agricultural boots at prices approximating to those ruling in Great Britain, as the effect of the tariff is to keep out opposition rather than to enhance the price of the home manufactured product. A continuance of such free access to markets is absolutely necessary for the further developments anticipated. The prospect of the imposition of a tariff on sole and insole leather is viewed with dismay. The proprietors of the new factories point out that these factories were established without the expectation that a tariff on leather might be imposed."

Again, on page 27, paragraph 95, we find the statement:—

We are satisfied that the case for granting the application as far as sole leather and insole leather are concerned has not been established by the applicants.

In their recommendations they further state:—

We do not recommend the imposition of a customs duty on sole or insole leather, or leather intended for the manufacture of machinery belting.

I should like to know from the Minister as to whether he received any information from leather merchants and others who sell this sole and insole leather to bootmakers and others engaged in the industry. In most cases these small repairers and boot makers employ from two to four men. The effect of this tariff, if it is imposed, would be to wipe out these people altogether. I am sure that that is very far from the mind of the Minister, but I do not believe that he has had time to give this matter the consideration it deserves. I ask the Minister would he accept an amendment dealing with this matter on the Report Stage of the Bill?

Mr. MacEntee

No.

Mr. Anthony

There is just one other item to which I should also like to draw attention. Many of our artisans, tradesmen and mechanics have, of necessity, to import from abroad the tools they require to prosecute their business from day to day. Here again great hardship is imposed upon them because, as I say, they have to import these tools from outside the Saorstát. In nearly all cases these tools are tariffed. I received complaints from many workmen on this subject, and the cost and inconvenience they are at owing to the tariff. I would also ask the Minister to have these articles cleared as soon as possible from the clearing depot.

Mr. Dillon

I drew, from listening to the speech of Deputy Anthony, the conclusion that he is opposed to a tariff on sole leather.

Mr. Anthony

Yes, and on insole leather.

Mr. Dillon

The description is "articles which in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners are sole leather or insole leather." Are these subject to a duty of 25 per cent?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. Dillon

You are going to put a duty of 25 per cent. on sole leather? I see Deputy Jordan in his place. Does he approve of a tariff of 25 per cent. on sole leather?

Mr. Jordan

I am listening to you.

Mr. Dillon

I think the House would be profoundly interested to hear from Deputy Jordan on the subject. There is going to be a tax of 37½ per cent. on sole leather and a preferential rate of 25 per cent. Now it is well known that you cannot get the sole leather which is required from the Irish towns. This is a tax upon the poor. Of course, it is not the only tax upon the poor. There is not a single item they use at present upon which they are not paying a tax. I would like the Minister to say whether there has been a tax on sole leather here before.

Mr. MacEntee

No.

Mr. Dillon

Then I would like to ask what is the meaning of putting 37½ per cent. on sole leather if the people cannot get this leather in this country?

Mr. MacEntee

They can.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Minister suggest that the tanneries in this country are in a position to supply the needs of the Irish trade?

Mr. MacEntee

They can be supplied for the purpose that it was intended that sole leather should be used, under this tariff. If the Deputy would direct his attention to the fact that there is a very wide licensing provision, and that the present intention is to allow each big factory to import bottom leather, free of duty, under licence, he will appreciate that while large demand is ruled out, the demand will be limited to the demand from the boot repairers and people of that sort.

Mr. Cosgrave

On the last day the Minister for Industry and Commerce said the boot manufacturers would be allowed to import for their purposes sole leather but that the tax would fall on the boot repairers. He did not mention the larger boot manufacturers; he said the boot manufacturers.

Mr. Dillon

Does the Minister realise what he is doing? He is going to put a tax on leather that is used by the average person of small means in the country for repairing his boots. Every person who buys 1/6 worth of leather to put a patch on his shoes is going to pay 37½ or 25 per cent. extra, according to whether it is Belgian or English leather.

Mr. S. Jordan

He can get Irish.

Mr. Dillon

The Irish manufacturers where they can supply, and they are not nearly capable of supplying the entire demand, are going to bring their price up as near to that as they can get.

A Deputy

Question.

