I understand that the Minister for Industry and Commerce runs away from the attitude taken up by the Minister for Finance. Whereas the Minister for Finance, because he requires additional income, increases the tax on footballs, the Minister for Industry and Commerce considers that this tax is for the purpose of further developing an Irish industry, namely, the manufacture of footballs. Yet, he considers that Irish footballs cannot be manufactured except under an increased tariff of 40 per cent. When it was pointed out yesterday that the effective tariff on footballs at the present time is 25 per cent., the Minister seemed to indicate that footballs were being produced satisfactorily under the 25 per cent. tariff, but now he takes up the attitude that a 40 per cent. tariff is necessary in order to develop the industry. From the manner in which the debate on these taxes is being carried on, nothing is clearer than that the intention of this tax and of the other taxes that we discussed yesterday is to squeeze additional money out of the people's recreation: that having squeezed as much money as they can out of the people they will have nothing left either to provide homes for themselves, or if they have homes, to carry them on.
Public Business. - Finance Bill, 1935—Committee (Resumed).
This tax which is being imposed is obviously a revenue tax. The Minister for Industry and Commerce may succeed in satisfying individuals such as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and others who have not got, perhaps, intelligence of a very high order, with his appeal to their limited intelligences that this 40 per cent. tariff is necessary. But I think the Minister for Industry and Commerce cannot expect the man-in-the-street, the man of ordinary intelligence, to accept his view that it is necessary to have a tariff of 40 per cent. in order that the manufacture of a very simple article like a football can be carried out here. If the Minister for Industry and Commerce expects the man-in-the-street to believe that I think he is going a little too far.
I always admire the courage of the Minister for Industry and Commerce when he gets up to speak in this House. In some respects he is one of the most courageous men in the House. He will get up and say anything. He does not seem to be restrained by any sense of what the public think of him and of his estimates. I think that on this occasion the Minister for Industry and Commerce should take us a little into his confidence, and tell us how this estimate was arrived at and what authority he has for it. It appears very unfair for the talking Minister to give way to the dumb Minister. At any rate, the talking Minister can explain his own point of view, but the poor dumb Minister cannot get up and explain that it is a revenue tax. I do not think that is playing the game. There may be a very round-head member of the Fianna Fáil Party, but it is not quite fair to mistake his head for a football and to kick it around when the poor dumb head is prevented from talking. I would ask the Minister to explain how he arrived at the opinion that this 40 per cent. tax is necessary.
There is no tax on footballs: only on football covers. The wind is still free of duty.
I would like to see a football without a cover.
I do not know what made the Minister for Finance pick on footballs for this tax. There was a time, perhaps, when some Fianna Fáil Deputies played football with part of the intestines of a pig. Perhaps the Minister intends to drive people back to that crude method of enjoyment, by taxing leather covers.
To bladders.
What I am surprised at is that the Irish air is not being taxed in order to make it a little more expensive. I suggest that one way of improving this industry here would be to buy a few footballs and to get some of the Deputies on the back benches opposite to take part in a match. They might be profitably engaged playing football on the lawn when they are not taking part in the debates. At any rate, it would be physical exercise for them.
A Deputy
Will you select a team to meet us?
A team can be selected from amongst Deputies opposite. I daresay some of them have played the game. This tax, like all other taxes in the Budget, was put on in haste and without any thought. There is no suggestion that it will put a number of people into employment. If the Minister thought it would he would get up and boldly face the Labour Benches, and tell the number of people he was going to put into the occupation of making footballs.
On a point of order. Are Deputies to be allowed to discuss this matter without interference from the benches opposite?
There should be no interference with debate.
I cannot prevent Fianna Fáil Deputies having their laugh. I believe the day is coming when there will be an end to the laughing, if I am any judge of the political barometer.
Barometers have nothing to do with this question.
No. The time is not far distant when the Fianna Fáil smiles will be ended. If I wanted to encourage this leather industry I would buy a dozen footballs and select a team. I would make Deputy Kelly full-back on one side and Deputy Donnelly on the other side. I would then get half-backs and would pick on Deputy Flinn.
To select those teams would not be in order now.
If I was to leave out the question of leather covers for footballs, and if football was to be played with the intestines of the animal I mentioned, I am afraid the physical capacity of some Fianna Fáil Deputies would break up. We are compelled to talk about leather, so that I must get away perforce from the football played with the intestines of the animal mentioned. We discussed sections of the Budget as well as we could, and put some of the difficulties before the country. We could not do so sufficiently, because we had no help from the Government Benches. It would be impossible, without having documents that are at the disposal of the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to produce material to bring the full effects of these taxes before the people. If Ministers and Deputies opposite are going to treat this House with contempt, especially on measures that concern the finances and the economic condition of the country, then it is useless to be sitting here. One would think that on measures like this Deputies connected with the farming community would not allow the House to be treated with the insolence with which Ministers have made up their minds to treat it. Deputies opposite should remember that they have a duty to the House and to the country. They were elected to do their duty, to see that money was spent in the right way, and that the people were not mulcted in taxes. The tax on footballs is a small matter, but sometimes a straw shows the way the wind blows. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance especially should concern himself to see that the financial burdens on the people are reduced. I hope there will be a further discussion, even about footballs, because taxes of the kind should not be put on without some consideration.
I should like to congratulate whoever is responsible for putting in the particulars dealing with the subject matter of the tax. Legislation by reference is very confusing and one is unable, without tediously looking up the references, to find out what articles are referred to. Can the Minister say if this change in the rate of duty on leather footballs covers anything else?
No; only football covers.
The air is free.
Does a water polo ball come under this proposal?
Leather football covers.
A water polo ball is not a football, as the Minister would know if he ever got a blow of one in the face. There is a considerable difference between a football and a water polo ball. Am I to understand that football covers are subject to a duty of 45 per cent., and that water polo balls are subject to 25 per cent.? I will be glad to hear that water polo balls are not included, because they are not made in this country. There is a trial water polo match at Blackrock baths to-day, and a team is coming from Belfast. I suppose if the cost of water polo balls is dearer here, Belfast teams will bring down balls for the trial. That shows how necessary it is not to put an undue burden on the community, especially on articles that are not manufactured here.
I would like the Minister to assure us that there is no possibility that the Revenue Commissioners will confuse footballs with water polo balls, and that the rubber portions will not be taxed. I take it that the leather portion only will be taxed.
There is no tax on bladders.
I refrained from using that word in the House. I did not think that we should name such intestines.
We have "blathers" for export.
As the Minister has descended to vulgarity, I want an assurance that these particular articles will not be taxed, because, if he does, then even the poor children down the country will not be able to fall back on the old time method of enjoying themselves.
I should like to know if the Minister has satisfied himself, before this tax was put on, that there will be no increase in the cost of the production of football covers, because they have been made here for a long time and have been made very well and can hold their own in competition with imported covers. This particularly applies to football covers used in Gaelic football, although it may not be so pronounced with regard to the football covers used in Rugby and Soccer. I think the Minister should bear in mind that a big proportion of the footballs used here are small-sized footballs used by boys, colleges and children. I do not think that any of these have been made in this country up to the present. I think that the manufacture has been altogether confined to the large-sized football cover, and unless there can be some assurance that the price will not be raised by this tax, I think it would be a serious thing that the children's and boys' amusement is going to be seriously affected by this tax. That would only mean that it is going to be another tax on the health of our young people. I would ask the Minister if he has had any assurance that the effect of this tax will not be to raise the price, and seriously raise it, over the price of the home-made commodity.
It is quite obvious, surely, to Deputy O'Neill and to all of us in this House that the object of the tax is to raise the price. What is it put on for except to raise the price? If Deputy O'Neill and I were engaged in the manufacture of footballs, we would be revising our price list this morning with a view to raising the price.
Why would the Deputy do that?
What does the Minister think? Of course we would raise it. The Minister gives his time for natural love and affection everywhere.
I take it that the Minister will give us the effect of what he has said about water-polo balls.
I said nothing about water-polo balls. The duty applies to the same classes of football covers to which it applied always. It is not a new duty.
I asked the Minister was this item intended to cover water polo balls and I was told that it did not. Now I am told that it does.
The duty covers exactly the same items as always.
What did it cover before? Does the Minister know?
Subject to your ruling, Sir, I understood the Minister to say that water-polo balls were not covered under this. Is that correct?
The Chair is not responsible for statements of Ministers or Deputies.
Am I incorrect in that?
I am afraid I cannot answer the Deputy. As I said, the duty applies to the same items as hitherto.
I suggest, Sir, that an opportunity should be given to the Minister for Industry and Commerce to learn the meaning of the Bill.
I can tell the Minister that water-polo balls were covered by the duty before. Does the Minister mean that they will still be covered by this?
The position is precisely the same.
Although they are not manufactured in this country?
All that class of work is manufactured in this country in adequate quantities and by a number of firms.
Can the Minister give me the name of a person who manufactures a water-polo ball cover in this country? The Minister need not be afraid to give a well-deserved advertisement to anybody who does manufacture them.
There is a list of the firms in the Industrial Directory.
I say that there is not one of these firms that makes a water-polo ball cover.
Surely, it should be possible to provide that such a well-defined article as a water-polo ball would be exempt from duty and to arrange that such articles, not already covered by a previous assessment, should be free of duty. Furthermore, the Minister said, and made a kind of a joke about it, that it is only the covers or cases that are taxed, whereas he will see from his Order Paper that it refers to footballs, and not to covers or cases. Accordingly, we will have to have a change made, if the Minister is correct, in order to show that the duty refers to leather covers or cases, and not to footballs. The Minister should assure the House with regard to that matter and let us know definitely what is affected by the duty.
There is nothing affected except what is mentioned here in the Schedule.
But that is just the point. It is not mentioned here.
Well, we should tie the Minister down to it.
Oh, tie him down be damned! You might as well try to tie any of the members of the majority Party down to anything they have said. Obviously the Minister does not know what is embraced in this particular tax. Instead of the Minister telling Deputy Dockrell, Deputy Dockrell had to tell him, and the only excuse he has is that this is not a new duty. The Minister himself does not know what the duty covers. It does not matter whether the people have to pay or not: so long as the fault was committed before, it can be committed again.
And increased.
Yes, and increased. Again, no excuse or explanation of the increase is offered. We have tried to din it into the Minister— one of the few who attend and who try to deal with the situation, I must confess—that he is doing no service whatever to any Irish industry by the policy he has stood for in this House during the last two days.
This is another revenue tax.
Yes, it is a revenue tax, but the Minister pretends, and his Party, whenever they have opened their mouths, have pretended, that these are protective tariffs. They are nothing of the kind. They are much more calculated to do damage to industry than to help it. I hope I will not be accused of gross impertinence if I say that I refuse to accept the mere fiat of the majority Party in this House on a matter of that kind. The House should be allowed to make up its mind for itself and the House should not allow itself to be used merely as a conduit pipe for putting into effect the temporary will—the hastily conceived will, as I conceive these taxes to be—of the majority Party in this House. This House has certain rights and ought to assert them on every occasion like this—the few occasions, such as this, when it gets a chance. The House ought to reject this tax unless there is attempted at least some defence of the policy behind it. The Minister has not done so. He has refused to do so. He has not refused information. I must say that he does give information when he has it, but he has not the information, and he has been unable to justify this tax in a satisfactory way. It may satisfy some, but, after all, the minority are not bound always to accept the mere fiat of the majority Party in this House, and therefore we ought to get some explanation of this tax.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corbett, Edmond.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Lavery, Cecil.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
I move amendment No. 52:—
In Part V, to delete reference No. 12, including relevant references in columns 2, 3 and 4.
This is another of the many duties which involve an increased cost on persons in the building industry. It proposes to extend to pillars and posts made of cement a tariff of the same nature as is already imposed upon blocks and bricks made of cement. It puts it on in such a way that licences can be issued to certain people to import these things free of duty. I should like the Minister to tell us what is the necessity for imposing this heavy tariff on such pillars and posts, and who are the people who are going to be allowed to import them free of duty while other people have to pay a tariff of 50 per cent.?
