Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Jun 1939

Vol. 76 No. 8

In Committee on Finance. - Finance Bill, 1939—Committee.

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

Mr. Cosgrave

I should like to raise one point on this section. It is some time ago since an opportunity was afforded me of looking up the assessments for surtax, but my recollection is that for the year 1931-32, although it may not have been published in that year, the sum assessable for surtax was over £11,000,000—something like £11,000,000. The sum realised in that year in respect of surtax amounted to almost £789,000. In the year 1935-36, after some alteration had in the intervening period been made, not only with regard to the rates of surtax, but also with regard to the extension of it, bringing in persons who had an income of £1,500 to £2,000 who were not assessable for surtax in 1931-32, my recollection of the figure that was assessable is that it was £8,780,000. The number of persons assessable in 1931-32 was somewhere about 2,600, and the number went down in 1933-36 to 2,300 odd. Has the Minister any observations to make with regard to that matter, whether the shrinkage was due to a reduction in the value of the property these persons held here, in their incomes, or whether there was a removal of such persons with their property? The point in regard to it is that at the time the change in the rates of surtax was effected, we had many expressions from those benches over there about taxing the rich and about making the rich pay. If we take the example of what was got out of them, which is the real test, the amount has diminished from £789,000 —again I speak from recollection—to a sum of £657,000 in one of the intervening years so that we have lost, so far as revenue from that source is concerned, over £130,000 in the best year the Minister has had.

That is not the whole of it. Income from this source has gone steadily down. I am again speaking from recollection, but I think the particular sum which the Minister shows in his latest Estimate of receipts and expenditure is approximately £500,000. The increase in the surtax percentage that has been included in the clause here may possibly increase that sum, but if we compare the £789,000 that was received when the rates were lower, with the £500,000 which would come in this year but for the change that is now being made, we have apparently lost an income of £289,000 on this policy of taxing the rich. What is more disconcerting than that is that if these figures are to be taken as evidencing the facts of the case, we have lost the spending of £2,250,000. Persons who are paying surtax are no longer able to do it, and we are getting less from these people than formerly. Not only that, but we are not partaking of the advantage that would accrue to the country from the spending of £2,250,000 that these people had some four or five years previously.

Mr. MacEntee

I suppose no other Deputy wishes to speak on this point?

Mr. Dillon

We are in Committee.

Mr. MacEntee

I thought perhaps that Deputies might wish to carry it a little further. Deputy Cosgrave was not Minister for Finance in 1931-32. If he had been such, I do not think he would have laid quite so much stress on the figures for that year as he has done. If the Deputy will remember the figures for 1929-30, he will recall that receipts from surtax in that year amounted to £549,972 and in 1930-31 to £597,000. Then there was an abnormal increase of almost £200,000, bringing the figure for 1931-32 to £788,861 or £789,000 as the Deputy has said. In the following year the figure fell to £650,000 and in the next year to £632,000. Then it rose to £652,000 and in 1935-36 it was £657,000. I think if the Deputy had studied the matter seriously he might have asked why it was that in this year, 1931-32, there was a very substantial increase in the yield from surtax. If he had put a question to me—he did not mention it in the House before—or if he had asked me for further information. I would have told him that in that particular year, 1931-32, there was received one large payment that had been in dispute in respect of tax relating to the years 1926-27 and 1927-28. That amounted roughly to £190,000. It is due to that fact that, in the year 1931-32, the yield from surtax amounted to £788,000. If it had not been for that unusual and abnormal payment the yield would have been less than £600,000. As against that, the yield has gone up since. I am quite prepared to admit that the increase in yield has not been due to an increase in incomes chargeable to surtax. Perhaps it is due to our alteration in the rates. In that connection the Deputy has to remember that, arising not only out of the change which has taken place in income-tax rates, and in surtax rates since 1931, those who are large income-tax payers, surtax-payers and supertax payers have taken steps, as far as they can, to minimise the effect of those increases on the rates upon their very large incomes.

It happens that a large part, I should say, of our surtax is paid by that class of persons known as double residents, and they are affected not merely by what we do here but by what is done in Great Britain. I think that what has been done in Great Britain affects them very much more than anything that we have been compelled to do here. One has to keep this fact in mind: that if you make your tax exorbitant here as compared with the rates in Great Britain it may tend to drive all those people out of the country and you may very well lose on the transaction. What is happening is this, that people with very large incomes, in order that they may not have to pay at the upper end of the scale, are distributing their property. They are distributing it among their sons and their daughters—to members of their own family, because in that way you see they can quite easily, in view of the fact that the scale is a graduated one, reduce the tax payable whilst keeping the total income within the family: that while the family will have the same amount of money to spend, the amount of taxes that can be extracted out of it will be much less. That is the attitude generally adopted and it has had its effect. Again you have the new shifts and expedients which have been devised for evading liability to tax.

Apart altogether from the transfer of the assets of a number of those families and the formation of private companies to hold them, a large part of their incomes has been invested in gilt-edged investments. Since 1931-32, the return given by those investments has been decreased substantially. Naturally that has had its effect upon assessments in respect of unearned income, and also, of course, during some of those years—the depression years—we had a fall in British industrial dividends. Naturally that had its reactions here. What happens when a man dies? During life he may have managed to keep all his property in the one hand and to retain the income from that property for himself, but when about to die he has got to dispose of it. As a rule he likes to provide for every member of his family according to his views on that matter, and that does have its reactions on the surtax yield.

One of the things that we have got to bear in mind, and I think Deputy Cosgrave has quite properly drawn public attention to the matter, is this: that if you proceed to make these rates of surtax too steep, particularly at the higher end of the scale, you may defeat your object because the time may come when a man may say to himself: "Whether is it better that I should have a nominal income of £20,000 or £25,000 and be taxed accordingly, and at the same time keep my children and provide them with all the amenities that they are accustomed to, and that they would expect to have in a household where such a very large income comes in, or will I relinquish a certain amount of control over it, give it to those children and provide them with the necessary funds which will carry a lower rate of tax?" That fact has got to be kept in mind, and is one of the things that has been operating here to reduce the actual yield which we have got from surtax to less than the proportionate increase which one would expect from the increase in the surtax rates.

Mr. Cosgrave

One part of the Minister's explanation seems to dispute another part of it. In the period 1929-30, the Minister says they were under £600,000. Despite that fact, there was a gradual rise in that period until the figure reached practically £600,000. The Minister has not referred to the drop in the assessable income or to the reduction in the numbers. He will admit that he has learned something in the last seven years. He no longer rants about taxing the rich. He finds they can escape him. He was probably told that at the time, or at least I rather think he was. But two things have happened. One is that the numbers have gone down and the second, that income has gone down. The explanation given by the Minister does not, I think, account for both. Surely people were as much interested in avoiding all these things in the period 1922 to 1929 as they have been since. While there may have been a fall in dividends during a certain number of years there has been a rise in the last couple of years—I should say a remarkable rise—and the Minister has got the advantage of that. Dividends earned in 1935 and 1936 show a marked improvement on what they were in 1929, 1930 and 1931. The Minister's explanation does not hold water.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.

SECTION 4.

Question proposed: "That Section 4 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dockrell

I would like to know if the Schedules are being put separately.

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes. The Deputy, however, realises that if a certain principle is approved of in the section it cannot, on the same stage, be upset on the Schedule.

Mr. Cosgrave

We can vote against the Schedule and knock it out. We have some powers left.

Mr. Dockrell

Would I be in order now in raising a point on the First Schedule?

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy may arise the point when we reach the Schedule.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 5 and 6 agreed to.

SECTION 7.

An Ceann Comhairle

The amendment to the section in the name of Deputy Cogan is obviously out of order. It proposes an income-tax charge on persons not now subject to such tax. Such an amendment cannot be moved by a private Deputy.

Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

I cannot allow this section to pass without saying a word. I moved Section 7 about two years ago. The Minister for Finance got up and read an oration here to show that it was unnecessary, that it was ineffective, and that, even if it were not, it was quite contrary to all the principles underlying our income-tax code: and in any case, he said, that nobody but an imbecile would propose it because it could not affect anybody in this State or in Great Britain. I listened respectfully, and at the end said: "What do you propose to do about it?" He worked himself into a lather of fury and said: "Nothing, because it could not achieve any possible, conceivable purpose."

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy is not opposing it now?

Mr. Dillon

Two years later, my section appears in the Finance Bill, and there is a hullabaloo that he is the most generous and far-seeing Minister for Finance west of the Vistula. It is not the first time we have taught them something, but it takes them a long time to learn.

Mr. MacEntee

You could not think of a convincing argument.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is it agreed that the section stand?

Mr. Dillon

It should have been agreed two years ago.

Mr. MacEntee

If you had thought of the right argument, it would have been.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 8 and 9 put and agreed to.