Mr. Dillon

It simply means that every man who goes in to buy leather will have to pay this duty. There is no market day in any country town that sides of leather are not sold in 1/6 and 2/6 lots to the poorest of the poor, the people who mend their own boots, and they are the people who are going to pay that tax. It absolutely baffles me how any sane Government will do this thing. However, we shall learn. I want to pass from that because it is incapable of discussion, it is so manifestly unjust.

Mr. Anthony

I should like to clear up any misapprehension which may exist. I understand that there is only one firm in this country producing insole leather and leather for soling boots, that is Messrs. Callaghan of Limerick. They produce one commodity known as Callox and they could not, even if they quadrupled their premises, supply the needs of the home market.

This tariff will fall on the poorest of the poor. Certainly, the factories will be advantaged to some extent, but the ordinary leather merchant, who in turn sells to the poor shoemaker in the country towns and cities will not as far as I can learn be able to sell the leather over his counter to the working shoemaker without passing on this duty, which, of course, in turn will mean that the poor man will have to pay more for soling and heeling his boots. I make the suggestion in good faith, and I should like the Minister to deal with that, as I feel it is not generally understood. I can understand it, but I should like the Minister to get rid of a whole lot of doubt that appears to exist.

Mr. MacEntee

There is no doubt in the mind of any person, certainly not in Deputy Anthony's mind.

Mr. Anthony

Not in mine, but there appears to be doubt abroad, because these poor people may feel that they will still be entitled to get their requirements from the leather merchant at the same price and my information is that the leather merchant will not be able to sell them this leather without putting on the tariff. I am sure the Minister will admit that that is an injustice to these people, particularly in view of the fact that we do not manufacture that commodity ourselves in sufficient quantities to supply the home market.

Mr. MacDermot

Might I ask if the small working shoemakers have had an opportunity of putting their case to the Department of Industry and Commerce with regard to this tariff and whether, in fact, they have done so, because I personally have received bitter complaints on the subject from such people?

Mr. Dillon

I have given way now very generously all round, and I want to deal with the question of glass bottles. I raised the question of glass bottles on the First Stage and I was informed that the supply was temporarily controlled, but wait until the Irish Glass Bottle Company get in their tank and then we shall be on the pig's back. The Minister for Industry and Commerce told us that all our demands were going to be met by the Irish Glass Bottle Company. Here is what the Company have to say about it:

"At present we are building a tank for the manufacture of clear glass bottles, which we hope to have completed about the end of June. We have, however, so many orders to be executed for mineral water bottles, etc., that we do not anticipate to be in a position to manufacture bottles for you until the end of the year, when we shall be glad again to receive your inquiry."

What is any business man to do in face of that? He is told by the Minister that there is going to be an abundant supply and this is what happened, and what is happening every day. The Minister for Industry and Commerce wants to know something about bottles, about which he knows nothing. He does not send round to the people in the bottling trade in Dublin or to people in the chemists' business. He takes up the telephone and he says to the Irish Glass Bottle Company: "Can you make bottles?", and they reply: "Certainly we can make bottles," and he puts a tariff of 50 per cent. on them. That is all there is ever about it. He did the same with regard to slates. "Can you supply slates?" he asks some company, and they reply, "Certainly we can." He does not put a tariff on slates but he gets the Minister for Local Government to announce that no grants would be given for housing except Irish slates were used. The whole building trade in the country is in chaos. It is worse than a tariff; it is a prohibition. It is the same all the way through. Tariffs are being put on without any consideration whatever for the interests of the consuming public whose interests are being affected and no adequate inquiry is being made. To my mind the situation is becoming absolutely chaotic and hopeless. Whenever objection is raised, a licence is given to import and the operation of these licence proposals is making the administration of the Revenue Commissioners incredibly difficult and the conduct of the ordinary general business in the country absolutely unbearable. Anybody engaged in general business or in trade who comes in contact with these tariffs could tell the Minister, if he inquires, that it is becoming practically impossible to carry on.