The extension of the existing duty upon cement bricks, blocks and slabs to posts is, I think, logical. The construction of these posts is a very simple matter and there is no reason why they should be imported. It may be necessary temporarily to permit importation in Border areas until local production is organised, but after a little it is hoped the duty will effectively prevent importation.
In those areas where the shock of the rise in price is likely to be too great——
No rise in price is anticipated.
In such areas these articles are going to be allowed in under licence free of duty, but where people are a little away from the circumstances that would indicate the effect of the trend of the Minister's policy, these people are going to bear the whole burden of this particular tax right away.
While the Minister is on that point, I would like him to inform the House if these are ornamental blocks or are they very plain?
The plainest of the plain.
I think there is great force in Deputy Mulcahy's point why they should be allowed in under licence at one point more than another.
I do not think we have yet joined issue with the Minister. I think we all could support the Minister's contention that concrete posts if imported should be subject to a duty, but it only goes to show how difficult it is in smaller centres to be in touch with what can be imported or manufactured in larger centres. For instance, the manufacture of articles from cement in the last few years has undergone an enormous increase. I imagine there are articles made the other side in different ways from what they are made here and in a way that probably a large number of people here are quite unaware of. The Minister says that this is to catch concrete posts. Having been caught on the last reference myself, I went back to the original duty and I found there "manufactured articles which in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners are bricks, blocks or slabs made wholly or partly of Roman cement, Portland cement, or any other hydraulic cement and have not been subjected to any process of glazing or polishing." I would have thought that if the Minister wanted to catch pillars or posts he might have said merely: "made of Portland cement."
When one examines the extension of this duty, one sees that here it applies to a slab which has not been subjected to any process of glazing or polishing. If you go back to the First Schedule, reference No. 6, you will see "surrounds, hearths, and curbs which in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners are of a kind normally used for fireplaces and are made and consist partly of tiles, bricks or slabs." You have a slab in one place which is subject to 33? per cent. and, in another place, it will be subject to 50 per cent. It is quite possible that a surround may not have been subjected to any process of glazing or polishing. I would like to point out to the Minister in reference to the duty on these surrounds that there is a two-fold object. I would have thought that 33? per cent. duty was enough protection of that article if the Minister does not continue to steepen up, as he has done under another section of this Bill, the duty on the raw tiles, the raw materials for surrounds. The Minister might say that he wished to keep out all surrounds.
Speaking for the people who would manufacture those things over here, or make them up, as it would be more correct to say—speaking in their interests I do not think when they have a high protective duty that they want to see a prohibitive duty put on. I will tell you why they do not want to see a high prohibitive duty put on them. There are a number of tile manufacturers scattered all over the earth. Some came over here and they employed very expert designers to make up these tile surrounds. Having shown illustrations of these, they are quite prepared to sell the raw materials to make them up and the position is really analogous to something like a person in the drapery line who would buy a Parisian model and afterwards make up a number of dresses in the same way.
And sell them all as Parisian?
Of course, I never heard of anything like that. I would like to suggest to the Minister that his policy ought to be to allow a high protective duty to the people who make them up, but not sufficiently high to prevent samples coming in which the people in this country can copy. I would like to urge that aspect of the case on the Minister. I would like to suggest to him that if it is only pillars or posts of concrete which he wishes to catch that there is a whole series of bricks, briquettes and other articles which will be the subject of an acrimonious dispute under this Schedule and that he ought to consider whether he could not see his way to revise this duty or do away with the anomaly of slabs in two parts of the Bill at one time and also to see whether he could not catch what he wants to catch by allowing in certain things which I do not think are any disadvantage to the home manufacturer if they are allowed to come in here as samples of what can be done in these surrounds.
The Minister, in reply to a question asked by Deputy Belton, said this tax was not to protect ornamental work but dealt with the very plainest of the plain, with pillars and posts. I would like the Minister to tell us to what extent the 5/- a ton tax on cement is responsible for this extension. He has not informed us as to whether it is responsible or to what extent it is responsible. Would the Minister give us some reason for this tax. Surely to goodness if we are not able to make the plainest of the plain in pillars and posts we are not able to make anything at all?
It is because we are able to make them that this tariff is put on.
If we are able to make them and produce them of a good quality, surely we ought to be able to compete with cement pillars and posts coming from any country. I suggest that by increasing the price of cement by a tax of 5/- per ton the Minister is operating to the disadvantage of the people who make them in this country.
Cement is cheaper here than in Great Britain or in the majority of European countries.
That is not the point. I am speaking of the 5/- tax on cement. The people who make these things in this country are now 5/- worse off than previously. They are worse off to the extent of 5/- per ton. They have that much of a disadvantage when competing against outside firms in the making of these pillars and posts. Does the Minister deny that?
Cement is substantially cheaper here than in England. There is no need to import these things at all. To me it is completely inexplicable why they do it.
The Minister denies that notwithstanding the fact that he has imposed a tariff of 5/- a ton on cement in the last few months, these people are as well able to compete against the import of slabs and posts as previously.
I say again that the price of cement here is much below the price in Great Britain.
That is not the point I am making, and the Minister knows it. I say it is going to cost them 5/- a ton more for cement now on account of the tax. Surely to goodness if we can make anything at all in this State we can make pillars and posts. They can be made by any ordinary tradesman in the country. Concrete pillars and posts are made in the main by the county councils and other public bodies. Is it to protect public bodies such as these against the danger of importing pillars and posts that the Minister wants this duty? Or is it another case of trying to scrape in a few shillings here and there? The Minister tells us that 5/- a ton tax on cement makes no difference whatever in the cost of producing cement posts and slabs. Now, that statement by the Minister gives one a good idea of the mentality behind this whole Finance Bill.
There was a very interesting point raised by Deputy Dockrell as to why this amendment of the Schedule is one that the Minister should bear in mind. Deputy Dockrell can speak on this matter on a plane of his own. That is because he deals with these things and in his own workshops they are assembled and assembled with care. He does a large business in these things and knows exactly what he is talking about. I have a little knowledge of these matters but nothing comparable with what Deputy Dockrell has. I say it would be a calamity when the country is just only starting to grow in this trade and where designs and plans mean such a lot, if the work-people engaged in the assembling of these things did not get a chance of seeing and examining the best designs that are in the trade. Deputy Dockrell and men like him can take a tour through the warehouses and factories in Great Britain and bring home ideas that will be of some national use and business use to him and to men like him. But it will take a long time to disseminate that knowledge amongst the people who, in the ultimate resource, would do the job. An intelligent workman seeing those designs would gather a lot not only as to the designs but as to the doing of the job. He would see how it could be made a strong job. I suggest that the Minister ought to bear in mind that suggestion of Deputy Dockrell's. It is the suggestion of a very practical man. The Minister ought to examine that and see if it can be of some practical service to him. When I first saw this Schedule 8 and reference No. 12 I thought it related to some polished cement slabs or things like that. I began to think that perhaps the idea was that we were getting out of the rough state here in the matter of these posts and pillars and that we were beginning to polish up cement construction. I was amazed to hear from the Minister that it was purely the roughest cement blocks and slabs and posts and that kind of thing that were to be covered. I thought that under no circumstances the Minister would consider it necessary at this hour of the day to put on such a tariff on these things.
It only shows one the size of the shock.
I cannot understand how the imports could compete here. For the ordinary job of pillars and posts the principal item is gravel. We all know that the price of gravel will not bear freightage where the very extreme limit with the best of transport is 15 or 20 miles. Otherwise, you are putting the cost up to a prohibitive point. I can see no reason for this tariff and I see no reason why if a tariff was required it should be increased. Surely we are getting more expert with these things. I am deadly opposed as a protectionist to increasing tariffs in cases where we are doing a job at these things already. If we are any good at all we should be doing the job well. This sort of thing is going to destroy industry and enterprise amongst our people. There should be a scaling ground and as soon as we get a foothold we should be getting level with the scale of prices. I do not say that our prices should be equal to the prices abroad. Taking into account our limited output we are working under disadvantages as compared with Great Britain. But after taking those things into account and allowing a margin for them we should be on a border line with the prices abroad.
Deputy Belton voted against every proposal put up here to protect Irish Industry.
That is a deliberate lie on the part of the Minister.
That statement must be withdrawn.
I withdraw it.
But the Minister has repeated that charge again and again.
I have great regard for the efforts the Minister is making, and except with the pace at which he is going, I agree with his entire policy. It is with the pace that I disagree. The Minister has an unfortunate kink of trying to misrepresent people——
There is no necessity for using the word "trying."
That is a fact——
Yes, it is a fact.
I am sorry I made use of that statement, but I challenge the Minister to point to a single division in which I voted against the development of Irish industry.
I said against the protection of Irish industry.
I am going to vote against this. In doing that, am I going to vote against the protection of Irish industry? I like an Irishman to be a man. I do not want him to be a sapling. I do not want him to be afraid to go into a cold wind. The Minister is only growing saplings here, and the first breeze they get, down they go. My whole attitude in this matter of protection is that I have supported it. I am supporting protection in this case by voting against what I consider unnecessary protection. Luxury and ease destroyed empires. When you are starting to climb, the one thing that will make you succeed is adversity, having to fight your way. The Minister is not putting it up to Irish industries to fight their way. I would make them fight their way from the start. The survival of the fittest always operates in the world. He is not going to make the people who are building up industry fight their way. He gives them too much protection. He said that there was no harness, no rough cement blocks, and other things coming in. It would be ridiculous to think that they could come in at all. Yet the Minister affords more protection to them.
I should like to hear on this or some of the other proposals to increase protection on articles in which we have control of the home market already the Minister's philosophy as to why, in such circumstances, an increased tariff to protect these industries is required. If the Minister does not keep those engaged in industry on the border-line of competition with outsiders then he is rearing up a plant here that some day will wither and die when it has to face competition. He told us yesterday that our own firms would compete in a market that we were only able to supply to the extent of 60 per cent., and that that was effective competition. I thought the Minister was a better business man than that—that he would not make such a fatal admission. Starting from that point, I am not surprised at the proposal here. I think it is only as a little bit of by-play to protect his own flank that he made that accusation against me.
What tariff did you vote for?
I voted for 20 per cent. yesterday, and you proposed 50.
You voted against them.
I am sorry Deputy Belton has seen fit to fall into the bad example of the Tralee Urban Council as regards the Minister. I am glad he withdrew, but they did not withdraw. I think they ought to. However, as they are not in Parliament, I suppose they have some rights left.
They tell the truth sometimes.
The Minister, I think, said that this was the logical thing to do.
Everything we do is logical.
I hope the cement blocks will be a little bit more consistent than the logic we have heard from the Minister. We have had a typical example in the course of the debate of the tactics of the Minister. He has put up no case for this increase, but because a Deputy—I admit a Deputy of the smallest Party in this House, but still a Deputy—gets up and, as a protectionist, objects in the interests of protection, he is accused by the representative of the majority Party as if he had no rights whatever in the House. Arguments have been put in this connection and in other connections, and the Minister has not met a single one of them.
I have not seen or heard or met one.
Or even attempted to meet one. Here is a very outstanding case. According to the Minister, cement is cheaper here than in other countries. The gravel and the other materials which are mixed with cement to make blocks are here, and it will not pay to import them. We have every natural advantage to enable these things to be produced here better and cheaper than elsewhere. The Minister did not even attempt to traverse that. Yet we have this duty of 50 per cent. proposed and no justification given for it. If there was ever a case in which the natural advantages played into the hands of the manufacturers in this country, this is one. The Minister has no excuse. But the Government have now got into such an extraordinary condition of mind that they cannot prevent themselves interfering in everything. I think it is really due to that. It is not merely that they desire to scrape out the last penny, although, of course, that is operative; it is due to the habit, of which we have had so many examples in the last couple of months, of being unable to let anything alone.