SECTION 10.

An Ceann Comhairle

There are four more or less inter-related amendments to this section. Nos. 4 and 5 obviously stand or fall with Nos. 3 and 6.

Mr. Doyle

I move amendment No. 2:—

Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

A rebate at the rate of 5d. a gallon shall be allowed on all hydro-carbon light oil, imported into Éire, on and after the 11th day of May, 1939, on which the said customs duty is charged and which is shown to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners to have been used in the ordinary course of his business by the owner or driver of a street service vehicle which plies for hire from a street stand in the County Borough of Dublin.

I just want to say that those engaged in the taxi trade in Dublin have been very greatly burdened by the rather excessive taxation that has been imposed, and the multiplicity of facilities given to various transport combines operating in the City. If this amendment were accepted by the Minister it would bring them a considerable measure of relief. I know that, if I refer to some of the other burdens with which they are afflicted, I may not be in order, but I should like to suggest to the Minister that the increased charges for motor requirements, the issuing of unlimited figure plates, and the granting of licences for syndicate proprietors, are having a very serious effect on the whole trade. There is anxiety on the part of those interested in the taxi business in Dublin to bring it into line with that in other great cities, but I fear that, considering the way they are being burdened now with increased regulations and everything else, and by allowing those syndicates to take the trade from them, they are gradually being wiped off the street. A report issued quite recently shows that something over sixty of them have gone off in the last twelve months. When that stage is reached, the usual thing happens—up go the prices charged by those allowed in to carry on a kind of combine or syndicate. I think if the Minister could see his way to accept this amendment it would be a step towards giving them some relief.

Mr. Dillon

This amendment is designed to save a body of men who, it now appears, are in real danger of extinction. They are a body of men composed largely of that type of person who wants to earn his own living, who does not want to be a charge on anybody, and is even prepared to work longer hours and under more stringent conditions than the man who has a safe job will accept. They are largely proprietors of individual taxi-cabs and hackney cars. As far back as 1924 they were induced to enter into this business inorder to provide taxi facilities in the City of Dublin, and they did. They are all small men in a very modest way of business, and gradually one statute after another passed in this House has added to the burden that they have to bear in carrying on their business. There is the road tax, the motor driving licence, the hackney figure plate, the hackney driving licence. They have had to bear the very substantial increases that have been placed upon parts as a result of the tariffs imposed on those parts. Anyone can understand that a hackney vehicle which is continually plying in all weathers does stand more in need of part replacement than the average private vehicle. Their insurance rates have risen steadily, and of course, the obligation which we placed upon them to carry third-party insurance has been an added expense. The taxation is high, and the effect of competition during the last ten or 15 years has been substantially to reduce the fares that they used to be in a position to collect. They did at one time I think get 1/- a mile and 6/- an hour for waiting, with double rates after midnight. They waived the double rate: they consented to certain reductions in the standard charges, and then I think a further regulation was made which reduced still further the charges that they were entitled to collect. Then we put a tax on petrol, and now we have substantially increased that tax. In that situation, those men who stand on the hazards of the city find themselves confronted with new forms of competition, many of which do not have to bear the same burdens, and are in a position to take the cream of the trade, leaving the hackney men with the skimmed milk.

We have got here now—it is a comparatively recent innovation in this country—the "drive yourself" plan, under which you can hire a car for a certain sum per diem, buy your own petrol and so forth, and dispense with the services of a chauffeur. I believe you can hire a car now for £1 per day. They are not required to pay any of the special hackney charges at all. The person using those cars is in a comparatively advantageous position compared with that in which he would be if he had to avail of hackney cars. I understand that certain persons have assembled fleets of baby Fords which are hired out for specified periods at very reduced rates. Then, of course, there has been the development of the transfer of buses from their normal traffic routes to special routes for special days, so that on the day on which the hackney man might expect to reap a harvest he finds himself confronted with a stream of Great Northern Railway and Great Southern Railway buses, which take people for 1/- or so over the popular route of the day. All that they have had to face, but, superimposed upon all that unusual competition, a new factor has appeared in Dublin, and this affects exclusively the Dublin hackney men. Some gentleman or company has established a bureau which you can ring up; you call a car from the street and it takes you to your destination and back at an unprecedentedly low rate. Well, competition is the life of trade, but, where you have a group of men, who have to furnish a constant service to the public on the hackney hazards of the city, being driven out of business by a person who devises a scheme of transport which secures the cream of the traffic and is in fact not called upon at all to do the less remunerative tasks of passanger transport, you have a situation closely analogous to that which precipitated the crisis in the railway system of this country.

We all remember that the railways found themselves required to carry all the unremunerative traffic, while the private haulier took all the remunerative traffic. The end of that was that the railways went burst. Now the railways were a very much more prosperous and solvent institution than the unfortunate taxi-drivers of this city and all that this amendment proposes is that these men should be put in a position in which they can compete with those who have managed to divide the business up into cream and skimmed milk with the object of taking the cream themselves and leaving the hackney drivers with nothing but the skimmed milk. We propose, if no other system of regulation is available, to restore some of the cream to the skimmed milk they are at present being left with by relieving the taximan who stands on the hazard of a part at least of the tax levied on petrol so that his competitive power will be somewhat restored. It is going to be a trivial thing from the point of view of the Exchequer, but it is going to be a very substantial concession to each individual taxi-driver in the City of Dublin, and indeed elsewhere.

I put it to the Minister that it is a concession that might very properly be made, especially in view of the fact that unless it is made all these men, who are the best type of citizen, the fellow who is earning his own living and does not want a dole or a subsidy from anyone, and who is prepared to work hard in order to get himself and his family on in the world, will be driven out of business and put on the dole. God knows we have sufficient on the dole in this country as it is— people denied the opportunity of earning a living. These people have carved out jobs for themselves by their own enterprise and managed to make ends meet, and it is no easy task, for many of them have to buy their cars on the instalment plan and keep their families while paying the instalments on the taxis. They have done it, and it reflects great credit on them that they have done it, and now they are in grave danger of being wiped out. There is no use bemoaning the fact that they are wiped out after the wiping out has been done. Lip sympathy is very cheap and it helps nobody. If we are going to do anything, let us do something now and save them from being wiped out. I do not think we have much time. I think that 12 months from now most of them will be gone and they will be gone because they are burst. Let us not stand idly by and see them wiped out.

I am satisfied, and I think they are satisfied, that if this concession is made it will do something to help them, pending a general review of the situation and an examination as to whether the hackney driver should not either be given a larger fare, if the larger fare can be got, or else that a general review of his overhead charges should be undertaken by the Government with a view to making it possible for him to reduce his operating expenses and so secure some margin of profit on the operation of his enterprise. I think certainly that the Government will have to review the position generally sooner or later, and one of the principal objects of this amendment is to keep these men in business pending the completion of that review and the establishment of some permanent basis upon which these men can reasonably look forward to operating and making a fair livelihood. They are not asking for riches or that they should be allowed to make excess profits or anything of that kind. All they expect and desire to get out of the business is a modest livelihood, and we ought not to stand idly by while that opportunity is taken from them.

Mr. A. Byrne

I wish to support the amendment asking for this small concession for the taxi drivers of the City of Dublin. I think it is almost too late to give them this little help and that the time has arrived for a complete reorganisation of the taxi system in Dublin City. I think the Government, or whoever is responsible, should cease to issue any further licences either to drive or put cars on the road for hire. The business is already overdone and there is keen competition for the little business that there is to be done. The Dublin taximan is working well over 100 hours per week in order to try to get a meagre kind of living. The taxi-men are overtaxed. Everything that is done by this House in the way of introducing new regulations in connection with the taxi business makes it still more difficult for them to earn a living. Deputy Dillon has referred to the fact that they are a splendid type of men. Most of them have either borrowed or raised the money through their friends to purchase their own taxis with a desire to earn their living. Deputy Dillon referred to the fact that the cost of spare parts has increased. If there is the slightest change in the regulations their meters are taken off for alteration and the slightest alteration to them cannot be done for less than two guineas, which in most cases means a week's earnings to them. There are too many of them on the road at the moment and it appears to be very easy for new men and new companies with outside capital to come along with further taxis in the city.

I have seen as many as 100 taxi-cabs in O'Connell Street at 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning during the season all waiting to pick up an odd half-crown or an odd 5/-, and the men go home at 3 or 4 o'clock in the morning, their total earnings for the night not being more than 7/6. I have been out pretty often at these hours in the morning and I have had conversations with taxi-men and they tell me that they are lucky if they bring home 7/6 after being out from 6 o'clock in the evening until perhaps 5 o'clock the next morning. I think that any concession that could be given could not be given to more hardworking men than the Dublin taxi-drivers. The appeal made to the Minister, if granted, should not end here, but he ought to consider other concessions regarding the limitation of licences.