Mr. MacEntee

On the question of the duty on leather, it is quite true that the present intention is to administer it in such a way that boot factories will be allowed to import their supplies free of duty under licence. There is very good, reason for that. We admit that there are limitations to the present capacity of the existing factories. The class of work which boot factories do represents one limited field of demand. On the other hand, there is also a specialised demand for leather for boot-repairing purposes. It is quite a different type of demand. It is a demand for leather for certain handicraft work, and the capacity of existing tanneries is sufficient to meet that demand if they were working to their full output. In addition to that, I understand that, even if the existing factories were left out of consideration, there are other people who are quite prepared to come into the business, now that they see it is going to get a chance, and to start new tanneries for themselves. The number of persons employed in this industry at present is about 50. We anticipate that there will be no difficulty in increasing that number to 300 or 400. Naturally, we cannot do that without cost to somebody in the community, to some section of the community. The only thing is whether, in the interest of the community as a whole, it is more desirable that these people should be employed in a skilled trade to the number of 300 or 400 or whether we are going to employ them on minor relief schemes. If we decide that it is undesirable to employ more persons than is avoidable on minor relief schemes, proposals of this sort, which are designed to provide employment in the skilled trades, must be given a chance.

On the question of the glass bottles, I think that Deputy Dillon has corroborated the statement of the Minister for Industry and Commerce that, in due time, the Irish Glass Bottle Company would be in a position to supply white bottles. He has been in communication with them and they have informed him that the orders they have on hand are such that they do not anticipate that they will be able to supply them before, I think he said, December next. Deputy Dillon has his remedy under the Schedule. There, once again, appears this despised licensing provision and I am sure that the moment he gets in touch with the Department of Industry and Commerce and submits to them the letter he received from the Irish Glass Bottle Company, he will have no difficulty whatever in getting a licence to import white glass bottles. It will, I quite frankly admit, involve a little additional trouble for Deputy Dillon. He may have to telephone twice instead of telephoning once but I am sure that there would be no impediment placed in his way if the Department considers that he bona fide requires to import these bottles and has the letter from the Glass Bottle Company showing that they are not available here of home manufacture.

First Schedule agreed to.

Second and Third Schedules agreed to.

FOURTH SCHEDULE.

Dr. Davitt

I move amendments 18 to 23 inclusive:—

18. In Part 1 to delete the figures "5/6" and substitute the figures "2/9."

19. In Part I to delete the figures "6/1¼" and substitute the figures "3/0¾."

20. In Part I to delete the figures "7/1½" and substitute the figures "3/6¾."

21. In Part II to delete the figures "6/8" and substitute the figures "3/4."

22. In Part II to delete the figures "7/4¾" and substitute the figures "3/8½."

23. In Part II to delete the figures "8/7¾" and substitute the figures "4/4."

I was, unfortunately, unable to be here last Tuesday, when an amendment was moved in my name by Deputy Esmonde in connection with the tobacco tax. The Minister did not, I understand, accept that amendment, and now, on the Fourth Schedule, I am moving these amendments—I suppose they can be taken together—to see that if we cannot get the whole loaf from him we can get half a loaf. The object of the amendments is to reduce the excise duty by 50 per cent. where that duty is fixed on tobacco grown after January 1st, 1934, from 5/6 on the pound by weight to 2/9 on the pound by weight. When the Minister and the Executive Council last year, in the 1932 Budget, decided to remit all the excise duty on tobacco, they must have had some very good reason for doing so. That reason, obviously, was to encourage the growing of tobacco in Ireland. If they thought that tobacco growing was an industry which should be encouraged in 1932, they must surely agree that it is equally deserving of encouragement in 1933 or 1934. The Dáil Committee, which, in 1926, investigated tobacco growing in Ireland, stressed, as one of the great disadvantages that tobacco growing in Ireland had suffered from, the unsettled nature of the trade. During the British regime, there was, at one time, aid given to tobacco growing to the extent of a bonus of 1/- per lb. by weight to the growers. This was later changed to a subsidy of £50 an acre, which was subsequently reduced to £25 an acre, and the committee go on to a conclusion that the industry suffered from the fact that there was no settled policy with regard to tobacco growing. Here we have that same disadvantage occurring to an even greater extent this year.