Here is a case in which the operation of the ordinary economic law would play completely into the hands of the people of this country. The Minister is not satisfied with that. He wants to give it a kick along; he wants to help it. But he is not helping it; he is interfering with it. Again, there will be the inevitable result of bad work if he continues this particular policy. If there are peculiar people in this country who prefer, despite all the natural conditions at the disposal of the makers of these articles, to import them, I suggest that that is not a sufficient reason for this unnecessary interference on the part of the Government. Time, experience, and costs will bring these people to their senses. They are much better mentors, much better advisers, much better teachers than the Government. I must say, however, for the Government, that so far as their economics are concerned, they are teaching the people of the country remarkably quickly. I think it would be much better to leave these things to the play of economic forces. You will have a much more healthy condition in the end. But the Minister cannot wait— things are too slow. In his haste he does not mind what damage he does.
Apparently, there are to be certain exceptions along the Border. He tried to give some explanation of that at a previous stage, as well as I remember. Is he afraid of smuggling along the Border; that people will slip over the Border in the dark nights with these pillars on their backs? The whole thing is so illogical, the thing refuses to stick together to such an extent, that the Minister really ought to try to put up a case to the House. At least he is not bound by the vow of silence and contempt for the House of his fellow-Minister. He is available here, and when he talks he gives information. I should like if he would attempt some justification beyond the mere parrot-like repetition that blocks are imported and that they can be made here.
Why are they imported then?
In my view you are doing more damage by your interference than anything else.
The Deputy is supporting an amendment to let these things into this country free of duty.
I am approaching the thing as it stands as well. We had great difficulty in discussing the operations of the Schedule yesterday unless amendments were put down. The Minister must be aware of that. It is extremely difficult, within the rules of the House, to discuss the Schedule unless amendments are put down. We hoped to get some justification from the Minister for his action. He has given none. This shows an extraordinary tendency to interfere with the people in place of letting the play of economic facts teach them. If there is anything at all to be said for the Minister's statement it is this: that the policy of the Government is bringing the people to their economic senses.
We have waited for an explanation and a justification of these two duties. No quantities were even given to us. The people are mad, according to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, but he does not understand that the Government's interference with the free play of economics has damaged industry, but, of course, if people do not agree with everything the Government does they are immediately shouted down.
This is a tax on posts and pillars, but it is doubtful if it can be restricted to posts and pillars. Deputy Dockrell looked up the principal Act and discovered that there were other articles besides posts and pillars included; and, therefore, they are included in the Schedule here. Another development of Deputy Dockrell's incursions on this Bill was that he found in various sections of the Bill there were differential duties. Certain articles were made the subject of duty in one section and not in another, so that it is clear that neither skill nor care was exercised by the Ministry in bringing these matters forward. Not only is there differentiation in duties, but there is also the danger of differentiation in the prices to be charged.
The Minister said that perhaps he would give licences for the introduction of some of these slabs. That only points to the danger of this tariff policy if it is not very carefully used. It allows an opportunity for differentiation and perhaps for graft, if anybody was unjust enough to operate the graft. We have the admission of the Minister that in border counties he may give licences.
Did he say on the Border?
I understood him to say that; and that is the very place where people would use the differentiation in price. People cannot be hoodwinked. The Minister said that this duty only relates to posts and pillars but so far as we can read plain English other things may be included as well. Obviously the Minister is only concerned with posts and pillars. Why he selected posts and pillars I do not know. The Ministry seem to change their minds altogether with regard to their programme. They have here changed from hitting people on top and now they use cement to hit people at the bottom. The agricultural people of the country are users of cement posts and pillars. Even though there is no tax the price will inevitably be increased on those people.
The Minister tried to get round the 5/- tax on cement and it is for that purpose that he is bringing in this in connection with posts and pillars. The manufacturers were subjected to an increase in the price of their raw material by a tax of 5/- and to recoup them for that the Minister is bringing in this amendment to the Finance Bill. That gives a chance to the manufacturers to pay the price if they wish to do so. With the increase of 5/- on cement it will certainly be dearer and the Minister is not going to hoodwink people into believing that posts and pillars are not going to be dearer than they were six months ago. Again I appeal to Deputies opposite to shake themselves up and to give us some indication that they have not turned into cement blocks. Let them show that they have not swallowed cement and that their tongues and insides are not congealed into cement.
They swallowed cement tombstones.
The speech that Deputy Dockrell made is the best proof that in discussing these matters a good deal of research is required. We have no help from the people responsible to this House. The occupants of the Front Bench opposite might have cement tongues for all the use they are in discussing this measure. Debates in this House have been reduced by the Government to a sorry pass. I did not think in this House or in any other Parliament in any other country in the world when a Bill of this importance was going through that no assistance would be rendered by those responsible for the measure.
This cement is a queer thing entirely. We get cement here cheaper than in any other country in Europe, and yet we are told that the people who make these pillars and posts require a protection of 50 per cent. It is a peculiar thing when one considers the details of it. Deputy Belton says that the main constituent of these pillars and posts is gravel. There is no inducement from the monetary side to bring in these pillars and posts if the Minister's statement is true. Yet a tax of 50 per cent. is to be imposed as a protective measure. That is queer enough. But it takes another turn. Imagine any commodity about which a statement can be made such as the Minister made when putting a tax of 5/- per ton on that commodity. Deputy Morrissey asked him whether the fact that there is 5/- per ton on cement has anything to do with this protective tax, and the Minister said it had nothing to do with it.
What has?
This is a most amazing business, because it is still cheap and, being still so cheap, 5/- a ton makes no difference. I wish we could get the range of these articles about which we could make the same statement, that 5/- a ton just makes no difference, with the same truth. Add these two peculiarities together and you find yourself in a bit of a mess when you come to decide, on a purely protective basis, as to the necessity for this. The Minister then said in answer to queries put from this side that cement is cheaper and that 5/- a ton makes no difference, so that we are still in the position in which the cement is cheaper and the posts are being manufactured here. We all know that and, remember, the constituents do not bear the cost of freight from the other side. So that there is cement cheaper, and certain constituents found here are protected by, at any rate, the cost of the freight of the made-up article or of the raw material here, and 5/- a ton makes no difference.
In all these circumstances, the Minister says that anybody who does not immediately swallow this 50 per cent. is against protection and against Irish industry. Finally, we are driven to ask: "Why let these in free?" For some inexplicable reason, some people are importing posts. Maybe, it is a matter of design. It may be that there is somebody who has something in the way of a design which certain people here using these pillars and posts for particular purposes desires. It may be that posts have been brought in here in order to get them commonly used so that whatever new design there is will be available here. But to the Minister it is inexplicable. His answer is: "Why let them in free?" But that answer would rule everything. Why let anything in free? You cannot argue on the basis of its being required to protect somebody because, taking it according to the standard here, the thing is so cheap, the raw material from which these posts are going to be made is so cheap, that 5/- a ton makes no difference and why they are brought in is inexplicable and how much is brought in has not been told to us. If the overwhelming argument is to be: "Why let things in free?" we should tax everything. It is not a question of having a Schedule like this; there should be a Schedule of the whole import list and against that should be put 50 per cent., because if it is not protection, it will bring in to a hard-pressed Government a bit of money. We can stand on the protection leg at one time and on the revenue-producing leg at another time.
On the argument used by the Minister, there ought to be nothing let in free and certainly the inhabitants of this country ought not to be allowed to buy anything cheap. We have also one argument put up in regard to the Border counties. We are going to have the possibility of licensing along the Border areas. This is a new device. We know, in the items taxed in the Budget, the anti-house construction items, but we did not arrive at this deep-laid plan about the Border. Apparently, the idea is that in order to entice the Six Counties to join up with us, we must make two or three counties near the Border as nearly cheap as possible as Six-County standards. That might have another repercussion. We might be enticing certain people in the Border counties to begin to think of the cheap lives they might have if they joined up with that area. Apparently, this is the new idea and the phrase which the Minister threw out probably explains quite an amount of what was hitherto rather inexplicable.
Why give licences for a whole lot of things? We have been querying that for a long time and it is quite likely that this Border argument rules more comprehensively than we imagine, because there is no doubt that people around this area can only know by report, and amongst the conflicting stories the Minister produces from time to time, they cannot always get a clear report, as to what is the difference in the cost of living here as compared with the cost of living in the Six-County area, but the people near the Six-County area will know. There is a certain amount of inter-communication between the two areas. The people along the Border areas get newspapers which cross the frontier and you have, therefore, notionally to drop that Border some two or three counties and have a midway zone in which people, by licence, are going to get the sort of cheapness that is apparent on the other side.
That is the new thought, and, as I say, it probably does explain the licensing system and its development, the whole idea being to prevent the impact of the increased prices being brought about to the people who would have the demonstration under their eyes of just what is the difference in the cost of living and the standards of living. The only explanation given was this matter of the Border. We are left to analyse that for ourselves, and, apparently, as I say, it means that people on our side of the Border must be handed off from the knowledge of what is the situation down here. That satisfies for a little bit, but then it fails, because if you do think of a sort of belt along the Border area, in which there will be a licensing system, and in which you will get the same sort of living conditions that they have in the Six-County area, by degrees, you will have to extend that border, because that belt has another border edging on it, and when they, in the operation of licences, get their pillars and posts and everything else that is going to be given under licences at the cheap rates they have in the Six-County area, the Border is going to move down and, by degrees, we are going to get a reconquest of this part of the country by Six-County economics, or, at any rate, by Six-County economic methods. That, in itself, is as great a condemnation of the so-called protection or economic policy of the Government as anything that has as yet been said.
I should like to tell the Minister that I am going to oppose this Schedule, because I see clearly that, by opposing this Schedule, I am opposing his imposition of a tax of 5/- a ton on cement. This Schedule only covers up this tax of 5/- a ton on cement imposed by Order a short time ago. Deputy McGilligan's philosophy of the conquest of the South fails, I should say, on about a 15 or 20 miles line from the present Border, because that is about the distance it would be economical to run these rough blocks made in the Six Counties south or into Donegal, and then the fellows in the South would be able to compete. The Minister said that in making these rough blocks the recent increase in cement prices has nothing to do with it. He said that cement is cheaper here than in any European country. I think he will accept the position that it is not cheaper here than in Great Britain or the Six Counties. They were, I think, about level, and, for revenue purposes, he put on a tax of 5/- a ton.
He says that does not affect the making of these blocks. Let us examine these blocks. About the poorest block you can make would range from a mixture of 5 to 1 to 8 to 1. Let us say 6 or 7 to 1. You put in six or seven tons of gravel, which will not cost you 30/-, to a ton of cement, which will cost you 30/-, without this tax of 5/- a ton, so that you have over 50 per cent. of the cost of the aggregate tariffed to the extent of 5/- a ton, which is about one-sixth or anywhere from 15 to 20 per cent. of an increase on half the cost of the material.
The Minister, yet, says that it does not matter. When you come to pillars and posts, the cost is more effective, because nobody would think of making a pillar or post with an aggregate of six, seven or eight to one. They will probably make it of three or four to one, and therefore two-thirds of the cost of the raw material is being subjected to a tariff of 16 to 20 per cent. Yet the Minister says that does not affect it. As far as I am aware, and I have made some inquiries, as I am interested in this matter, those blocks, pillars and posts are not made by machinery. They are made in frames or moulds. It is a question of one man taking off his coat and working hard and another man not working so well. The tariff on the raw materials is equal, the skill is about the same, and no machinery is required. It is a question of the man who will work against the man who will not. A tariff in a case like that is a tariff against efficiency, a tariff to protect inefficiency and laziness. There may be some pillars, posts or slabs of special design coming in here, but these are things that we should allow in here in order to learn new designs, just as in the case of the surrounds. The Minister is standing in the way of industrial development in concrete work by putting a tariff on these articles and leaving us here in, I might say, our ignorance, to try to develop. Some block-making machines are able to turn out more than others. You may have a man making blocks across the Border and another man making blocks on the south side of the Border. If the man across the Border works more intelligently and more efficiently than the man on the south side, the Minister says that we must impose a tariff to protect the lazy man on the south side.