An Ceann Comhairle

That is not a matter for the Minister for Finance.

Mr. Byrne

Having made the point, I think the Minister's recommendation would go a long way in that respect.

Dr. Hannigan

I desire to support the amendment. I feel quite confident that it is not the intention of the Minister for Finance to tax any section of the community out of existence. While the expenses of taxi-drivers during the past few years have continually increased fares have remained static. I am half inclined to think that the Minister will accept the amendment.

An Ceann Comhairle

I hope Deputies realise that amendments Nos. 4 and 5 depend on amendments Nos. 2 and 3.

Dr. O'Higgins

You mean that amendment No. 4 depends on amendment No. 2, and amendment No. 5 on amendment No. 3.

An Ceann Comhairle

Precisely.

Dr. O'Higgins

Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 are not being taken together.

Mr. MacEntee

Perhaps I ought to remind the House that this duty on petrol was first imposed in the year 1931. In the Budget of that year four pence a gallon was put on petrol, to give it its popular name, and later in the year an additional four pence was put on. The position remained static at eight pence a gallon until this year's Budget, when we had to increase it by two pence. The amendment wants us not merely to relieve the taxi-drivers of the increase which was put on in this year's Budget, but to go back and reduce the tax which was put on in 1931. I should have thought that that position would be supported by very strong arguments, and particularly that the insuperable objection to accepting the amendment would at least be dealt with and overcome. That objection is this, that however much you may want to help the taxi-drivers, this is not the way to do it, unless you want to open the door to wholesale evasion. There has been a great deal of experience of what could be done, once you propose, in regard to a particular tax on a commodity, to make a special concession to any one section of the community. The British, when they had to impose the tax, at an early stage had a number of concessions of the kind that this amendment asks us to grant, but their experience with them was such that when they came to propose the duty a second time they wiped out every exemption because of wholesale evasion of the tax. That is precisely what would happen here.

We could no more restrict the consumption of petrol at the reduced rate to taxi-drivers than we could compel them to use it in a car of a particular colour or class. Everybody would have a friend and everybody would get a few odd gallons here and there. Perhaps I ought not to qualify that by saying a few gallons, but rather that everybody would get as many gallons of petrol, taxed at half the rate, as they could persuade their friends to give them. There is no way of checking that sort of evasion. So far as the Revenue Commissioners are concerned, and upon their advice in matters of this sort I am guided, they tell me that it would be impossible to administer a concession of this sort with any sort of equity to the general body of citizens. After all taxi-drivers are not the only users of petrol. You have the business houses, buses, and the other hire services of which we have heard. Every one of these people have to pay the tax at the same rate. I do not know whether Deputy Byrne was agitating that we should relax certain regulations that were introduced as a result of legislation passed in this House in order to safeguard the lives and limbs not merely of passengers but of pedestrians in the City of Dublin. I am not aware that Deputy Byrne at that time got up and made the same sort of speech that he made now.

Mr. Cosgrave

Was there not compensation?

Mr. MacEntee

Prevention is better than cure. The first thing is to prevent accidents, and if in view of the wise foresight of the House—I do not remember that the Opposition opposed the Bill under which that regulation was made—and if, as I was saying, the foresight of all sections of the House did not avail to prevent accidents, then we had to make sure that if an accident occurred to any person who engaged a taxi-driver, that the taxi-driver would be able to compensate the victim. I think I have gone outside the strict limits of order in touching on that aspect. I could not accept the amendment because I think it is open to evasion. That applies also to amendment No. 3 and consequentially to amendment No. 5. If the matter is to be dealt with at all it could only be dealt with by some sort of special consideration in regard to motor vehicles. I am not promising that, as I am not the Minister primarily responsible, but that is one way in which something might be done. Certainly, this is not the way.

Professor O'Sullivan

I gather the gist of the Minister's argument is that it would be administratively impossible to have two separate rates for petrol, practically two separate prices as regards its taxation. Is that the main difficulty?

Mr. MacEntee

The same type of duty imposed by two separate rates.

Professor O'Sullivan

Precisely. Is the Minister not aware that other countries have overcome that difficulty?

Mr. MacEntee

I do not believe they can overcome it effectively.

Professor O'Sullivan

France has done it. There are two separate rates. When the Minister puts it forward as the main argument that it cannot be done, how is it that another country has done it. There are two separate rates for petrol in France. One is for ordinary use and the other for the use of those who are using cars for tourist purposes.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy really ought not try to create an impression by telling a story like that. If there is one country in Europe that is notorious for evasion it is France. In regard to France, they do not charge two separate rates of duty. A person may buy petrol at two different prices. How is it done? When a tourist goes there he gets a limited number of vouchers which are subsequently redeemed by the Government at the full rate. In fact what is happening is that the Government in the case of tourists pays the full price for the petrol.

Mr. Dillon

Why not do that with the taxi-driver?

Mr. MacEntee

How will there be a check on taxi-drivers? Does the Deputy not know as well as Deputy O'Sullivan that you can only buy a certain limited quantity of petrol in that way?

Mr. Dillon

Why can you not do that with the taxi-driver?

Mr. MacEntee

As I say, the taxi-driver could give a voucher to this friend or to that friend. If he does not happen to pay the duty how will you regulate that?

Mr. Dillon

He could go scattering his money into the gutters of the city.

Mr. MacEntee

Some one may say: "I use more petrol than my neighbour." Who is going to check the petrol consumption of the taxi-driver? Nobody.

Professor O'Sullivan

The same thing applies in the case I mentioned.

Mr. MacEntee

Not at all. The position is absolutely different. There may be a simple way of dealing with this matter. It is just like the Opposition. First of all they want us to construct this sort of circumlocutory machinery, and then they will tell us afterwards how the cost of the Civil Service has gone up and how the cost of administration has gone up. There is one way, perhaps, in which this can be done, in my judgment. That is a way which will not involve all this trouble with coupons and checks and counter checks and the difficulties and temptations to evasion of the present method. It is a matter for those who feel that something should be done to help the taxi-drivers to come and make a case upon a sound basis, not to put up an amendment which, I am afraid, they know from experience could not be accepted. Any person who remembers the debate which took place on petrol duties in 1931 will know that it was quite impossible for any Minister for Finance to accept the proposal now proposed. I am fortified in my attitude by the attitude of my very able predecessor.

Mr. Doyle

I am sorry the Minister cannot see his way to give more favourable consideration to this amendment, particularly having regard to the extra burdens placed on those unfortunate people. Deputy Dillon and other speakers have referred to the difficult conditions which exist for this branch of our workers. The Minister says it will open the door to many other people, business people and others, and that they would get in on it. He suggests that there is some other way of approaching the matter than by bringing it up in the House in this fashion. The Minister refers to opening the door, but the information I have is that all doors in the Department for the redress of a grievance of this type have been closed. Within the last couple of weeks we approached the Minister for Local Government on matters affecting this grievance, and we were turned down. We were told no useful purpose could be served by receiving a deputation. The Minister for Justice has given the matter at least some consideration. Will the Minister for Finance undertake, if he cannot meet this amendment, that other burdens placed upon these workers will be redressed—that they will get some redress?

We thought that by putting down this amendment the least the Minister could do would be to enable the taxi-drivers to carry on their business. If these people are to be driven out at the rate at which they are going, you will soon have considerably more unemployed, and that is not going to be of any advantage to the citizens. The citizens are anxious to get any transport service they can get at the cheapest rate. I do not think the Minister or the Government should be responsible for driving these people out and letting other people crawl in to take advantage of what the taxi-drivers have worked hard to achieve. I do not believe that the citizens will get the advantage that would be expected from such a procedure. Eventually, when this group of traders cease to exist, the other people will raise their prices, and John Citizen will be paying all the time.

Mr. Dillon

Is the Minister aware that there is a concerted attempt being made by incorporated companies to wipe the individual taxi-driver off the streets of Dublin? Has that been brought to his attention?

Mr. MacEntee

I am not aware of that.

Mr. Dillon

Well, it is true. There is one company in operation and there is another company in process of formation. I understand the second company is a British company. The first company arrived I know not whence, and they are setting the pace and now they are being joined by a company from Great Britain. If the two of these companies function over 12 months, they will wipe every independent taxi-driver off the streets of Dublin. Do we want to wipe the taxi-drivers off the streets of Dublin? Is it just to do so? If it is, then the sooner they are wiped off, the better.