What was the result of the pronouncements with regard to the policy of the Executive Council on tobacco growing? In County Meath, for instance, a tremendous number of votes were gained by the Fianna Fáil Party by the promises of my colleagues from Meath—whom I do not see present at the moment—which were, undoubtedly, carried out by the Executive Council, to drop all the taxes on tobacco. Naturally, that proved a great attraction for the Meath tobacco growers. In one year their hopes are dashed to the ground and the tax is suddenly raised from nothing to 5/6 or 6/8 in the pound, as the case may be. That is not quite fair to the tobacco growers. I would say that it is not even quite fair to my colleagues in Meath. I do not know how they are going to explain in Wilkinstown and other districts, where tobacco is widely grown, what they said in 1932 and what has happened after the Budget of 1933. Leaving out, however, the political side of it, it is a grave injustice to these farmers who were encouraged in every way to grow tobacco, and a wonderful vista of prosperity pointed out to them, to have their hopes dashed to the ground after one year and before they had properly started to grow the leaf at all.

I think the Minister will agree that when he was in favour with other members of the Executive Council of remitting the excise duty altogether on tobacco last year, he had a very definite reason for doing so. What has happened to change his mind? Apparently, it is purely a question of revenue. Would the revenue suffer a great loss by reducing the excise duty by 50 per cent. or is the Minister in a position to answer that question? I suppose it is a very hard question to answer but would the revenue suffer to such an enormous extent that it would not be made up by the justice of the case so far as the growers of tobacco are concerned?

I saw, in this morning's paper, that the tobacco growers of Wexford, including a very well-known advocate of tobacco growing in Ireland, Father Sweetman, have actually agitated for this particular reduction in the amendment and, if the tobacco growers of County Wexford are of that opinion, they must have very good reason for their statements which went so far as to claim that any of the good done by the Minister's remission of taxation last year would be completely wiped out by the imposition of the taxes of 5/6 and 6/8 this year. That was the considered opinion of the Wexford tobacco growers and I know, too, that it is the considered opinion of many of the Meath tobacco growers. If the industry is ever going to be any good at all, it should get a fair chance and it should not be bandied about from Billy to Jack, with no tax upon it one year and, the next year, taxes of 5/6 and 6/8. There is no guarantee that, in the Budget next year, the tax may not be increased to 9/4 or reduced to 4/6 and I would suggest, with all due respect to the Minister, that, if he would accept these amendments and state that, in accepting them, he would produce some germ of a settled policy with regard to tobacco for the years to come, it would be a great benefit to the tobacco growing industry.

At the moment the person who smokes cigarettes or pipe tobacco has not had very much experience of Irish tobacco. The general opinion growing up amongst the ordinary consuming public is that Irish tobacco is terrible stuff. It was admitted by the Committee that considered this question in 1926 that the only future for the growing of Irish tobacco, for some period at all events, was that it should be mixed with a certain percentage of American leaf. If that were done the mixture would not be noticed very much by the consumer. I am quite sure that if the average Dublin working man was given Irish tobacco to smoke in his pipe he would not continue to smoke it and for two reasons: (1) that the Irish public are not yet educated to the taste of the Irish tobacco leaf; (2) or else that the Irish tobacco is so bad that the consuming public never can be educated to the taste of it. I prefer to think that the first is the real reason though possibly the second counts to a great extent. Both reasons, however, lead to this conclusion that some time must elapse before the Irish tobacco leaf will improve and until the Irish people will get more of a taste for Irish tobacco. There must be a lapse of a number of years before those two conditions are fulfilled. I suggest it is not giving a fair chance to the Irish tobacco industry to suddenly clap on a tariff of 6/8 one year after the growers had been promised complete relief from taxation.

I would like to press this point on the Minister: I know for a fact that in the County Meath tremendous disappointment has been occasioned by the Minister's Budget statement this year as regards the tobacco duty. Perhaps from a political point of view it would be wiser for me to say nothing about that, but rather let the Fianna Fáil representatives for the County Meath suffer all the disadvantages that are bound to arise from the putting on of this tax because I am quite sure they will have to answer to the voters in regard to it. But I prefer to take up the attitude that we should think of the people and of the tobacco growers first. It is on their account that I am moving these amendments and I hope the Minister will accept them. I think that from every point of view—of justice and commonsense, and especially from the point of view of justice in the carrying out of promises made in the 1932 election and again in the 1933 election—the Minister should accept these amendments and give a chance to the Irish tobacco growing industry.

Mr. Minch

There is some information I would like to get from the Minister in connection with the duty levied on Irish tobacco. I understand that the Minister estimates to get the sum of £3,500,000 from tobacco duty this year; but, supposing the Irish grower was able to produce sufficient to meet the requirements of the home market, what would this duty of 6/8 in the £ bring to the Exchequer? Those of us who are interested in the growing of Irish tobacco are anxious to get that figure. It would give us some idea as to what the future of the tobacco growing industry here is likely to be.