It is not a case of mass production by huge machinery or anything like that. There are scores of people in and around the City of Dublin who will deliver 20,000 blocks in a few hours if you only give them an order on the phone. They may want protection, but the Minister is going to protect laziness, and he thinks that by doing that he is going to develop Irish industry. If there was mass production, big machinery or skill involved in this question, I would admit the necessity for a tariff, but there is nothing involved in the making of pillars or posts except to construct frames and fill them up with concrete. It is the fellow who throws off his coat who will produce the cheapest article; the fellow who talks about work, but who never does work seriously, will produce the dearest article. This is all pandering to laziness, this so-called effort to develop Irish industry. I say that industry can only be developed by hard work. The Minister asks any sane man to believe that increasing the cost of the raw material by 50 per cent. and the cost of the aggregate by 20 per cent. will not affect the cost of the article. There is no use in arguing against that, but we can vote against it.
I wonder which of two possible alternatives gives us an explanation of the Minister's attitude—whether the poor Minister for Industry and Commerce is suffering from mental atrophy, or whether he is deliberately keeping back something from the House. It seems to me that this proposed impost upon cement pillars, blocks, slabs and posts shows that one or other of these two things must be the explanation of the Minister's attitude. Either the Minister is suffering from mental atrophy, so that he does not understand or does not know what is happening in the Budget, or he is unable to explain the meaning of the Budget to the House. There may be some power behind the scenes which is pulling the strings and the Minister is merely dancing to them. Indeed, from the general tenor of the Minister's reply, in the course of these tariff debates, it would seem to me, from the want of knowledge of detail which the Minister has consistently and steadily displayed, there must be some other power behind the Executive Council. There must be some other persons who are dictating the policy of the Government. There must be some individuals from whom the Minister for Industry and Commerce is learning lessons and learning them extremely badly, so that he is unable to repeat them to the House. It may be that the Minister's mind has gone, that he is unable to understand things, or it may be that the Minister is keeping back something from the House.
I look at this reference and see that it puts a duty upon cement slabs, cement pillars and cement posts. Anybody who knows anything about the erection of pillars made of cement must immediately, I think, come to the conclusion that the putting of cement pillars into this reference is pure and entire imbecility. I do not believe that a cement pillar has been ever imported into this country or that it will be ever imported into this country. There could be no intelligent reason as to why a pillar, as distinct from a post, should be imported into this country. I do not know whether the Minister has ever seen cement pillar work but I am informed that the way in which pillars are made is that first you put up a framework, then you pour your liquid cement into the framework, you wait until it is set, you remove your framework and there you have the pillar. I hope I have now added to the Minister's stock of general information. To say that anybody is going to import a weighty article like a cement pillar into this country seems to be absolute imbecility. Yet the Minister puts forward a motion before this House with this imbecile suggestion in it. Therefore, I think we must lament the overthrow of the noble mind that used at one time to inhabit the framework of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Let us now come to the other two items, slabs and posts. What is the meaning of the duty on slabs and posts? If there is any sense in it at all——
There is no duty on slabs imposed under this reference.
"The words ‘or slabs' shall be deleted and the words ‘slabs, pillars or posts' shall be inserted." I am dealing with the words slabs, pillars and posts. I am dealing with slabs at the moment.
Slabs were always subject to duty.
I do not mind whether they were or not. I have dealt with pillars and now I propose to deal with slabs and posts. Slabs and posts are, to a certain extent, articles which can be transferred from place to place. What is the reason for putting a tax upon them? The only reason is that they can be and are, in fact, being imported either better or cheaper than the slabs and posts which are manufactured in this country. They are very heavy, rough articles and must bear the cost of carriage? Why should they be cheaper than the home article? I can see only one explanation. I shall accept the Minister's statement, for the purpose of argument, that cement is as cheap here as it is in whatever country these posts and slabs are imported from. What is the other constituent? Water. I do not think that one has to pay any price for water in this country and I may, for the purpose of my argument, leave out water. I come to the next constituent of cement —gravel or sand. Cement is equally cheap and water is equally free. The only reason I can see why home-made posts should be dearer than posts from outside is that there has been some sort of ring formed by owners of large and important gravel pits producing gravel suitable for the manufacture of cement. I can see no other reason why it should be possible to import these slabs and posts more cheaply than the price at which the home-manufactured slabs and posts can be obtained. That the owners of important gravel pits have got behind the Executive Council in order that, in certain areas, they may be able to form a ring and, by charging extravagant prices for gravel, put up the price of the completed cement articles to the consumer—that is the only explanation of the difference in price that I can think of. If there is any other explanation, I should be glad to hear it from the Minister. I do not agree with Deputy Belton that workers are not as good here or as willing as they are in the Six Counties. I would guarantee that the workers of my county—Mayo—would hold their own with the workers of any part of the world both in efficiency and industry.
If we have equally good workers—I think we have better workers than the others—and if cement is the same price, there must be a ring of some kind at work. The only ring I can see is a ring of the owners of the important gravel pits. If there is any other explanation, I shall hear it with the greatest pleasure from the Minister, because the Minister for Industry and Commerce does treat the House with courtesy. If an argument is put forward which he can meet, he does meet it. If requested to place facts before the House, he does place such facts as are at his disposal before the House. I regret that on occasions—the occasions are not the exception but the rule—the Minister's knowledge of his facts is lamentably small but, out of his poverty, he gives us what he can— the widow's mite.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corbett, Edmond.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Lavery, Cecil.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
I move amendment 53:—
In Part VI, to delete reference No. 16, including relevant references in columns 2, 3 and 4.
This reference purports to put a tariff of 50 per cent. on articles which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, are heads or shafts suitable for use as component parts of the clubs or sticks mentioned in the preceding paragraph—that is, golf clubs, etc. The making of golf clubs gives a considerable amount of employment in various parts of the country in a small way, but nevertheless in an important way. The effect of the Minister's proposal is to put a 50 per cent. duty on the shafts coming in, and a 50 per cent. duty on the partly manufactured head. Again, this seems to be dictated by financial stringency of such a nature that we had to get a cement tax put on without any reference to or disclosure of the fact to the House. It is that sort of financial stringency to get additional revenue which is forcing the Minister to put on this duty on the shafts and heads of golf clubs that come in here for assembly. It is an inexcusable tax.
Very excellent golf clubs are now being made in the country. In fact, since Irish-made golf clubs came into general use it has been noticed that the standard of golf in the country has considerably improved. The Irish players are doing very much better in the international competitions than they did previously, and from what I have seen myself on various golf links recently, even the standard of golf amongst the members of the Opposition has considerably improved.
The standard of the Minister's golf in Portmarnock has not noticeably improved.
I am doing my best.
The Minister says that since the tax was put on the golf amongst members of the Opposition has improved. The point that I want to make is that this tariff, so far as I can see it, is going to affect professionals very much in the work they do in their workshops. It may be that this tariff is going to help some of the bigger firms that engage in the assembly of golf clubs, or even in their manufacture. I do not know that any firm is at the moment engaged in the manufacture of a complete golf club, but I do know that as a result of this tax the professional and his assistants attached to the various clubs throughout the country are going to be very badly hit. There is, as we all know, a professional attached to almost every golf club in the country. In some of the bigger clubs, the professional has two, and sometimes three, assistants. A very considerable amount of employment is given throughout the country in the workshops of these professionals.
The tax was first imposed as a result of representations made by the Irish Professional Golf Club Makers' Association.
Precisely, and this tax is going to hit them very severely, as I see. If, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, the blocks which come in for the golf professionals are a substantial part of a golf club, they will be taxed. In fact, everything coming in for the professional will be taxed. The result will be that the professionals will not be able to carry on their business in their workshops. In the golf club which the Minister frequents there is displayed on the walls an appeal to the members to assist the professional and to deal with him. Instead of taking that advice from the club that he belongs to, and that I belong to, the Minister apparently is taking advice from some manufacturer or other who is going to put the professional golf club maker out of business. As I see it, the professionals and their assistants are going to be put out of business by this additional tariff.
I wish to direct attention to the extraordinary change in the views of the Minister as to the ability of the Revenue Commissioners. One day they cannot distinguish between yarn and thread, to the great loss to the Revenue, and the next day they have to make up their minds—and we ought to know the extraordinary way they do it on some occasions—whether or not an article is substantially manufactured. That means that every individual is at the whim of the Customs authorities. Yet the Minister refuses to ask the House, when it could not trust the Revenue Commissioners, to distinguish between thread and yarn.
What is the difference?
It does not arise on this.
I submit that it is rather difficult to make a speech without giving an illustration.
The difference between thread and yarn does not arise now.
This is a good example of the incapacity of the Minister to deal with the matter, and the Revenue Commissioners are asked to define——
The Minister asked the Deputy to say what was the difference between thread and yarn, and I pointed out that that does not arise.
The point made by Deputy Costello is a sound one. Whether the Minister does or does not pay any attention to the notice in the club in which he wastes his time I cannot say. There is not the slightest doubt that if there is any interference with a professional in being able to get material readily, and at a reasonable cost, the Minister is doing what he often did before—he is sacrificing the ordinary worker for one of his alleged factories. That is the point made against this proposal, but the Minister misunderstood the situation. His interruption shows that the object here is not to put a tariff on fully-made golf clubs, but to put a tariff on the raw material of the professional makers of clubs. Why is it not made clear that heads of clubs are being taxed? That is an extension that we object to.
In an interjection the Minister said that this would be of assistance to professionals in golf clubs. Obviously the Minister is wrong in saying that.
They said it would be.
The Minister's club is Portmarnock, of which Deputy Costello and Deputy O'Sullivan are also members. I say to him: "For goodness' sake do not let the Minister for Finance join it." As the Minister knows, the professional in that club, as in other clubs, gets in the heads partly manufactured. In the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners any head wholly or partly manufactured, meaning wooden heads that come in shaped——
They are not liable.
Well, iron clubs are not manufactured in this country. It is the wooden heads we are speaking of. I do not mean the heads of the Opposition but of the Government Party. Heads of golf clubs that come in shaped are taxed.
They are not.
Under this they will be taxed.
The duty has been in operation for a long time.
They are caught by this duty because they have only to be finished. They come in substantially manufactured and only the finishing touches are put on by the professionals. Even if it is the intention that they should not be touched——
They are not.
I am afraid the Minister is suffering from mental aberration or has not read this paragraph.
This duty is in operation.
A shaped head is substantially manufactured?
No.
The Minister may say that a duty is in operation. I do not see how that affects the position. Here we have a submission, and we are legislating that a shaped wooden head for a golf club is substantially manufactured and will be liable to duty.
The duty is not being charged upon it.
We do not know if the Executive Council have taken it upon themselves to break the law. If this proposal passes these clubs will be liable to duty. There may be licences granted by the Revenue Commissioners. All we have to do now is to legislate and we must do so correctly.
The Revenue Commissioners have expressed their opinion on this matter.
Then the Revenue Commissioners have expressed their opinion that what is the law is not the law. To say that a club is not substantially manufactured, when it comes in shaped, and only requires finishing and a certain amount of labour, is simply absurd. From his experience of golf the Minister should know that people buy clubs from the big shops or from professionals. The shops have large supplies, and because they get them wholesale they can sell at cheaper rates than professionals. The Minister must know the advantage of getting wooden clubs made by professionals is that they are built to suit the individual. It is like the difference between buying a ready-made suit of clothes and one made by a good tailor. If the margin between the shop price in Dublin and the price charged by professionals is increased, as I think it must be increased, the professionals will lose substantially in the sale of clubs.
There seems to be some doubt on these benches as to the freedom from tax of golf club heads. Can the Minister say how far the manufacture of shaped heads goes before they are taxed?