The Minister is perfectly right in saying that this is a painful operation and it is one of the tributes to progress that must be made and the sooner they are smashed, the better. That is a reasonable point of view, but that is not our point of view. We take the view that they ought not to be smashed and that it is a proper thing for the Legislature to intervene at this stage and say: "Believing, as we do, in the distribution of industry, in the promotion of the small unit, and in the promotion of individual ownership, we do not want these men replaced by large combines on the American lines, like the Yellow Cab Company and the Checker Cab Company and so forth, with which we are familiar in American cities. We do not want them so replaced." I have seen that system in America giving rise to great abuses. I saw price wars involving civil commotion frequently in big American cities between rival taxi corporations, and the moment the price wars were stopped, I saw the individual citizen exploited by these taxi-cab companies, who proceeded to charge the utmost tariff the traffic would bear.

We ought to choose as between those two things now. It is perfectly relevant. Unless you give these men relief now, they are going to go off the streets of Dublin before the Legislature can come to their assistance with remedial legislation which will protect them against the corporations. Does the Minister believe that these men ought to be swept off the streets of Dublin? If he does, then we understand his position. Suppose he does not say that, and suppose he says: "I agree with you that the individual taxi-driver should be preserved," then he ought to tell us. If he does not do what we say is necessary, what is he going to do?

An Ceann Comhairle

That is a matter for another Minister.

Mr. Dillon

Surely it is for the Minister to say: "I will not give you this petrol concession, but I am in a position to say, and these men are entitled to know this, that the fact that I refused this to-day by no means indicates that I want to see them abandoned. They are not going to be abandoned. We are going to take effective measures to protect their legitimate interests." If he says that, I will advise my colleague to drop the amendment. If he says: "Although we cannot do it this way, we are going at once to give effective protection and they need not be uneasy that we will allow them to be wiped out," all will be well, but if he does not say that, then I think we shall have to fight every inch of the way.

Mr. MacEntee

That would be a most extraordinary principle to give effect to. It would be a most extraordinary principle to give effect to, that upon any particular item in the tax code, I should have to indicate what the Government's policy would be in regard to a particular trade or section of the population, particularly when it is remembered that I am not charged either with the administration of the traffic laws, with the control of foreign companies, or with the regulation of investments here. It is no one part of the function of the Minister for Finance to make a statement of policy upon the lines which Deputy Dillon has requested, and the Deputy knows that as well as I do. The Deputy ought to know it. He has an orderly mind, well informed.

Mr. Dillon

We had a hullabaloo from the Taoiseach last night explaining why he never came into the House. He said that you were always here to talk for him.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy knows well that the Minister for Local Government is the Minister charged with the administration of the motor vehicle duties. He knows that the Minister for Justice or Commissioner of the Gárda has certain functions in relation to the regulation of traffic and charges, and the Minister for Industry and Commerce has certain other functions in regard to customs and the regulation of investments among non-nationals in this country. Not one of these functions comes within the sphere of my responsibilities and, even to avoid a division upon a matter of this sort, I am not going to arrogate to myself functions which do not belong to me.

Dr. O'Higgins

Is there anything to prohibit the other Ministers speaking on this subject?

An Ceann Comhairle

There is at the moment.

Dr. O'Higgins

Can they not speak on the Finance Bill?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes, to the amendment.

Dr. O'Higgins

Then why are they not here?

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy knows the position as well as I do. He has been as long in the House as I have been. He knows that if the Opposition wish to raise this matter seriously, there is a way of doing it. It could have been raised on the Vote for the Minister for Local Government. This thing has not arisen over night. If the state of affairs which Deputy Dillon has depicted to us in such moving terms has arisen, it has not arisen over night. These competitive services have not been placed upon the streets of Dublin within the last fortnight or three weeks; they must have been there for some time, and there was an excellent opportunity to raise the whole matter, or at least one aspect of it, when the Vote for the Department of Local Government and Public Health was before the House. Another aspect of the matter might have been raised when the Vote for the Department of Justice was before the House. If these things failed, and if the matter was one of such urgency, Deputies always had the opportunity of putting down a motion and having the whole matter discussed in its proper setting, instead of trying to labour this particular aspect of the matter and getting an innocent Minister to commit himself in the way in which Deputy Dillon asks me to commit myself now. Of course, it looks so nice to be able to get me up in order to try to get me to say such and such a thing. I am only here, however, to say that, in my view, a concession of the sort now asked for ought not to be granted, because it would be difficult to administer and would open the way to evasion. Notwithstanding what the Deputy has said, I am not satisfied that that concession would be justified. I have no knowledge of what is the state of affairs which Deputy Dillon has put before the House. I know that the Deputy is talking as an advocate and not as an investigator. I do not believe for a moment that he went around and saw all the taxi-people, saw all their accounts, examined the accounts of their competitors, or that he did any of the things that it would be necessary for a responsible Minister to do in order to satisfy himself that the condition of affairs, which Deputy Dillon has described here in the House, really existed. We have only got an ex parte statement made by Deputies Peadar Doyle and Dillon.

Mr. Dillon

And Deputy, the Lord Mayor.

Mr. MacEntee

Yes, and Deputy, the Lord Mayor, and judging by what Deputy Byrne said—

Mr. Byrne

As a result of official facts.

Mr. MacEntee

We all know that Deputy, the Lord Mayor, has a big heart and that he seems to believe everything that he is told, particularly if what he is told happens to afford him an opportunity of getting a swipe at the Government. Nobody has more sympathy for any particular cause that may be put before him, if it gives him an opportunity to attack the Government. Now, I do not say—I am not going to say, that there may not be something in this case that has been put forward. I do not know. I do not know whether or not the case the Deputy has made is well founded. It is a matter for serious investigation. I understand, from Deputy Peadar Doyle, that he himself, in fact, has gone to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health in connection with this matter and that that Minister has indicated that, in his view, the case for the concession does not exist. Now, if the Deputy approached the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, I suppose he approached him on behalf of this association, and I presume that he submitted a memorandum of the case which this association wanted to have made. I am perfectly certain that, if he did submit such memorandum, it was seriously considered and that the Minister for Local Government and Public Health who, perhaps, is the Minister in a position to do something in this matter, considered it carefully and, having considered it and investigated the whole position, and being familar with the facts, found that the real state of affairs did not justify him in making any concession. Now, it is on that that I am going to stand. I am going to stand on the fact that the Minister responsible, having examined the case that was put before him, decided that no case for a concession existed. Having regard to that, I, at any rate, in the light of those circumstances, would not feel entitled to give the sort of undertaking that Deputy Dillon has asked for. Deputy Dillon and those who feel as he does, of course, can go again to the Minister, as one with first-hand knowledge of this matter. But in my view the particular concession now proposed is not a thing that ought to be granted because it is not one that could be properly administered.

Mr. Byrne

The Minister referred to what I have said and suggested that some of my statements were actuated by a desire to have a swipe at the Government. Regardless, however, of any alleged desire to take a swipe at the Government, I should like to say that the statement to which I referred was made by a deputation of taxi-owners, in a room here in the House, to the Dublin Deputies within the past week. They stated their grievances and every member was invited to meet the taxi-owners. I have only stated the views put forward by these people to the Dublin representatives.

Professor O'Sullivan

I think it is quite clear, from the statement the Minister has now made, not only what his attitude is, but what the attitude of the Government as a whole is, not merely to this concession but to any concession. He first sheltered himself behind the plea that it was not his business, as Minister for Finance, to give way to any concession; but in the speech to which we have just listened he has changed the foot on which he is determined to stand, and because the Minister responsible has turned down the idea for any concession, and because the Minister responsible has taken up the line that there is no case for any concession, the Minister for Finance now says that it is on that foot he chooses to stand. Now, Sir, when an amendment of this kind is put down to a Finance Bill, I should like to protest against the idea that the Ministers concerned should never consult each other. This amendment has been put down. It is possible for other Ministers to come in and indicate, as a reason for rejecting this particular proposal, that they are prepared to give relief in other ways. I suggest, Sir, that there is nothing disorderly in a proceeding of that kind being taken, and I certainly think that it would have been the duty of the Minister, once this amendment was put down, to make himself acquainted with any representations that had been made to other Ministers by an association, and to make himself acquainted with the attitude of the other Ministers on this particular matter. From the first speech of the Minister, I gathered that he had not done anything of the kind, but from what we have just listened to I gather that he has, and that, apparently, he knows what was the decision of the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, and that was to reject the concession; and the conclusion he comes to, as Minister for Finance, is that he rejects it and that the Government, speaking through the responsible Minister, the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, says that there is no case for the concession.

I suggest, Sir, that there is a complete change, and that it has not met the arguments put forward by Deputies Dillon and Doyle. The Minister has suggested that if what has been put forward by the two Deputies who have spoken on this side, and by Deputy the Lord Mayor, is a matter of urgency, it can be dealt with by a motion put down on the Order Paper. Just imagine a matter of urgency being dealt with in that way! Anybody who is acquainted with the procedure of this House knows that a motion may be on the Order Paper for 18 months, but meanwhile these unfortunate people have to suffer from the particular grievances about which they complain.