Mr. Esmonde

I desire to support what Deputy Davitt has said. It is now very many years since this question first came before the Dáil. I was Chairman of the Committee appointed seven years ago. The report we sent in was only a provisional one. We suggested that there should be a remission of the duty provisionally, subject to reconsideration of the whole question by an impartial committee with wide terms of reference. The Committee of which I was Chairman had not very wide terms of reference. It only had to deal with the question of the remission of duty. We had not to consider the question of marketing and other matters vital to the tobacco trade. The present Minister for Finance is adopting the same attitude as Mr. Blythe, when he was Minister for Finance, that he is not taking this matter seriously. I object to that, as I did when Mr. Blythe was Minister. I know that the present Minister has many grave problems to consider, and probably tobacco growing is a very minor matter in his mind. In my opinion, and in the opinion of those who have studied the question, the matter is one that deserves careful consideration. It has national possibilities. This kind of tinkering with it by the Minister and his Department does no good. It does not help to promote the industry in any way. This chopping and changing, putting on duties and taking them off with no fixed policy, only tends to discourage those who are trying to develop the industry. I would urge on the Minister not to rely entirely on the opinions of civil servants and officials of his Department who are anxious, above all, to watch the revenue. I would ask him to take the advice of persons who are not solely interested in revenue, but are able to take a wider and more general attitude towards the problem. In that way, possibly, he might arrive at a settled policy, and not have this continuous confusion and chaos which only disheartens those who are trying to develop the industry.

Mr. MacEntee

I am not able to accept the amendment proposed by Deputy Davitt. What is asked for would run into a very considerable sum next year and the year after—to something in the neighbourhood of half a million pounds. I am not in a position at this stage and in present circumstances to undertake what would be, in effect, a contingent liability of half a million pounds. So far as tobacco growing is concerned we have done the best we possibly could. We have given the growers two seasons to make up their minds as to whether they think it is worth going into this or not. On the figures available at present, the potential crop for the present year, if properly marketed, will cost the Exchequer £280,000. That is not by any means an inconsiderable sum.

General Mulcahy

How much is that per acre?

Mr. MacEntee

£350. That is what the remission might cost if the crop is properly marketed. It does represent a considerable subsidy to tobacco growers, and they had better realise that it is a subsidy that no other Government would venture to give them. It has been given. Any person who cannot, with that subsidy, make a very considerable profit out of tobacco this year, well the sooner he gets out of the industry the better because he will never make a success of the industry under the circumstances and conditions which we contemplate will exist in future. At any rate these people have had an opportunity to make a considerable profit on the tobacco they put down this year, a profit which we think will enable them to finance their further experiments in this field. There is not going to be any further help from Government funds towards tobacco growers. They got a chance and anybody who took that chance has secured a reward, a reward which possibly will enable them to start the business seriously and on a proper footing.

As to the prospects of the future, Deputy Minch asked me what was the ultimate yield from tobacco duty at 6/8. As far as I can calculate it at the moment, it would be in the neighbourhood of £2,600,000 or £2,700,000. That is on the assumption that our demands were satisfied entirely from Irish tobacco and that the rate of duty remains in the neighbourhood of 6/4 or 6/8. The resultant loss to the revenue would then be in the neighbourhood of £800,000. I should like to say I would not be at all appalled at other times at that prospect. If there is a satisfactory end to the conditions which at present exist, I think we can face that loss with equanimity, particularly, if, as a consequence, we have established here tobacco-growing on a sound foundation. I have still faith in the industry and I believe that if it is solidly established, it will be able to bear a considerable excise duty, and that even possibly in other times it may be able to bear a heavier duty than 6/8. We are quite prepared in certain circumstances to allow that duty for a reasonable time so that these people who do go into the industry seriously should reap a fair return for their enterprise. I cannot bind myself beyond next year. The duty will not be changed next year. It will still remain at 6/8. I hope in other years it may not be necessary unduly to increase it, but the one overriding condition under which this experiment has to be conducted is that we shall always have to have first regard to the revenue position. We cannot, for the sake of having tobacco grown in this country, risk curtailing Governmental services. We cannot risk having to impose in substitution for the duty we may lose on tobacco a heavier duty upon any other necessary of life.