The shaped block from which the head is made is not liable.
Does that apply to the steel shaft?
Steel heads are imported in the rough and are finished, polished and adjusted here.
Are steel heads imported in the rough?
One or two firms are manufacturing them here.
I should like to see one.
There is a factory in Abbey Street owned by a well-known firm.
And they import the heads rough?
Yes.
Are steel shafts taxed?
The steel shaft is free if it has no grip attached to it.
In that case we may take it that the commercial manufacturer of clubs in this country is just dealing with what is merely shaped, and that it is only when the process has proceeded beyond shaping that the tax begins?
Yes.
This, of course, is another imposition on somebody. I am not a golfer, and so I cannot be accused of defending my own case. I know very little about the game. In fact, I am completely ignorant of it.
Many golfers are.
I am told that it is a highly technical and difficult game to play, and that it requires a lot of care and attention. I expect there are a number of notable players on the Government benches, and they ought to know all about it, but the Ministry were driven from post to pillar, as on the last amendment, to find something to tax, and they have now settled on golf clubs. It seems to me that there are some people making golf clubs in this country who appear to be professionals, although what that means I do not know. I expect that there are professionals in the different clubs, and that they have been making these golf clubs and attempting to compete with the finished article that comes from somewhere else. The Minister is now taxing the parts that they use, and will make it more difficult for them to compete with the foreigner. A certain measure of protection will be given to the foreigner to enable him to send in the finished article, and that will make it hard for the professional to produce the finished club himself.
The Minister interjected—he did not get up to say anything definite, and one tries to gather by his interjections what his views are—that the component parts which are here named will not be taxed. I cannot agree with that because it seems to me to be plain enough. I would like the House to consider this. Some of you are golfers, but I know nothing about it and so it may be said that I am completely unbiassed. Probably, therefore, my reading of the section would be that of an ordinary member of the community. I might be in a bunker, for all I know, although I do not exactly know what that means, but I am certainly in a bit of a hole about this. At any rate, I am in a difficulty. However, I am reading this as an ordinary member of the community without any knowledge of golf, and the section says: "Articles which in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners are heads or shafts suitable for use as component parts of clubs or sticks mentioned in the preceding paragraph." My reading of that is that it means the completed head or shaft, and not, as the Minister says, entirely in the raw state. It might be half finished, but to make it quite clear it says: "in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners are wholly or substantially manufactured." I cannot see in what way the Revenue Commissioners are not left free to decide it in any way they like, and my experience of the Revenue Commissioners is that, where they can get anything on the strict interpretation, they always do. They are certainly highly efficient in the matter of extracting the limit from a tax. I know of a certain article that I was importing myself, that was badly needed. I thought that it was completely beyond taxation, and that it could not possibly be taxed by the Revenue Commissioners, but they informed me that they would have to subject it to certain tests and experiments in order to find out the content of sugar. They found out finally that the content of sugar was practically nil, which was no particular use to me. In the same way, they might find some difficulty with regard to these shafts and heads of golf clubs and they might manage eventually to convince themselves that it is possible to tax the partly-made heads of the Fianna Fáil Party. They may tax the heads and shafts, and even the ragged tails, for all I know, of the golf clubs, and altogether it will be made extremely difficult for the unfortunate man who is trying to compete against a highly-organised industry in another country and trying to make these clubs here and sell them at an equivalent price.
There is another item to which I should like to refer. As I said, I know nothing about golf, but I am informed with regard to golf and tennis, of which I know very little either, that the implements used in these games are of a character that require great skill and long technical experience to produce; that there is something in the balance, if you like, of a club that is very difficult to produce. The only club I am familiar with at all is the ordinary club. I had a stroke of a club one time from a Fianna Fáil supporter, and the only balance in that club was that the head was heavier than the handle so as to give it an extra impetus. That may not be true of the golf club, but I understand that it requires great technical skill to produce a cleanly-balanced club to hit a golf ball. It is possible that we have not arrived at the position in this country yet where we can produce the very best club. Barring one or two men in Ireland, I understand that the foreign golfer is able to beat all our men. They are longer at the game than we are, and it is natural to think that they would be more efficient in the production of the instruments. It might be, however, that the Minister, or some of the Deputies behind him who are graduating in this game, will be compelled themselves some day, when they get to that high state of efficiency, to tackle Bobby Jones—or is he the champion?—and one of them might be in a position to say: "Jones would be no better than I if I could get clubs as good as he has." I think that we should not lose sight of that point of view. Speaking of clubs, however, I think that, in the matter of anything pertaining to a club, the Fianna Fáil Deputies here should be the last people to attack a club, whether it is a golf club or any other kind of club. They are much more familiar with clubs than I am, either golf clubs or any other kind. I do not use golf clubs and I do not use any other kind of club. I think that there ought to be some defence put up by the opposite side for this tax. I see Deputy Tom Kelly smiling. I do not know whether Deputy Kelly is a golfer, but his genial countenance always offers me consolation. Whether he is a golfer or not, I do not know, but I suppose that he knows something about clubs, even as I do, and that is only by repute. I am quite certain, however, that, like myself, he is not a wielder of clubs at all, but he knows men who do wield them, and I am sure he is anxious to help out those people, and not make those articles dearer on anybody. I certainly think that in the case of the manufacturer, the parts which he has to use should not be made dearer to him so that the finished article from another country can be imported cheaper than he can manufacture it.
I should like to express my regret that the Minister thought it necessary to put in this additional paragraph. The clause of the section in the original Act seemed to be a mistake. There are few luxuries left now, and I suppose golf is counted as a luxury. To some of us, however in these days of stress it is really a necessity. It is prescribed by our doctors—possibly the Minister was led on to the links in that way—and it seems rather hard that we cannot have an innocent and simple pastime without paying very considerably for it. The cost is becoming so high that a person with a sense of responsibility has to cut down his golf, the same as everything else. I was pleased to hear that the Minister and one of the leading members of the Opposition belong to the same club, but I fear that if the game is made more expensive the possibility that they might come to an understanding even on the links is going to be removed. There is another objection which I see to this tax on pastimes. I think the original clause covers tennis, badminton, ping-pong, and a whole series of games. We have a number of visitors coming over, and I think it is good for the country that they should visit our links. They bring money into the country, and they bring the element of cheerfulness that we want. It is a pity that their luggage should be subjected to too close scrutiny. We will now have our customs officers, who have got to do their duty, prying into their golf bags and asking: "Did you buy that club across the frontier?" or across the water, as the case may be, and they will have to explain that they are visitors. The Minister may think that this is a mere fictitious case, but I have actually seen it; I saw a customs official reducing a little girl of 13 or 14 almost to tears over a tennis racquet. She thought she would be carried off at once to jail. It is a pity we have found it necessary to tax games. I wish we could have found the money otherwise. This is obviously—well, subject to the Minister's denial—a revenue tax.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted and 20 Deputies being present—
Did I understand the Minister to say that iron heads are introduced here in the rough? I want to be quite clear on that, because it directly affects the paragraph as it stands—how much work is actually done and how much has to be done. I can understand that when an iron club comes in it has to be filed, smoothed and polished. Is that all that has to be done?
Yes. It has to be polished, filed and fitted to the shaft.
It is forged before it comes in?
Yes.
And yet the paragraph stands "and are, in the opinion aforesaid, wholly or substantially manufactured." Surely they are substantially manufactured if they are forged when they come in, and if all that has to be done is a little filing and polishing?
They are not filed. You never saw a filed iron head yet.
It is quite obvious, anyway, that they are substantially manufactured before they come in. Is not that obvious to the Minister?
They are forged. The bulk of the employment is given here.
In the making of the iron head?
Yes.
Who gives it?
The firm——
What is the firm? They do not advertise it.
They do not sell direct to the public.
Are they listed in any directory?
I cannot say.
Can you give us the name of the firm?
There is a firm in Abbey Street. I forget the name.
They got lost in the slums of Dublin.
Ask the professional.
He would not be able to tell me any more than you.
Here you are deliberately putting into the hands of the Revenue Commissioners a paragraph which you do not intend them to interpret, apparently. The paragraph says "wholly or substantially manufactured." If they are forged they are substantially manufactured. I do not care what the quantity of work is; they are substantially manufactured even according to the Minister's own statement. Does he tell us at the same time that they are not taxed? Again, there is no consideration of the tax before it is put on.
I think this has to be inquired into a bit more. I do not know whether the Minister has ever been in a professional's shop when the work is going on. I know from observation over a long period of years that there is quite a lot of difference between the amount of work that has to be done on the iron head club as compared with the wooden head. The wooden head comes in here in a very rough state indeed. There is a well-known contour about it, and the work that has to be done is considerable. It has got to be filed to the proper point, and the whole thing has to be smoothed and varnished. The shaft has to be fitted into the socket, if it is a socket head, and the binding put on. The shaft has to be planed, grooved and varnished, and the two grips put on and bound. As regards the iron head, in all the time I have been knocking around golf clubs over a long period of years, I never saw a professional doing anything to an iron head except fitting the shaft into it.
That is what I said.
But the work on the shaft——
So the only difference is that he buys the head from a firm in Dublin, instead of from a foreign firm.
I am talking about how the head comes in. It comes in here in a complete state. Only one thing has to be done by the professional. At the very top of the socket part of the iron head, the steel of the iron is split and the professional fits the shaft into that. He gives it a turn in a vice, and puts in the serrated end more securely. There is a hole just near the top, and there has to be something in the nature of a rivet put through that and through the shaft, which is then filled with glue, and the whole thing is given a turn in a vice. I do not even believe there is a hammer put to it. There is certainly no filing.
In any professional's shop?
Not in any part of this country.
I am saying there is.
And I am asking where.
There are two or three firms.
Now there are two or three; there will be five before you are finished.
The forging down of those heads is, in the main, done by two or three big firms who confine themselves entirely to that type of work. Forgan's used to be a great firm at one time. There was a works at Carnoustie, but I forget the name of the firm. I know there were at least three firms. I do not believe that even the burnishing is done in this country. This is the way these things used to arrive at two or three professional establishments. The heads came wrapped in a piece of sacking, and when they were rolled out on the floor they were found to be tied together with pieces of wire run through the holes in the top. There was not even polishing to be done. They generally came in with vaseline rubbed on them. The burnishing had been done already and the makers wanted to preserve them against rust. To tell me that nobody could pass that, that it was not substantially manufactured——
It is, but it is liable to duty.
It is, when it is coming in. We have been arguing on the basis that that was not intended.
The unfinished head is not liable to duty, the one that comes in rough.
If a head such as I have described comes in, it is substantially manufactured and is therefore liable to duty?
Yes.
I will put it further, that 90 per cent. of the heads come in in that fashion and therefore they are liable to duty.
They are not.
At least the Minister should be able to tell us whether they are finished and burnished here, and where?
There are two or three places in Dublin, one in Abbey St. It is a well-known firm.
Is it the rubber company?
I think it is.
I would like the Minister to get his first introduction to a rough iron head some of these days and then he can let us know the difference between the rough iron head and the type I have described. The Minister said that the bulk of the employment in connection with these iron heads is given in this country.
Other than the casting.
That was never said. That is the sort of thing that may get the Minister out of a hole with the Tralee Urban Council, but it ought not to be said here. The Minister's statement now discloses a falsehood. He said the bulk of the employment on these heads——
——is done here. I say all the employment is carried on here other than the casting.
My suggestion is that these things come in in the way I have described and there is no finishing or burnishing to be done. Some one lifts them off the cart, throws them on the floor, cuts the wire connecting the heads and unloosens them. I do not understand this business of a shaft, because steel shafts are now being used more and more I gather that the steel shaft is not substantially manufactured if it has not a grip on it. The difference between substantial and non-substantial manufacture is whether the grip is on or not. Is this what you might call a grip tax? Is this a tariff to enable the grips to be put on here? Is that what it comes to?
Surely the Minister does not suggest that the putting on of the grip means substantial manufacture?