Mr. P.S. Doyle

In his remarks, the Minister said that there was one aspect of this matter that could have been dealt with on the debate for the Estimate for Local Government and Public Health. Would I be in order, Sir, in asking what aspect of it could have been dealt with on that Estimate? My reason for asking that is that I have made representations to the Minister for Local Government and Public Health, and I know that representations have been made to other Departments, but our chief concern now is that the door seems to be closed everywhere, and these matters do not seem to come under any of the respective Departments. That is what seems to me to be wrong. These matters do not seem to come within the administration of any of the respective Departments, and I would like to know if the Minister could help us in this direction by indicating what is the aspect of the matter which he refers to that could be dealt with by the Department of Local Government. It is not in keeping with the reply we got from that Department.

Mr. MacEntee

The Minister for Local Government, as the Deputy is aware, is the Minister responsible for the administration of the Road Fund— if that would convey anything to the Deputy.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided:—Tá, 33; Níl, 53.

Tá

• Belton, Patrick.
• Bennett, George C.
• Benson, Ernest E.
• Brasier, Brooke.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Curran, Richard.
• Daly, Patrick.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry M.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Esmonde, John L.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Gorey, Denis J.
• Hannigan, Joseph.
• Hickey, James.
• Hughes, James.
• Keating, John.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Lynch, Finian.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Nally, Martin.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Sullivan, John M.
• Pattison, James P.
• Reidy, James.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Ryan, Jeremiah.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Brady, Brain.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Carty, Frank.
• Cleary, Mícheál.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Friel, John.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hogan, Daniel.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Loughman, Francis.
• Lynch, James B.
• McCann, John.
• McDevitt, Henry A.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Meaney, Cornelius
• Moore, Seamus.
• Moran, Michael.
• Morrissey, Michael.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Munnelly, John.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Loghlen, Peter J.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Rice, Brigid M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Conn.

Tellers:—Tá, Deputies Doyle and Bennett; Níl, Deputies Little and Smith.

Amendment declared lost.

Dr. O'Higgins

I move amendment No. 3:—

Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

A rebate at the rate of five pence a gallon shall be allowed on all hydro-carbon light oil, imported into Eire, on and after the 11th day of May, 1939, on which the said customs duty is charged and which is shown to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners to have been used by a clergyman or a medical practitioner in the ordinary course of his duties.

This particular amendment might have been associated with the last amendment but they were separated after full consideration on account of the very peculiar position in which the Dublin taxi-men found themselves, owing to the big combines coming in to swallow up their business. This amendment, relating, as it does, to clergymen and doctors—in other words, to people whose means of livelihood is gained by looking after either the bodily or spiritual welfare of the people—was placed separately.

In this country, people have grown accustomed to paying a tax on their income and they are rapidly or gradually getting accustomed—whether they are reconciled or not is another matter —to paying a tax on every commodity they buy out of that income. A tax of this kind, in addition, places a tax on the source of the income. The particular classes referred to in this amendment earn their livelihood through the medium of the motor car, roughly in proportion to the miles they cover; and I doubt if anybody ever pauses to think of the amount of State taxation imposed on a person who makes his livelihood sitting in a motor car.

If you take the mileage covered by any busy clergyman or medical practitioner, it is giving a fairly long life to a car to say that its life is three years—three efficient, working years. The cost of every new car purchased in this country priced in or about £260 or £300, is approximately £75 to £100 more than the purchaser in Newry or Belfast would pay for his car. Assuming that the working life of the car in its first ownership is three years, that is equivalent to an annual tax of £25 to £30. There is then the tax on the car—its road tax—dependent on the horse-power; but it could be taken at the average figure of about £15 a year. There is then a compulsory insurance of £15, £16 or £17 a year. With a petrol tax at the rate of 10d. per gallon, assuming that the average man covers thirty miles a day — that is a tax of ½d. a mile covered — you have another tax of about 10/- a week or £25 a year. In all, in respect of that car the worker pays £80 a year on, as it were, the raw materials of his industry. If he is doing well at his business, income-tax— which has a habit of increasing—comes down on top of him as well. I think the whole idea is wrong.

It is popular in this country to regard the British Government in the Ireland of the past as a Government that had nothing in common with the people and that had no sympathy with the people, and yet, at the height of a world war, when the British Government found it necessary to impose a tax on petrol, it is within the recollection of anyone who was in practice at that time that that petrol tax in its application to priests and doctors only applied to a fifty per cent. degree. Priests and doctors were exempted from half the petrol tax.

The Minister stated here to-day that one reason why an abatement in this tax could not be made in respect of taxi-drivers was owing to the difficulty, or the impossibility, of administering it. I suppose there are 20 agents or officers or civil servants of one kind or another at the present time in this country to every one the British Government had here when they were administering that rebate. That may be an exaggeration: I have not the figures available; but I do not think it is a very big exaggeration. We are only administering three-quarters of the country, yet with a very considerable less number of agents and officers of one kind or another the British Government were able to carry out that remission which the Irish Government it appears pretends is impossible.

It was done in a very, very simple way, it was done in a harmonious way, and it was done out of a spirit of consideration, in order to mete out justice to the people engaged in humanitarian work. We have a Government now in this country more ruthless in its outlook and showing very much less consideration than the British Government which it is popular to denounce. The machinery of administration was that the particular person kept the receipts and the local excise officer remitted half the tax. It was done either daily or weekly or quarterly, or at whatever time one went all the local excise officer. We were all alive at that time and I do not think any of us ever heard any suggestion of abuse, or ever had any practical experience of abuse, by the individual buying the petrol getting a remission of half the tax, and passing the petrol on to a neighbour. The Minister seems to have a very low opinion of the taxi-drivers, at all events. He seems to think that they have no trade esprit de corps, and no sense of either honour or honesty. I do not know where he gained that particular insight into the character of the taximen, but, certainly, when certain trades and professions were exempted in the past by the British Government in this country, there was never any suggestion of abuse, or any suggestion of dishonesty, and I never heard that it was anybody's experience that there was that type of dishonesty which the Minister seems to fear.

The Minister may argue that the people I refer to, namely, priests and doctors, get their working expenses allowed when their income-tax is being reckoned. Let us take one class by itself. Take clergymen first. A very small percentage of clergymen have an income sufficiently high to pay income-tax at all. Much the same applies to doctors. Perhaps a higher percentage of doctors pay income-tax, but surely the percentage that do pay income-tax are hit heavily enough if they have to pay £80 a year tax of one kind or another on their cars, a quarter of their income by way of income-tax and a further taxation on practically every article they buy, without having to pay an extra ½d. or ¾d. on every mile they travel to visit a sick person. There are ways, and obvious ways, in which an imposition of this kind can be met. Remember that, talking particularly of rural Ireland, threequarters of the mileage covered by any general practitioner is covered without a fee at the end of it. It is not the type of case he is compelled to visit by virtue of the fact that there exists a red ticket and he is a dispensary doctor, but at least threequarters of the work done by any general practitioner, and by most of the specialists in this country is work, at the end of which there is no fee.

It would be well for everybody to appreciate that fact, because there are enough people anxious to kick the medical profession, and if there was a general understanding of the profession and the work of the profession, they would have more defenders than they have at the moment. The big bulk of the doctor's practice is the type of case who is neither a paying patient, nor a dispensary patient, but he has to pay a new tax or an increased tax now on that kind of charitable work, and the fact that so much of it is charitable work is to get no consideration from an Irish Government where it got it from the British Government. Are we proud of that, or is the State so "hipped" and up against it that it cannot do without that extra little bit of revenue?

To get back to the doctors who pay income-tax, it may be argued by the Minister that allowance is made for all these kinds of things in working out income-tax. In theory, that may be so, but, in practice, the Minister knows that it is not so. A reasonable allowance is made for the use of a car, but that allowance does not go up or down with fluctuations in petrol or oil prices, and does not every extra 1d. or 2d. put on the gallon of petrol lower the amount which the doctor paying income-tax, or any other person paying income-tax, is allowed towards a reduction in his income for income-tax purposes? I urge the Minister to consider this amendment in the light of the existence of the precedent established by an alien Government in this country, experience of which at that time shows that its working was easy and simple, and that there was no dishonesty associated with it through those years. Surely an Irish Deputy in an Irish Parliament is not asking for anything exceptional, or anything unreasonable, when he asks that the same consideration be shown towards facilitating those who are working amongst, and on behalf of, the poor in this country as was shown by the British administration in this country.

Mr. MacEntee

If I am looking for precedents and searching for a model upon which taxes ought to be administered in Ireland for the benefit of the Irish people, I prefer to take my precedents from home rather than from Great Britain.

Dr. O'Higgins

It was home I was referring to.