Mr. Esmonde

Do I understand the Minister to say that if the present Government remains in power the present duty will not be increased next year?

Mr. MacEntee

No, not next year. This duty will apply to next year's crop.

General Mulcahy

Is it not the idea that this duty only applies to next year's crop?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

General Mulcahy

Does the Minister mean that it will apply to the crop the year after as well?

Mr. MacEntee

I am not prepared to say that at the moment but I hope so.

Mr. Cosgrave

The Minister gave us an estimate of the cost. Has he any idea of the number of persons employed on the 800 acres? Had he any information in regard to that this year or had he not that information last year when he was making the concession? I should think it is a mistake to lead people to believe that there is a prospect for this industry without any imposition of duty, to get them drawn into it and then a year afterwards put on a pretty considerable duty. There is a remarkable difference between growing tobacco which is to be free of duty and growing it when it has to bear a duty of 5/6 per lb. or some figure of that kind. Had the Minister made any examination of the possibilities of the industry at the time the remission was given last year? Did he examine the costings and the other information dealing with the industry which. I understand, is available on certain files in the Department, or is it as a result of the experience which the Government has gained that this recommendation is made now?

Mr. MacEntee

This position has arisen, not because we are satisfied that the industry has no prospects here. On the contrary we are satisfied it has, and it is because the success of the experimental mission was so great we found that the revenue position would be gravely endangered. Many more people were attracted to the business than we thought would be the case. I cannot give the exact figures as to the number of people employed, but as Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Esmonde know, the labour content in the industry is particularly high, higher I think, though I am not an agriculturist, than in the case of any other crop that can be grown here. That is one of the reason which makes it particularly attractive to the Government and one of the reasons which makes it incumbent on the Government to do everything it can within reason to see whether this industry cannot be made a success here and now. It is not correct to say that we have taken off the duty one year and imposed it the next. This duty does not come into operation until the year 1934. The remission was granted in 1932 and the crop grown in 1933 remains free of duty under that remission. There will be no duty charged until 1934 so that everybody engaged in the industry has ample forewarning of the conditions which will prevail in 1934. I cannot see that I would be justified in binding myself beyond that year.

Mr. Cosgrave

Has the Minister examined the economy of the industry from the point of view of the imposition of a duty of 5/6 in the lb? Has he been satisfied by any tobacco grower that it can bear this imposition and be economic?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes. It is rather strange, but before the decision to impose the duty was definitely taken, I had a number of interviews with people interested in the industry, and many of them were urging that the duty should be re-imposed. What they had in mind was a preferential duty of 2/6 in the lb., which is equivalent to what we have done.

Mr. Cosgrave

Could the Minister give us any idea of the price per lb. at which Irish tobacco can be sold, apart from the duty?

Mr. MacEntee

I could not give that figure off hand.

Mr. Cosgrave

Would the Minister look at the records to see whether those who had tobacco in bond some years ago were willing to accept 1/- per lb.?

Mr. MacEntee

They were, however, getting much more than that, as the Deputy is aware.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

One thing in the Minister's reply rather puzzled me, and I should like if he would make it clear. He said that this duty will only apply to the 1934 crop, and that a person need not grow tobacco in 1934 if he thinks it will not show a profit. I would ask the Minister, does he think tobacco can be grown on lea land, land which is growing grass this year, or is it not necessary to prepare the ground this year by sowing some other crop so that the land may be prepared for tobacco next year? If that is the case, as it obviously is, have not those persons who have decided that they were going to grow tobacco in 1934, and who set another crop this year, to leave their ground vacant unless they plant tobacco next year?

Mr. MacEntee

I would not quite accept that. I know that a considerable number of people have put down a crop in 1933. These are the people who are prepared to go into this business, and who have the necessary enterprise to seize a good opportunity when it is presented to them. That is the class of people who must take up this crop. We do not want people who would think upon it, and scratch their heads when the opportunity knocked at the door. We have to take the people who had the enterprise to seize the opportunity and who have the crop down in 1933. They know something about tobacco growing, and they will be in a position to satisfy themselves whether it is going to be a success in 1934.