I suggest that a substantial number of unemployed golf professionals are now employed for the first time because of this duty. I suggest that the duty has been welcomed by the golf professionals, and it was imposed at their request, and I suggest that better and cheaper clubs are now being made here.
Why not finish it off by saying that probably one of these days we will be exporting them to the whole world?
We are sending out golf champions at the present time, men who are doing well in other countries.
One could wish that the Minister would become a golf champion, and in that way we might be able to get rid of him.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corbett, Edmond.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Lavery, Cecil.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
I beg to move amendment No. 54:—
In Part VI, to delete reference No. 17, including relevant references in columns 2, 3 and 4.
The Finance Act of 1934 in reference 16, which is referred to in the Schedule here, imposes a tariff of 20 per cent. on "any of the following articles which is, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, made wholly or mainly of leather or of skin or of an imitation of leather or skin or of a combination of any two or more of those substances or of which the outer covering is, in the opinion aforesaid, made wholly or mainly of any such substance or combination of substances as aforesaid, that is to say (1) purses, pouches, wallets, pocket books, and card cases which are, in the opinion aforesaid, designed, constructed and intended to be carried about the person, and (2) ladies' reticules or handbags which are in the opinion aforesaid, designed, constructed and intended to be carried and worn about the person to serve the purposes of a pocket and to hold articles for current personal use, (b) cash bags made wholly or mainly of leather or skin or a combination of leather and skin, and, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, designed, constructed and intended to be worn on the person."
Apparently the agent of the Minister for Finance who went into the home of the average working man to see what could be taxed there, had a look at the purse when he was taking a note of the last halfpenny in that purse. He thought it was a terrible pity not to get a bit off the purse itself, too, before he left. A tariff of 20 per cent. imposed on these articles in 1934 is increased now to a tariff of 40 per cent. I would like to put to the Minister for Finance one question—what is the reason for increasing this tariff other than the financial stringency to which the Government and the country has been reduced? I would like to ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce what has happened in the realms of Irish manufacture since this time last year which necessitates the reason for this tariff of 20 per cent. put on these articles at that time being increased now to 40 per cent.? Is there a licensing provision by which the people along the border can be relieved of the blow imposed by this tariff?
Last year this industry did not exist, and the tariff of 20 per cent. was imposed for the purpose of encouraging people to engage in it. That tariff has more than achieved its purpose. Those who visited the Spring Show spoke as much about the excellence of the leather products they saw there as they did about any other production at the Show. Arrangements have been made for a large scale expansion of the industry and it is in order to facilitate that and to encourage this industry that it has been decided to increase the duty. An important new industry has been brought into existence. This industry is intended to increase employment and to be a benefit to the country. I am quite sure that by this time twelve months Deputies opposite will have arrived at the stage that they will vehemently deny they ever opposed this tariff.
As usual the Minister has given us no figures in support of this tax. In support of what he said there is a complete lack of figures and a complete lack of any explanation as to the causes for the increase in the tariff imposed. The Minister forgets to say a word about the real matter that is before the House. He seems to forget that he is now imposing an additional tariff. The Minister has not been asked to defend the 20 per cent. tariff imposed last year. What he is asked to defend is the change from 20 per cent. to 40 per cent. That is what he has been asked to defend, and I invite the House now to look at the reason he gives. That reason is characteristic of the Minister. He says he is imposing it because the tariff of 20 per cent. imposed last year is quite enough and more than enough. Mark, that is why he is now increasing it to 40 per cent. He says the purposes for which that 20 per cent. were imposed have been achieved and that they have been more than achieved. But that did not satisfy the Minister. He goes further, and without giving any title of excuse and no reason for the increased tax that he was supposed to be defending here, he changes the tariff from 20 per cent. to 40 per cent. He does not defend that change. It is quite obvious from the speech delivered by the Minister on this occasion that he will not grasp and cannot grasp the seriousness of what he is doing. The Minister a year ago put in operation a 20 per cent. tariff on these things. He found that tariff successful and successful beyond his hopes and more than he expected. He found that tariff capable of establishing an industry which, he tells us, has been extremely successful. There are hopes of its doing more than he expected. Then when it is successful with immense possibilities, likelihoods and actualities of development he goes further. He is not satisfied with leaving it developed beyond his expectations but he jumps there from 20 per cent. to 40 per cent. When asked to defend that in the House, the Minister in reference to the precise thing which he is supposed to defend makes a speech, which is largely irrelevant, in defence of last year's tax and not in defence of the present one. We know now from the Fianna Fáil Party that in their minds there is no real distinction between a revenue tax and a protective tax.
Nobody can tell for what reason it is imposed. The Minister is not satisfied with what has already been done with the assistance of the 20 per cent., and jumps it to 40 per cent. Here is a large scale industry, established in the space of 12 months, with the assistance of a 20 per cent. tax, and the Minister, without any rhyme or reason, jumps that to 40 per cent. The inevitable result will be a bad effect on that industry. I do not see how the ordinary commercial men in the long run, no matter how excellent they may be, can resist the temptation to increase the price altogether unnecessarily and to deteriorate the quality of the article. What you get is a combination of these two movements—a movement upward of prices and a movement downward of quality as a result of what the Minister is doing. All the defence he has is a gibe about the future—how glad we will be in future to hail the success of the 20 per cent. tariff; but no justification for raising it to 40 per cent.
As Deputy O'Sullivan said, this is another tax for which there is no justification. The Minister for Industry and Commerce, in the few words he said on this, pursued the common argument used by the Fianna Fáil Party, that this is not meant to be a protective tariff: that the industry is getting on very well without it. The Minister said that last year we had none of these articles made here, and that in 12 months remarkable strides had been made with the 20 per cent. protection. A very big industry had been set up. If they are getting on so rapidly with 20 per cent., why do they need any more? We are opening the way here for profiteering and nothing else, because if 20 per cent. is sufficient to set the manufacturers going in making these articles, they certainly do not need 40 per cent. to do it. The experience of these things is that if you increase the protection advantage will be taken of it. It is almost inevitable that manufacturers, being human, will take advantage of the added protection given, and increase the price of the article. It appears to us to be the inevitable consequence of the ever-increasing tariffs.
The Government seems to have no other policy when making any change in the tariff system than to add a figure. They make it 5 per cent. one year, 10 the next, 20 the next, 25 the next and 30 the next, without any consideration whatever of the consequences to the population. This word "bag" seems to be dinned into my brain since we commenced this Finance Bill. We had bags of flour, bags of sugar, bags of tea, and all of them taxed. Now we have leather bags. There seems to be only one thing left to the community: to pack up their troubles in some sort of a bag and smile, if they can—if there is a smile left in them— because nothing seems to be left untaxed.
The people are getting sick, tired and sorry over the whole tariff system of the Government. There is neither thought nor consideration behind it. The Government are not satisfied to stop at what is necessary but they increase the chance of putting extra profits in some manufacturer's pocket, if he wants to avail of it, and most of them will. The consuming population and the agricultural community know well that if the chance is given to a manufacturer to make an extra profit he will take it. He would be a fool if he did not. We have to bear the consequences. Half of the opposition in this country to tariffs is caused by the policy of the Minister in increasing tariffs beyond the point that is necessary. We have had so many cases of this that one gets tired of repetition, but if repetition is any good in wakening up the Government to the seriousness of the situation then we shall repeat it as often as is necessary. We can only say that we are going to oppose this, as we have opposed many similar taxes.
Would the Minister tell us how many extra people will get employment as a result of this increase from 20 to 40 per cent.?
We have been told that 20 per cent. had more than served its purpose. It is well that we should get back to what its purpose was. I am sure the purpose was to give employment to people. If it has more than achieved its purpose, I suppose we have got to the position that we have a huge export and are probably exporting bags, pouches, card cases, etc., all around the world. The Revenue Commissioners do not seem to have had the same difficulty with regard to these articles as in regard to others, because they are given the job of deciding here whether these things are "wholly or mainly of leather or of skin or of an imitation of leather or skin or of a combination of any two or more of those substances, or of which the outer covering is, in the opinion aforesaid, made wholly or mainly of any such substance or combination of substances as aforesaid." Then we get a general description of "purses, pouches, wallets, pocket-books and card cases which are designed, constructed and intended to be carried about the person," and of "ladies' reticules or handbags which are designed, constructed and intended to be carried or worn about the person to serve the purposes of a pocket and to hold articles for current personal use." Will the Minister tell us "what is current personal use"? Has he anything on him that he wears about his person serving the purpose of, say, a taxpayer's pocket? What is the meaning of this phrase? Then the next section (b) reads: "cash-bags made wholly or mainly of leather or skin or a combination of leather and skin and, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, designed, constructed, and intended to be worn on the person." Purses are designed to be carried about; reticules are designed to be worn, and the cash bags are to be worn on the person. I would like to be shown the cash bag which the Minister says is to be worn on somebody's person.
Then we get an explanatory memorandum about these taxes, and the cynicism in them never really slipped out better than in a phrase used here. Somebody was told to write up all the descriptions. He had got to reference No. 17 in the explanatory document in the reference back to the old Schedule. He, at any rate, got to within three of the end, and we may take it that he was very tired and weary of writing descriptions. This is quite a good description of what is happening: "This is a provision merely to increase from 20 per cent. ad valorem to 40 per cent. ad valorem the rate of duty chargeable on such articles as purses, pouches, ladies' handbags and cash-bags made of leather or imitation leather.”“Merely”—that is the Fianna Fáil attitude towards raising any duty from 20 to 40 per cent.; it is a mere increase. We are not told whether there is any reason for the increase or not. The Minister, in fact, told us something which would lead us to vote against this. He said that the 20 per cent. tariff had already achieved its purpose, and its purpose was to get employment. It has more than achieved its purpose, and so he wants another 20 per cent. What does it mean? If any manufacturer or retailer is paying any attention to the proceedings of this House he must make up his mind that Deputies do not care a “thraneen” as to the difference between 20 and 40 per cent. when putting on taxes. Why should they care about it when thinking of price? Nobody is going to bother about an increase to 40 from 20 per cent. If the Prices Commission were thought to be good for anything at all they might say: “No one is going to make a complaint about this. The price is being raised from 20 to 40 per cent. in the Dáil. No one is bothering about that, and nothing is heard about it except a casual statement that it is a ‘mere increase’.” There is no explanation except that the 20 per cent. has more than achieved its purpose and therefore we will double it. This means a direct incitement to profiteering or to increase charges either by manufacturers or retailers. I withdraw the word “profiteering” when we are faced with the official statement issued saying that it is “a mere increase of from 20 to 40 per cent.”
I think the phrase "mere increase" shows that the whole purpose is to make the article dearer. No case was attempted to be made by the Minister except that. The whole purpose is to increase the price to the consumer. We waited in vain for the Minister to justify this increase; he did not even try. All he did, in the parting remarks he flung to the House, was to justify, or to try to justify, the 20 per cent. He made no attempt whatsoever to justify the "mere increase" of the tax. That, of course, was the last thing that was in the mind of the Minister—I do not know which Minister; we can never decide now which Minister is responsible, whether it is the Minister for Finance who raises the taxes, or the Minister for Industry and Commerce who puts on the increased duties. A more satisfactory explanation is that contained in the memorandum which was read by Deputy McGilligan that it is merely doubling the tax.
There is a great tendency on the other side of the House, and accepted by Ministers, to misrepresent our attitude to these duties. We are to be regarded as enemies of the development of Irish industry and as setting our faces against such a policy on the part of the Government. I think the opposite would be the true representation of our fears.