Mr. MacEntee

It was quite true that, from the year 1910 to 1920, when the original petrol duties were enforced, there were various reliefs and rebates at one rate or another in regard to this tax, but when the British reintroduced the duty on petrol, they granted no rebate or exemption whatsoever, but imposed it on everybody at a flat rate.

Dr. O'Higgins

In this country?

Mr. MacEntee

In Great Britain.

Dr. O'Higgins

There is a different type of medical practice there.

Mr. MacEntee

After all, we have put only 2d. a gallon on petrol, and I think it enough. When I say "only," I am speaking relatively. It may be a heavy enough imposition and I am certain that people who have to bear it regard it as a heavy imposition; but, in 1931, there was a tax of 8d. put on petrol, and my predecessor flatly refused to consider any question of a rebate. There was, in fact, a motion moved that where petrol was being used entirely for agricultural purposes, a rebate of 4d. per gallon should be allowed, and the then Minister for Finance said it would not be possible to accept the motion as it would be impracticable to administer it effectively. Doctors and clergymen are not the only people who use motor cars professionally, or in the course of their ordinary avocations. There are commercial travellers, veterinary surgeons, vocational teachers, national teachers, secondary teachers, and a host of officials of one sort and another. As well as that, you have this fact, that, whereas doctors and professional men generally may use petrol in a car which they are fortunate enough to own, there is the whole mass of the wage-earners of the country who have to use petrol in cars which they do not own, when they travel in buses or other public conveyances, and they have to pay this duty on the petrol.

I could not possibly see how it would be possible to defend this tax as a whole if we once made a concession in regard to any particular class in the community, whether taxi-driver, medical man or clergyman. The use of petrol is now so common and comes into so many of our activities—not merely pleasurable activities, but necessary occupations—that if this tax is justifiable at all and if it is to be accepted at all, everybody will have to bear his share of it, according to the use he makes of petrol. There is no other way in which that tax could be equitably and justly administered. We heard a great deal about what doctors do and what they do not do. But there is one thing which emerges and that is that to the extent that they can satisfy the inspector of taxes that they use their car for the purpose of practising their profession and that such use constitutes a necessary expense in earning their income, that fact is taken into consideration when they are assessed for income-tax. That applies to other users of petrol in the same way.

I cannot see why one could possibly base a case for making a special concession in regard to professional men on the ground that they have to pay income-tax. The bulk of men, whether they use their car for pleasure or business, also pay income-tax. Men use their cars in their own business. We could not possibly justify a concession of this sort to one section of the community on the ground that that particular section of the community is already assessed for income-tax. As I said in the beginning, petrol is now so widely used, either directly by the person who is fortunate enough to own a motor car or by the person who may have to use a lorry for the purpose of earning his livelihood or by a person who has to travel in a public conveyance, that we could not grant a concession with regard to this tax to one particular section of the community and retain the impost on another.

The same case could be made, and, indeed, a stronger case could be made, on the same principle for allowing those others to go tax free. One could extend that and say that surely the man who is using petrol in a lorry as part of his business should have his petrol free of tax. One could extend other arguments that Deputy O'Higgins is using here to cover the whole range of petrol users. In the end, what is one up against? We will have to choose between putting a tax on petrol or on sugar or some other commodity which may be regarded by some people as being more essential to life than petrol is. The position is that you may have to distribute your taxation over a range of articles, when it may be found that it was better for us to increase petrol duties to the extent we have increased them rather than put additional imposts upon sugar or other articles. Having come to that decision, I cannot accept anything which would exempt any particular section of the community from the incidence of this particular tax.

Dr. O'Higgins

I think the Minister's case is rather an unworthy one, and rather unfair to himself, because we know from experience that he is quite capable of making a good case for or against anything any time he puts his mind to it. He is able to make that good case for or against any particular thing without deliberately misconstruing or distorting the application made. I made a special case for priests and doctors, first on the ground that so much of their work was done for nothing. Imagine the idea of trying to make a parallel between them and a bus company! If the Minister knows of any transport people who carry passengers for nothing, this amendment would not have been put down for the doctors, because then they would travel over that particular system. Alternately, if the doctor knows of commercial houses who are sending their lorries around plying for nothing; he would find something that is rather unique in the history of this country.

The point I want particularly to put to the Minister is this—I do not think it is an assertion that would be disputed that the average doctor, whether operating in the city or country, does anything from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. of his work gratuitously. It is purely work done in the spirit of charity, out of kindness of heart. For the balance of the work many of the doctors are well paid, but at least three-fourths of their work is work for nothing. It is work purely within the spirit of the doctor's profession in the effort to help somebody who is afflicted. That work can be done in a very generous way or in a very limited way, but if tax upon tax is piled upon the doctor and his work is made more expensive on him, then the Government is naturally making it more difficult for him and he will have to restrict the amount of work he is to do gratuitously. This tax is forcing him to do less gratuitous work so as to enable him to provide for his family. There is at least this much—there is a case for the people mentioned in this amendment, distinct and different from the other case instanced by the Minister. It is because of that that these particular classes were named in this amendment.

The case made by the Minister was not an answer to the application made. I am quite aware of the fact that in a minute or two, just after I sit down, the bells will ring and this amendment will be defeated. We knew that before we put down the amendment. We know it always before we put down a motion or amendment or make any request or application. We are quite aware of the fact that it is idle to ask for any concession, no matter how strong the case for the concession is. So far as the Minister made any particular defence of the principle in this case, it was a defence of injustice against a small class because the injustice was common to greater numbers. That is a very poor defence. It is probably true. I take the Minister's word for it. But is there any crime in asking for the exclusion of a small class from injustice, particularly if the small class we ask to be excluded are a small class that have a particularly strong case?

Amendment put.

The Committee divided:—Tá, 36; Níl, 54.

Tá

• Belton, Patrick.
• Bennett, George C.
• Benson, Ernest E.
• Brasier, Brooke.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
• Coburn, James.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Curran, Richard.
• Daly, Patrick.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry M.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Esmonde, John L.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Hannigan, Joseph.
• Hughes, James.
• Keating, John.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Lynch, Finian.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Nally, Martin.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Sullivan, John M.
• Pattison, James P.
• Reidy, James.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Rogers, Patrick J.
• Ryan, Jeremiah.

Níl

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Carty, Frank.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Cleary, Mícheál.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Friel, John.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hogan, Daniel.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Kelly, James P.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Loughman, Francis.
• Lynch, James B.
• McCann, John.
• McDevitt, Henry A.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Meaney, Cornelius.
• Moore, Seamus.
• Moran, Michael.
• Morrissey, Michael.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Munnelly, John.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Loghlen, Peter J.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• O'Sullivan, Ted.
• Rice, Brigid M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Conn.

Tellers—Tá: Deputies Doyle and Bennett; Níl: Deputies Smith and Brady.

Amendment declared lost.

Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.

Sections 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SECTION 12.

(b) whenever it is shown, to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners, in respect of any positive cinematograph film chargeable with the said duty (not being film designed and intended for use in conjunction with the mechanical production or reproduction of vocal or other sounds) of a width not exceeding seven-tenths of an inch, that such film was produced outside the State by the reversion process from exposed undeveloped film the exposures of which were made solely within the State and which was exported subsequent to such exposures, the Revenue Commissioners may (whether such film was or was not subject outside the State to the operation of slitting or dividing), subject to compliance with such conditions as they may think fit to impose, permit such film, together with any extensions added thereto solely for winding purposes, to be imported without payment of the said duty or repay any such duty paid on importation.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 6:—

In paragraph (b), page 8, to delete all words from the word "the," in line 12, to the word "exposures," in line 14.

This amendment is to meet a point raised by Deputy Benson on the Second Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Benson

There is only one Comment I have to make on the amendment. The amendment reads:—

To delete all words from the word "the," in line 12, to the word "exposures," in line 14.

The word "inclusive" is not there used. To my mind a literal interpretation of that amendment would leave us with two "the's" in the Bill. If the word "inclusive" had been used in the amendment its purpose would be clearer.

Mr. MacEntee

I shall look into that matter and if there is any difficulty involved, I shall deal with it on the Report Stage.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Section 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SECTION 13.

(2) Every amendment which is so stated as aforesaid in the Third Schedule to this Act shall have effect as on and from the 11th day of May, 1939.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 7:—

In sub-section (2), page 8, line 31, after the word "shall" to insert in brackets the words "(save as is otherwise provided in the third column of the said Third Schedule)."

This is really a drafting amendment and it is consequential on the amendment of Part III of the Third Schedule on page 23 of the Bill. I think perhaps we might let it stand until we are dealing with the amendment of Part III of the Third Schedule. It is a consequential amendment, as I have said, and it is a matter for the Chair whether we shall deal with it now.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Is the amendment being agreed to?