Mr. Fitzgerald-Kenney

The Minister has not got my point. I am afraid I did not make myself clear. These enterprising people who put down this particular crop this year did so with a view to putting their soil into a condition suitable for tobacco growing. If these enterprising people find that they cannot profitably grow tobacco next year are they not being hit?

Mr. Cosgrave

Can the Minister give the average figure regarding the price of tobacco grown last year, and sold to manufacturers here?

Mr. MacEntee

I cannot say what price they got. I saw it advertised and sold extensively in Dublin at 6d. per oz, or 8/- per lb.

Mr. Cosgrave

That is manufactured?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes.

Mr. Cosgrave

And the price given by the manufacturers?

Mr. MacEntee

I cannot say.

General Mulcahy

In fixing a duty of 5/6 a lb. had the Minister in mind any particular acreage of tobacco that would be grown in 1934?

Mr. MacEntee

More or less, about 800 acres.

General Mulcahy

The same as this year. Considering the general criticism that there has been on the part of tobacco growers, it seems to me, considering the action now taken by the Ministry, that some fuller statement requires to be made on the tobacco position, from the point of view of, say, the Minister for Agriculture. Poteen makers turn out a "first run," an chéad rith, but I understand that popularly it is only kept for external application. From the attitude of the Minister for Finance, in this connection it would appear, as far as the tobacco policy is concerned, that we have had a touch of the céad rith of their minds rather than a studied plan. If it is intended that the tobacco industry could and should be established here, as an important part of agricultural development, before we leave the short discussion we have had it would be well if we heard—if not from the Minister for Agriculture, at any rate from the Minister for Education, who is a strong advocate of the wheat, tobacco and peat policy—an assurance that it was really intended as part of Government policy to make the growing of tobacco an important part of the development of agriculture.

Mr. MacEntee

I have, I think, already conveyed that to the House. I stated that we feel this is a crop which, if it can be successfully grown here, ought to be encouraged, and we are giving very practical proof of that.

General Mulcahy

If the Minister has washed his hands of any responsibility in the matter of doing anything but safeguarding the Budgetary situation, by saying that of course he was not an agriculturist, we would like to hear an agriculturist like the Minister for Education.

Mr. Derrig

The Deputy will hear about it on the Agricultural Estimate. I have no time to amuse the Deputy.

General Mulcahy

It is not really a question of amusing anyone. It is a question of giving the farming community an assurance that, I think, they are entitled to get, that the policy of the Government is that tobacco growing is to be an important part of agricultural development.

Question put: "That the figures proposed to be deleted, stand."

The Committee divided: Tá, 63; Níl, 36.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Daly, Denis.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Doherty, Hugh.
• Doherty, Joseph.
• Everett, James.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Goulding, John.
• Hales, Thomas.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Keely, Séamus P.
• Kehoe, Patrick.
• Kelly, Thomas.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Kissane, Eamonn.
• Little, Patrick John.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, William Frazer.
• Cleary, Mícheál.
• Concannon, Helena.
• Cooney, Eamonn.
• Corish, Richard.
• Corkery, Daniel.
• Crowley, Timothy.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Norton, William.
• O'Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Dowd, Patrick.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• Pattison, James P.
• Pearse, Margaret Mary.
• Rice, Edward.
• Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).

Níl

• Anthony, Richard.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Bourke, Seamus.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Burke, James Michael.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Davis, Michael.
• Davitt, Robert Emmet.
• Desmond, William.
• Dolan, James Nicholas.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
• Finlay, John.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Holohan, Richard.
• Keating, John.
• MacEoin, Seán.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• Minch, Sydney B.
• Morrisroe, James.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Murphy, James Edward.
• Nally, Martin.
• O'Connor, Batt.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, The.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Rogers, Patrick James.
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Wall, Nicholas.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Briscoe; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Nally.

Question declared carried.

Amendments 19 to 22 not moved.

Schedules 5 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Cosgrave

On the Title, there have been many tariffs imposed during the past 12 months. The Minister for Industry and Commerce undertook quite recently to have them codified. There have been changes since and this is the final change. Can we have any information as to when the codified list will be published?

Mr. MacEntee

It is almost ready.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Report Stage fixed for Wednesday, 28th June, 1933.