In a case of this kind it is evident that the industry has been very cleverly and successfully established on the basis of a 20 per cent. tariff. There is no case for increasing that tariff except to do some injury to that industry. This we are told is but a mere increase. It is an increase of a 100 per cent; and shows the mental attitude of the Government towards the people of this country in regard to the imposition of taxation. If this industry is going to get a further shelter of a 100 per cent. there can be only two results. The industry has established itself successfully on a 20 per cent. tariff. If that tariff is increased by a 100 per cent. it can only lead to carelessness and indifference on the part of its promoters. The element of competition is ruled out and an industry worked on that basis may lead to the notion that anything produced is good enough for the public. Secondly, we have here an utter disregard for the consuming public, and the cost of living in no way enters into the mentality of the Government in imposing this extra tax. This industry should be left alone. It is not a very big industry absorbing a great amount of capital but it absorbs a fair amount of trained labour. Its products have been very successful, and have been able to compete with similar goods imported. The raising of the tax from 20 to 40 per cent. is going to have a bad effect upon the industry itself. It is going to lead to carelessness and disregard for competition and it is going to lead to cramping of design. In a lot of these matters design, artistic output and change in fashion prove great incentives to good and successful work. That incentive will disappear and this increase of the tariff will only lead to the cramping of the industry and to the putting of additional cost upon the public.
It seems to me the general trend of this discussion might be summed up by proposing a vote of confidence in Japanese competition. What are we to do if the Japanese are not allowed to send their goods in here? How are we to protect ourselves against high prices if we prohibit that wonderful thing, competition, with our own manufactures? I do not think that is a good basis on which to found industry here. I think if the policy of competition, and low tariffs, and the keeping of prices right here by reference to foreign countries is admitted, it will not do much for prices here and will do precious little for Irish industry.
More than you have done.
That is not the opinion of the country.
I think it is.
The opinion of the country is that the industrial development that went on during those ten years——
It will be allowable, of course, to discuss this on the same lines?
I am going to stop it now definitely. We are not discussing the industrial policy of any Government but the proposed tariff on bags.
It is a great pity.
And the only reference I was making to any outside subject——
It is to this reference the Deputy must speak; we cannot discuss the policy adopted here during the previous ten years. That would lead us into several byways in which every Deputy would have the right to travel.
The alternative to a high tariff is a low tariff, and to argue in favour of a high tariff without reference to the trial of low tariffs would be rather difficult.
We cannot discuss the policy of the previous Administration on reference No. 17. That deals with a specific thing and we can deal only with that.
We can, at any rate, discuss the difference between 40 per cent. and 20 per cent. on this reference, and that is all we are asked to discuss here. It is merely an increase from 20 to 40 per cent., and an increase to 40 per cent. when the Minister said, with regard to the 20 per cent., that it had more than achieved its purpose. I should like the Deputy to found any debate he can on an attempt to justify a mere increase of the 20 per cent. —a doubling up of the original—after the statement made than the 20 per cent. had more than achieved its purpose. I hope he will enter into the discussion.
I hope he will not.
I am afraid that he has got tailed off, too. It is a great pity, because that was the first sign of intelligence over here for two days.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corbett, Edmond.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Lavery, Cecil.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
I move amendment No. 55:—
In Part VI, to delete reference No. 19, including relevant references in columns 2, 3 and 4.
The Finance Act of 1934 imposed a duty of 25 per cent. on any article "which is, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, bias binding designed, constructed and intended for use in the manufacture or repair of articles made of textile material." It is now proposed to raise the rate of duty to 50 per cent. I should like to ask the Minister what are the circumstances which dictate that this rate of 25 per cent. should now be raised to 50 per cent.?
What is bias binding? Does the Minister know?
No, but the Revenue Commissioners do.
Can the Minister not tell us what this is?
Has the Minister got a definition of it in the book with the yellow cover, which he has been studying for the last couple of days?
Only one page of which, I understand, he has been able to read in two days.
It is more interesting than the speeches to which I have had to listen.
More interesting than the Minister's own Budget.
I have no bias in this matter, but I should like to know what a bias binding is. Surely we have some Deputy on the opposite side of the House who can tell us what a bias binding is.
Mr. Kelly
You have all the intelligence on your side.
Accepting the compliment, we should still like to know what a bias binding is.
Mr. Kelly
You should know.
Does the Deputy know?
The Minister for Finance came to the House 12 months ago and asked the House to put a tariff of 25 per cent. on this article. I do not know whether he explained to the House at that time whether the tax was for revenue or industrial purposes, but I should like to know now if this material is made here, and if so, to what extent, and what employment is given in the manufacture of it. Why is it necessary to raise this tariff to 50 per cent? Is it simply the case of another industry from which the Minister, because of the financial stringency in which he finds himself as a result of this policy, wants to collect a few more halfpence?
The Minister refuses to give us any explanation of what bias binding is. For all the Minister knows, it might be anything. If a woman takes a piece of cloth and cuts it on the bias, is that article to be taxed? I know numerous cases of that kind. I want the Minister to explain it to me and to take his head out of the book for a couple of minutes. When a woman takes her needle and thread in her hands and cuts some article on the bias, and proceeds to bind the garment, is that a bias binding; or am I just biased in suggesting it?
It is something that Deputy Kelly knows—even Deputy Kelly.
I want to know what this tax means. It should be clarified for the House. We have great difficulty in discussing legislation if some Minister will not get up and explain what it means.
A Deputy
He does not know.
If somebody on the opposite side knows what a bias binding is, will he inform us so that we can discuss it further?
Mr. Kelly
That is one of the reasons we will not tell you.
As a matter of fact there is an explanation possibly of all this, irrespective of Deputy Kelly's ignorance. A bias binding is used to bind cloths that are cut on the bias. Deputy Kelly himself has clothes that are bound with a bias binding. I mean his clothes like his politics are cut on the bias—they have a bit of a twist or a curl in them. The Deputy may not know that bias bindings are used for clothes cut straight as well as those cut on the bias. I understand that a bias binding is the main binding whether for clothes cut on the bias or cut straight. We are given in the explanatory memorandum the very lucid explanation that "the provision merely increases the rate of duty from 25 to 50 per cent." You could not have anything simpler than that. It "merely increases" the rate of duty by 100 per cent. Why should anybody bother his head about the future when this House considers that an increase of 100 per cent. is something that need not be considered, something to be done en passant. If we are to regard an increase of 100 per cent. as a “mere increase” why should we be alarmed about the activities of profiteers? There should be no fear of anybody being hauled before that glorious body known as the Prices Commission to have their intricate prices system examined if we are to regard this increase of 100 per cent. as a “mere increase”.
I think the House should realise by this time that when the explanatory memorandum says that a thing is "merely an increase" it is one of those things which the Minister for Finance, when he is really stirred into explosion by long silence, thinks is a revenue tax.
And which somebody else will say is partly revenue and partly protective.
I should like to ask the Minister whether this is partly revenue or partly protective, or whether the interpretation which we are driven to attach to the word "merely" is that it is a revenue tax.
It has been rather interesting in this discussion to have the pathetic appeal Deputy Kelly made to have the duty on this particular article explained. He has had to make this pathetic appeal to Deputy McGilligan and not to the bear with the sore head who ornaments the front bench of the Government at the present moment. I would suggest to Deputy Kelly that it would be rather better for him in future, for the sake of public opinion, to make his application to the Minister with the sore head in private. He then possibly would be allowed to approach him. I do not know whether Deputies on his own side are allowed to approach him in that way. I do not know whether Deputy Kelly would be allowed into the august presence or whether he would be duly kicked out if he approached him.
We would always have the excuse of the Deputy's kicking cow.
A Minister who cannot speak when he is wanted to speak had better keep quiet when it is disorderly to speak, because it seems to me that the only thing the sore-headed Minister can possibly do is to make disorderly interruptions. No matter whether this is or is not a matter of very great importance, no matter whether it will or will not bring in any large increase of revenue, the principle which lies behind it and behind the attitude of the Minister for Finance is one against which we must protest. That is to say, that when revenue taxes are being raised upon certain articles, not one suggestion comes from the Minister for Finance either as to whether the article is capable of bearing the taxation or whether it is necessary for the balancing of the Budget that the small sum imposed by the tax must be raised. That is the principle which lies behind this amendment, a principle against which this House should protest.
When we tax anything, be it great or small, it increases the burden upon the taxpayer and the reason for doing so should be placed before the House and, through the House, before the people of the country. Instead of that, we have this silent taxation, this coming along to the House and flinging down a proposal for a certain tax, saying: "We will give you no reason for it; we will give you no idea of the amount of revenue to be raised by it; take it or we will drive it through the House." This tax is to be driven through the House by an unthinking and, as Deputy O'Kelly has conclusively shown us, an absolutely ignorant majority.
The tax relates to women's garments and we do not know much about them.
I presume the Deputy will vote for what he does not know much about. I will be called upon to vote also and I do not know anything about this article. I want to obtain some information about it and then I shall make up my mind. If I am refused that information, I will vote against the tax as a protest against a novel-reading Minister coming in without a single official adviser—and we all know that he wants an adviser. He has treated the House with the utmost contempt. "Bias-binding" is not even a name to me. I never heard of it before. The Minister wants to increase the tariff on this thing— whatever it is—to 50 per cent. I understand it has been 25 per cent. Are we able to meet our requirements in it? Has the 25 per cent. been ineffective or are we progressing favourably towards the desired goal? If we are—and no case has been made to the contrary—there is no justification for increasing the tax except the justification that it will increase the profits of people who are capable—if the assumption I make is correct—of expanding their trade under present conditions.
If they are capable of doing that, they should not get any further facilities. Putting people in a favoured position like that is not conducive to industrial development. The whole theory of industrial tariffs is that those of a temporary nature should keep out dumping, and that others should assist in the development of industry by giving the home producer a sufficient margin to enable him to overcome the disadvantage he is at in competing with another country, and to start practically on a level with it. Any Minister who wants to impose tariffs for industrial development should satisfy himself that the tariff he imposes is sufficient, and no more than sufficient, to overcome the disadvantages under which the home producers have to work. We are given no information as to whether the 25 per cent. tariff represented a sufficient levelling up as against those disadvantages. The Minister merely said: "We will put on another 25 per cent." We are given no reason why that tariff should be doubled. There is an old proverb current in the part of the country from which I come—"Children and fools should not handle edged tools." I am afraid that the tariff weapon is in the hands of somebody who does not know how to handle it.
Apparently, the Minister intends to persist in his efforts to reduce the procedure of this House to the level of a farce and to bring the Parliamentary institutions of this country into contempt. There are certain regulations laid down for dealing with a position like that. We have been discussing here for the last three or four days what I described before as the most important Bill that comes before this House in a year—a Bill which imposes, particularly this year, an enormous burden on the people. On this section, as on other sections, the Minister has refused absolutely to assist the representatives of the people to understand why these taxes are being imposed on a number of articles and why taxes are being increased in other cases by 25 per cent. and, in this case, by 100 per cent.
I submit that the Minister has not only failed in his duty to the House and to the country but that he is guilty of gross contempt for which he should be made amenable. There is machinery to make him amenable. The Minister for Industry and Commerce sat in the House yesterday and for the greater part of to-day. He gave certain information when requested to do so. Whether members of the House thought that information satisfactory or not does not arise at the moment. But he did not treat the House with the gross contempt with which it has been treated by the Minister for Finance. The Minister whose primary duty it is to put through the Finance Bill and to explain to the House its provisions, and the reasons for the different impositions, the Minister who is paid for doing this work has thought fit to spend his time for the last three days reading some book.
Looking at it.
Which book, we must assume, has no relation to the business of the House—the business which he is paid to perform. As you, a Chinn Comhairle, are responsible for upholding the dignity and the prestige of this House and of our parliamentary institutions, I suggest that this conduct by the Minister for Finance should not be tolerated and that we should hear from the President of the Executive Council an explanation as to why his Minister refuses to give information he is bound to give. We should be told whether that is merely the attitude of the Minister himself or whether he is acting under the instruction of the President of the Executive Council in withholding from the House information which it is entitled to receive.
The Deputy is aware that the Chair has no power or jurisdiction in that matter.
Unfortunately, we have got the standard the majority of the House set up.