Mr. MacEntee

The purpose of amendment No. 11 is to exempt from the duty paper intended for use in the printing of paper-covered novels. Ninety per cent. of these are exported, and it is a source of trouble to the firm concerned and to the Revenue Commissioners to keep books merely for the sake of recovering a trifling amount of duty.

Mr. Dillon

You propose to take the duty off the raw material of an industry in this country?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes, in respect of paper-covered novels.

Mr. Dillon

In the case of paper-covered novels you lose no time in doing that, but when it is feeding-stuff, which is the main raw material of the agricultural industry, it takes you about five years to do it. The raw material of dozens of other industries in this country is subject to exactly the same disability, and nothing is done to remove it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I think we are anticipating amendment No. 11.

Mr. MacEntee

I gave an explanation of that amendment so that the House might agree to amendment No. 7 which is consequential.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It deals only with paper-covered novels, not agriculture.

Mr. Dillon

Yes, Sir, but it should deal with agriculture.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Section 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sections 14 to 16 inclusive, agreed to.

SECTION 17.

(1) The Minister for Finance may by order, whenever he so thinks proper, direct the Revenue Commissioners to do, during a period (not exceeding three months) specified in such order, either or both of the following things, that is to say:—

(a) to refuse to allow, during the said period, the delivery for home use of any specified kind or class of imported goods or goods deposited in a warehouse approved of by the Revenue Commissioners for such deposit where such delivery is applied for in respect of a quantity of such goods which appears to the Revenue Commissioners to exceed the quantity which is reasonable having regard to the circumstances, and

(b) to prohibit the sending out on or for sale or otherwise, during the said period, from the premises of a manufacturer of goods of a specified kind or class chargeable with a duty of excise and not deposited in a warehouse approved of by the Revenue Commissioners for such deposit of a quantity of such goods which appears to the Revenue Commissioners to exceed, the quantity which is reasonable in the circumstances.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 8:—

Before Section 17, page 10, to insert a new section as follows:—

Entertainments duty within the meaning of and chargeable under Section 1 of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, as amended by subsequent enactments shall not be charged or levied on any entertainment in respect of which it is proved, to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners, that the entertainment is promoted by the Contract Bridge-Association of Ireland or by a club, duly affiliated to or under the direct control of that association and that the entertainment consists solely of an exhibition of the game of cards known as bridge.

As the House is aware, we have been trying to clarify the position with regard to the entertainments duty in the past two or three Finance Acts. We exempted practically every indoor sport from the duty, particularly those which are carried on by amateurs merely for the purpose of amusing themselves rather than for making a living out of them. This was one of the minor cases which for some reason or another was not covered in last year's general exemption.

Mr. Cosgrave

Amusements are immune but a livelihood is taxed.

Mr. MacEntee

Well, where profits are made.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 9:—

In sub-section (1), page 10, line 14, after the word "proper" to insert the words "for a purpose connected with the imposition or alteration by statute of a duty of customs or excise."

At the conclusion of the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, Deputy Dillon drew my attention to the fact that Section 17 appeared to be much more widely drawn than we had intended, and I have found that this was in fact so. Accordingly this amendment is being inserted. The section as amended will give the Minister for Finance, "for a purpose connected with the imposition or alteration by statute of a duty of customs or excise," these powers to deal with forestalling. The purpose of the amendment is to make it quite clear that the use of the powers can be related only to a purpose connected with the imposition or alteration by statute of a duty of customs or excise.

Mr. Dillon

Are you not now going too far in the other direction? "For a purpose connected with the imposition or alteration by statute of a duty of customs or excise." Whether we agree with it or not, you have passed an Imposition of Duties Act. Will a statutory order made by the Minister under the Imposition of Duties Act entitle him to avail of the provisions of Section 17?

Mr. MacEntee

I do not think so.

Mr. Dillon

You only propose to use this forestalling proviso in the event of introducing a tariff in the Budget?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes, or in a Finance Bill.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 10:—

In sub-section (4), page 10, line 55, after the word "sale" to insert the words "or otherwise."

This is a drafting amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed: "That Section 17, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Cosgrave

The House has just got information in the course of the Minister's statement—they got it earlier in the Budget—about this section, and about the intention of the Minister to take steps to deal with forestalling. If this particular clause is going to be worked it will apparently cost some money. The House has got no information regarding the amount of forestalling that went on, and whether there was a great loss of money, and so on. Neither did it get any information regarding what the cost of this new proposal is to be. On a former occasion attention was directed to the very large increase in the Estimate for the Office of the Revenue Commissioners and their staff. Apparently, under this there will be a further addition to staff. If this section is to be in operation during a full year, but used only for a month or two prior to the introduction of the Budget, it is possible that the administration of it will cost more than any saving that may be effected. No case whatever was made by the Minister for this clause, and I think the House is entitled to hear some reasons for its insertion.

Mr. MacEntee

On the question of cost, I am advised that the cost of administering this Bill will be infinitesimal: that it will be part of the ordinary routine work of the Revenue Commissioners' staff, and, in fact, has been in regard to any commodity which already bore tax. With regard to the need for this, it has been manifested in the case of every Budget where it has been found necessary to alter the rate of customs or excise duties on any commodity. It has led to this position, that unless the commodity already bore a tax we could not prevent undue clearances from bond. It has encouraged people to withdraw certain commodities from bond far in excess of what would be their normal requirements. When, as on a number of occasions, we have had to impose duties we had to adopt the cumbersome method of imposing an excise duty on stocks already drawn from bond as well as a customs duty, and I do not think that either from the point of view of the Commissioners or the point of view of the owners of dutiable commodities—those who would be the vendors of them—that has been a convenient practice. It is certainly difficult to administer. In relation to stocks of tea and sugar, we have had to have an exemption limit within which stocks would not be liable to excise duty That fact in itself has occasioned a great deal, I think, of controversy and ill-feeling and, in some cases hardship, because we have had the case of the honest trader perhaps with a stock of £50 or £100 over that which we fixed and he had to pay, while another man was cute enough to make large withdrawals from bond and distribute them over a number of his customers and friends in advance.

Since we have now to face the fact that perhaps over a number of years there may be changes in the rates of various commodities of one sort or another, I have come to the conclusion that it would be much better to discourage the sort of speculation which takes place every year when it looks as if the coming Budget is going to be an unfavourable one, and that it is better for us to try and regulate during a reasonable period the rate of withdrawals from bond. We do not want to inconvenience anybody. I am perfectly certain that the Revenue Commissioners will administer this with the greatest possible discretion and make every allowance for the legitimate requirements of traders. I think it is much better that we should be able to regulate withdrawals from bond and thus avoid the necessity for imposing excise duties as we have had to do on whole stocks: of trying to mitigate, for the person who honestly held stocks, the provisions which we have had to impose in some cases in the past.

I have to be very general in saying how we would propose to administer this particular provision because I have not in mind any particular commodity to be taxed, nor do I know the particular circumstances which may exist that would make it necessary to impose a tax, but I can say for a certainty that the Revenue Commissioners will administer this with every discretion and with every allowance from the taxpayer's point of view. I, myself, personally hope that when we have increased the rate of duty on any commodity that we shall be able to content ourselves with a customs duty rather than have a customs and an excise duty and all the rather cumbersome machinery which, as I have said, we have had to utilise to mitigate the effect of impositions in certain circumstances.

I understand that, so far as importers are concerned, they are not averse from a provision of this sort. They feel that it will convenience them and make it easier for them. Whenever we do increase the rate of duty on a particular commodity difficulties arise naturally between the retailer and the wholesaler and between the manufacturer and the wholesaler. This, we think, may help to even matters out and make the whole course smoother for everybody. I should say in relation to certain commodities that undoubtedly there seemed to be last year—it is difficult to talk on this matter without appearing to condemn one particular section of the community rather than another—a general feeling, which was rather tentatively borne out, that there were excessive withdrawals from bond of one commodity or another before the introduction of the Budget. I do not want to stress that very far, but the mere fact that it has been possible on occasions to anticipate budgetary changes in this way makes it desirable that we should devise, if we can, machinery which will prevent that anticipation, and it is really on these grounds, rather than upon actual happenings in the past that this proposal is put before the House.