I submit that the Ceann Comhairle must take some action if any member of the House— and particularly a Minister—by his conduct attempts to reduce the proceedings to a farce or to bring our parliamentary institutions into contempt.
Is the Deputy considering the amendment at all?
Not so far.
My whole case is that the Minister is, on this section, refusing to give us the information we are entitled to receive. I submit I am perfectly in order.
The Deputy's voice will go out of order if he goes any higher.
The Minister is not in very good order. Whether he is suffering from mental or physical disorder, I do not know—perhaps both. It is quite clear to any person that the Minister is deliberate in the attitude that he has taken up. As I say, the position that he has taken up does not run to the remainder of his colleagues. I do not know whether the Minister has been instructed by that great apostle of democratic republicanism, the President, to adopt his present attitude, but at any rate it does not add to the prestige of this House either here or in the country.
There was a ruling given by you, Sir, a moment ago that I would like to refer to. You said, in connection with the matter which Deputy Morrissey raised, that you had no jurisdiction. I would respectfully submit that the Chair has an inherent jurisdiction to see that the ordinary decencies and courtesies of discussion are carried on in this House. If somebody walks into the House and, let me say, ostentatiously reads a newspaper —there may be nothing in the Standing Orders which deals with it—but there is power in the Chair—in the Ceann Comhairle—not merely a power but a duty to see that such general treatment of the House with contempt shall not be carried on. I submit that the same standard of courtesy is required from all members, whether they are Ministers, or back-benchers. The Minister has no more right to act in an offensive fashion, in an ungentlemanly fashion, than has an ordinary back bencher. If the Minister deliberately reads a newspaper in order that he may ostentatiously show that he is paying no attention to the debate, he is thereby insulting the whole House, including the Chair. The Chair has an inherent power, I submit, and also an inherent duty to stop that course of conduct.
It is clear, from the course that the debate has taken on the Committee Stage of this Bill, that it was the purpose of the Opposition to obstruct the measure. The proposals in the Bill were fully discussed on the Financial Resolutions and on the Second Stage of the Bill.
What was said about bias binding?
These discussions occupied 14 hours: more than twice as long as the discussions on the corresponding stage of any preceding Finance Bill. I have given to Deputies on several occasions all the information that they have asked for. It is obvious, as I have said, that when the Opposition embarked on a policy of obstruction it was my duty as the Minister charged with the responsibility of getting this Bill through in time in order to comply with the legal requirements, and to give the other House the time which is reserved to it under the Constitution to consider this measure, not to facilitate the Opposition in any way by participating unnecessarily in this debate.
On the other hand, as well as having duties here, I have also Departmental duties to perform, and any document which I have read in the House during the course of the debate related to those duties and those duties only. I have not read a newspaper, I have not read a book on card-playing, I have not read a novel, I have not read anything that has not been connected, directly or indirectly, with my Departmental functions and, therefore, I have not been guilty of any discourtesy to the House. I am not bound to get up and answer an argument of the type which was used by Deputy John Marcus O'Sullivan yesterday: an argument of this type in relation to the tax on slates. I am quoting now something which is printed in quotation marks in yesterday's issue of the Evening Mail:“When a man awoke in the morning,” said Deputy John Marcus O'Sullivan, “the first thing he saw, provided he had a ceiling, was a roof that paid taxes.” If the House is treated to foolish, nonsensical and incomprehensible remarks of that kind, surely I am not expected to occupy its time in replying.
With regard to the points submitted to the Chair, there are many rulings to the effect that the Chair has no power to compel a Minister or a Deputy to reply. The attention of the Chair was not called to the fact that the Minister was supposed to be reading a book. I first learned of it from the newspapers.
A yellow-backed one at that.
The Minister has dealt with that matter. If the Chair saw a Minister or a Deputy reading a book or a newspaper the Chair would certainly take notice.
The Minister has stated to the House that he has been reading papers having no connection with the matter under discussion—ostentatiously reading them. He has stated that to the House himself.
On the Minister's so-called explanation——
No explanation to you.
For a Minister with a reputation through this country of the man who has just gone out to pass any critical comment on a man with the reputation through the country of Deputy John Marcus O'Sullivan is as big a farce as was ever witnessed here. Deputy O'Sullivan's reputation is as high as the Minister's is low, and for Deputy MacEntee, Minister for Finance, to attempt to criticise a man of the calibre of John Marcus O'Sullivan is ludicrous.
And unnecessary.
And unnecessary. The Minister for Industry and Commerce was called names by a little group in Kerry that we would not be allowed under the rules of the House to attach to him here.
That matter does not arise now.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce attempted to come to the aid of his sorely harassed colleague, and we then have to pay attention to him that possibly he is not worth. One can, at any rate, say of the Minister that a particular group of his own, intimately associated with him, found him out and passed a comment on him which the rules of order and of gentlemanly conduct do not allow us to pass on him. He is standardised by that. The Minister for Finance has carried on a course of conduct here definitely tending to bring parliamentary institutions into disrepute. Parliamentary institutions only can live where a Government is supposed to live by persuasiveness, by being able to argue its point. You cannot say that you are governing by persuasion if the method adopted here is followed when a Bill is being dissected, when its various reactions are being examined, when the whole scope of it is being laid bare: you cannot say that you are ruling by parliamentary institutions of the deliberative assembly type if silence is the only answer.
I think silence on the part of the Minister is bad enough, but when the silence extends to what we see in this House, the silencing of Deputy Kelly and the definite ordering, which was heard at this side, of a man like Deputy Corry to "shut up," when he tried to intervene, the boycott is so rigidly enforced that people elected with the right to represent their constituents have been reduced to the same silence as that on the part of the Ministry, it is surely bringing this House into disrepute. The attitude adopted by the Government, apparently, is "Here are the Bills. We do not need to discuss them. They are self-explanatory." Anyone who speaks against them or who tries to argue a clause or to dissect the meaning of a clause is told that that is obstruction. That is the attitude. But that is not an attitude consistent with Parliamentary Government. If we want to get away from parliamentary government let that be said. The attitude of men who sit silent, while the most amazing Budget ever produced is under discussion, does not help parliamentary institutions. Look at the comment we had this morning about spending 14 hours on this Budget. Was there ever any Budget introduced which contained so many taxes?
Surely we are dealing with an amendment now about bias binding?
I am dealing with an explanation.
But not a word about bias binding.
Unfortunately the Minister was out when the discussion was on. I have often commented on the Minister mixing glibness for argument.
Neither silence nor argument has been characteristic of the discussion.
Unfortunately it took place in the Minister's absence. There has been comment about 14 hours being spent on the most amazing Budget ever introduced. There were more passing references to taxes on food, taxes on house building——
And bias binding.
——and taxes which affect certain people in the community by way of licences. All these are incorporated in this Budget, and anyone who wants to have them discussed is told about the 14 hours that have been spent in discussion. That is the entire information given. A day could be spent discussing each of these questions. The silence that we have had from Ministers, and Deputy Kelly's "I do not know" are what I might call the greatest common measure of the intelligence over there, and that does not amount to a whole lot.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corbett, Edmond.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Lavery, Cecil.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Corbett, Edmond.
- Crowley, Timothy
- Daly, Denis.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hayes, Seán.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Lavery, Cecil.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
When will the Report Stage be reached?
On Wednesday next.
Is there a proposition to that effect?
Yes.
This is a most illuminating proposition—that we meet on Wednesday. I would ask the House to consider what occurred last night, and now we are asked to meet on Wednesday.
We are taking the Bill on Wednesday.
We are asked to discuss this urgent Finance Bill on Wednesday. Last night we broke every precedent so far as this House is concerned, and now we are asked to discuss this on Wednesday. Last night we could not wait until next Tuesday to finish off the Finance Bill. We had, as I say, to give rise to that very regrettable breach of precedent into which the House was led on the alleged plea of urgency—a plea of urgency which I understood from the Ceann Comhairle was put before him by the majority Party in this House. They could not wait until Tuesday. The Ceann Comhairle, acting on the information which he received from the majority Party in this Dáil, decided that it was a matter of urgency.
It is now obvious that it was not a matter of urgency, and that we could have conducted the business in the normal way last evening. There was no necessity for this breach of precedent; there was no necessity for meeting here to-day. With reference to the proposition that we meet on Wednesday, I do suggest that we require an explanation of the urgency from the Government. This is a very weighty Bill. Amendments will have to be tabled on Report Stage. Owing to the fact that there has been such a lot of discussion on the Committee Stage they will have to be very carefully considered. I would draw attention to the fact that if there has been delay in this Bill, and if there is any necessity why we should take it up on Wednesday, the delay is entirely due to three things; first, the incapacity of the Government to make up its mind as to what it is taxing——
That has nothing to do with it.
It lost a week to start with. I would ask you, Sir, to keep the Minister in order. I think I am entitled to that. On more than one occasion I appealed to the Chair to keep that particular Member of the House in order, and I ask you to do so now. The Minister may laugh at the Chair. He has done it all the week. There was a week lost in that way—because the Government could not make up their minds as to what tax they would inflict on the people. The Bill went through the Second Stage. It was put down for a certain day, and Deputies were given the concession that up to a certain time they could get amendments. The Committee Stage was not taken for several days after the date for which it was tabled. What was the cause of the delay there? Next, Sir, the way in which this Budget has been managed by those who had charge of it in this House is a reason why we are requiring a further explanation as to why we are asked to take this on Wednesday. There are two people who gave no assistance whatever in the discussion on this monstrous Budget, this appalling Budget in many ways, putting such heavy taxes on the very poorest classes of the population. One was the Minister for Finance, who is supposed to be intimately responsible for this particular Budget, and the other was the Chairman of the majority Party in this Dáil.
I should like to know whether the Deputy is making an oblique reference to the Chair, as that interpretation would be possible from insinuations made in the course of to-day's debates. Criticism of the Chair should be by way of express motion, and I understand that such a motion is to be tabled.
I intend to propose such a motion, but I certainly would not hold myself precluded from protesting in the interim if the Chair did anything which, to my mind, merited protest.
I refer to the complete absence of the President from this Dáil.
On a point of order, the rule here is to refer to a Member of the House by his official title. Is the Deputy entitled to refer to the President of the Executive Council as the Chairman of the majority Party?
The President of the Executive Council should be referred to as the President of the Executive Council.
I hope, before I am interrupted, I will be allowed to get on to what I wish to say. I am referring to the Chairman of the majority Party—the President of the Executive Council. I refer to him as the Chairman of the majority Party for one particular reason, namely, that it is because they have the majority that they force their wills upon this House.
And that standard was accepted by the Chair.
I think it was a shocking thing, when the majority Party were steam-rolling the principles of this institution, that the President should be entirely absent—that the man who was responsible both for the Party, I take it, and for the business of this House, should be absent.
You used to do that yourself.
We never had the majority view accepted by the Chairman. We usually had the Chairman's judgment on it.
I strongly protest against the way in which the Minister for Finance, when he was in the House, tried to conduct the business of the House as the temporary leader of the House. He showed contempt for its institutions, and it seemed to me, Sir, as I have pointed out, that long before last night he did show contempt, and open contempt, for the Chair. That was what struck the Deputies in this House. It may not have struck the Chair, but certainly it struck every Deputy in this House. On more than one occasion, when the Chair refused to accept closure motions from him to put a stop to the discussions in this House, he showed a fit of ill-temper, and informed the Chair— and through the Chair informed the House—that if it continued he would leave the House; that is, if there was discussion of those enormous taxes the Minister for Finance was going to leave this House without anybody responsible for the Budget in it. I hold that that is quite in keeping with his conduct all through this Budget, and I strongly object to it.
Will the Deputy relate that to the matter before the House?
On that account, any urgency which necessitates asking us to take this next week is due both to the loss of time, for which the Government is altogether responsible, and the amount of discussion, for which the conduct of the Minister for Finance is mainly responsible. Those are the reasons why I do not, without further explanation, feel inclined to accept this motion.