Mr. Dillon

Let us see what this is going to do. How the Government ever allowed themselves to be dragged into this beats me. This is the most glorious scheme for transferring the Revenue from the Exchequer into the hands of the bonded warehousemen. I shall certainly go into the wholesale tea trade in Dublin if this is passed, because there will be a fortune to be made in it. I am a tea importer—as a matter of fact I am not, but I am putting the case—and normally I go to Mincing Lane and buy tea there to be consigned to me in Dublin. I either leave it in the bonded warehouse or I take it into my free warehouse for distribution amongst my customers. As I buy largely in Mincing Lane, I send all my travellers out and keep them out pushing tea as hard as they can so that it will keep turning over rapidly in my hands. Suppose I find the market on Mincing Lane is coming forward unsuitably for me, I draw off the market, and I call in my travellers, because I have not got the kind of stuff I want to sell. Now, you pass this section, and on 1st January the Minister makes an Order restricting my extractions of tea from bond. I call the boys in, and I say:—"There is 4d. going on tea, boys. We will stop selling. I am going to draw tea on the basis of my sales during the past nine months, when I was pushing tea as hard as I could, and I am going to transfer it out of the bonded warehouse to my free warehouse. You boys can all slack off, and on 1st May, after the Budget, we will take the road, and we will have three months' accumulation of tea on our hands at 4d. a lb. cheaper than any other man in Dublin". If we have not—suppose our competitors have something to say to it—at least we will collect 2d. of the extra 4d. that the Minister puts on. What importer would not welcome that scheme?

Mr. MacEntee

Will the Deputy tell me how he is going to collect the 2d?

Mr. Dillon

Because tea must, if he waits long enough, go up 4d. if it is a direct imposition on tea. I admit that the average retail customer buying a ½lb. of tea can barely see 4d. in the lb. on tea, but the big fellow who is buying tea continuously will see 4d. in the lb. on tea or 2d. in the lb. on tea when buying it by the chest from travellers' samples. The tea importer has landed the tea in Dublin which he intends to sell at 1/6 a lb. to the large retailers down the country. The Minister puts 4d. a lb. on it. The tea wholesaler may not be able to get the full 1/10, but at least he will be able to say to the tea retailer to whom he is selling the tea: "If you had to buy that tea with the duty on it, it would be worth 1/10; I will give it to you at 1/8," and he will rake in a golden harvest. What is to stop him? Remember, there is no trade at present being so excessively done as the tea trade, and there is no trade in the world in which you can call your traveller off so easily, because if a tea merchant in rural Ireland, or indeed anywhere, is habitually dealing with a certain group of tea firms, he is not deterred by the failure of their traveller to call; he will send for samples. I will take darn good care, if I do not want him to buy my samples at a given time, that I will place a figure on them which will put them out of competition. If I know they are going to be worth 4d. more by holding them for a couple of months, I will take darn good care that the price I put upon them now will induce my customer to deal with somebody else in the interval that elapses between the Minister's Order and the imposition of the duty. Who would not be a tea importer on those terms? It is "jam."

Mr. MacEntee

Would the Deputy address himself to the fact that there might be more than one bright boy of his disposition in the tea trade? There might be even more than two?

Mr. Dillon

Faith, there might. The Minister suggests that nobody would sell tea?

Mr. MacEntee

On the Deputy's argument, nobody would.

Mr. Dillon

Of course, that is the very kind of dilemma into which the Ministerial mind falls. They retire to Raglan Road and get as completely out of touch with the country as the man in the moon. Some fellows cannot stop selling tea. The small retailers down the country. The big chaps have not. It is the big men —largely London men—who can control their sales whatever way they like because they are selling tea all over the world, but there will always be enough little fellows in Dublin who will have to keep selling in order to keep the wolf from the door. They are legion.

Mr. MacEntee

That is very helpful, but am I to assume that the Mincing Lane men will clear their tea from bond and keep it here in the warehouse?

Mr. Dillon

They always do. Does not the Minister know that?

Mr. Cosgrave

Surely they cannot sell it here without getting it out of bond?

Mr. Dillon

All the big houses in London have agents in Dublin, and most of them have warehouse accommodation here.

Mr. MacEntee

They have full warehouse accommodation?

Mr. Dillon

I do not know the amount of their accommodation, but it must be pretty extensive to accommodate the trade.

Mr. MacEntee

Sufficient for a three months' stock?

Mr. Dillon

In any case they can go to the Merchant Warehousing Company. They certainly will not have to pay 4d. a pound to warehouse it for three months in a public warehouse. Many of them have gone into the tea-blending business since the Minister put a differential duty on blended tea. He drove most of the Mincing Lane men to open blending warehouses in Ireland for that purpose. If the Minister himself were a big man, with ample warehousing space, and ample capital to hold off the market, what would he do?

Mr. MacEntee

They will stop selling, and go out of business for three months?

Mr. Dillon

Not out of business, but they will tail off, and build up stocks to the best of their ability, and the net result of the Minister's operation will be to transfer this money to the wholesalers.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy has tailed off a little bit.

Mr. Dillon

I do not expect the Minister to understand. He never does understand until he burns his fingers. I remember a time when he said he would fix this business in a moment; that the antediluvian people who went before him did not understand how to levy duty on stocks of tea. He proceeded to levy duty on stocks of tea, but he is still looking for the stocks of tea. He got about half-dozen "goms" in the country to pay the duty, but 99 per cent. of the tea wholesalers in the country simply laughed at him.

Mr. MacEntee

If I were the Deputy I should not be so informative.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister can refer to his records, and unhappily he will find my name amongst them for a very substantial sum, very unwillingly paid, when I saw every one of my neighbours with considerably larger stocks not paying a farthing and laughing in the Minister's face. The Minister knows that. That is why he abandoned that system. He had to learn by experience. I do not grudge those respectable old firms—and most of them are respectable old firms—a bit of a "killing" on this. They will get a considerable "wipe" out of this, while the Treasury will get little or nothing, and in due time this expedient will be abandoned. I just wanted to warn the Minister, before he fell into the trap, that the effect of this will be to make a substantial present to the larger tea wholesalers, mainly men who represent the big London firms, because they have the capital to enable them to hold off here for a couple of months and build up the stocks upon which they will collect the duty that the Minister fondly hopes to get for the Treasury.

The Minister says, of course, that he cannot possibly foresee what commodity this provision is intended to control. It is as simple as falling off a log. He has drafted this section in order to catch tea, and he has put it in the Finance Bill because, first, he thought he was forestalled in this Budget, and second, because he thought he would have to bring in a Supplementary Budget before the end of the Financial Year, and he knows the easiest thing to get a grip of is tea. I will give him a wrinkle. If he wants to bring in a Supplementary Budget, and get a duty on tea, let him bring it in before September, when the new tea lands. There is no use in bringing in a Budget to collect your full revenue on tea if you are going to bring it in after all the new season's teas have been bought and delivered. No sane man buys a considerable quantity of tea after Christmas. He buys between September and Christmas, when the new season's first crop teas are coming in. Anything he buys after that is second crop and inferior stuff. If the Minister wants to bring in a Supplementary Budget, he should bring it in about the month of August and then he will get revenue from tea. He need not resort to this expedient at all. The ordinary rules of trade will prevent the forestalling that the Minister apprehends. This is designed to collect revenue on tea, and nothing else but tea. It means that the Minister is taking time by the forelock, because he knows he is in a very rocky condition financially, and he wants to construct one more nest to rob against the evil day he has brought on the country.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not want to prolong the debate unduly, but I should like to point out to the Deputy, first of all, that the powers given in this section can be exercised by the Minister at his own option. It does not compel us to do any one of the things the Deputy seemed to think it would. If it did, I do not think that all the dire consequences the Deputy has foreshadowed would follow. I may be wrong, but I cannot foresee any merchant or trader with an established connection allowing that connection to lapse for so prolonged a period as the Deputy suggests. Neither is there anything in the section which fixes the particular period at which the Minister may exercise these powers. It does not necessarily follow that they will be exercised in February or March or April. I should like to make it quite clear to the Deputy that the powers do not relate only to tea. There may be other commodities in which there may be a temptation to gamble. I think we can trust the Revenue Commissioners, who know the course of trade in this country very well and who know the course of importations, to advise me to exercise these powers at the period which would be most proper for the end which we might have in view.

Mr. Cosgrave

This is not quite as innocent a section as the Minister would have the House believe. According to what the Minister stated, there is one honest institution in this country and that is the Government. Mind you, I do not subscribe to that. I do not think they are, either individually or collectively.

Mr. MacEntee

It is an institution which owes its origin to you.

Mr. Cosgrave

I am quite in earnest about that. I have said so more than once both to their faces and in their absence. It is no pleasure to say it. We have had experience of it. Perhaps they recollect imposing an excise duty on thread. Probably it is forgotten. If this section passes, the Minister I presume will have as much power as Herr Hitler or Herr Stalin or whatever the Russian cognomen is.

Mr. Lemass

"Comrade."

Mr. Cosgrave

He is probably a comrade of the Minister's. "The Minister for Finance may by order...". Who is to know when the order is made? Is it the Revenue Commissioners? Will it be published in Iris Oifigiúil. or brought before this House?

Mr. MacEntee

By public notice in the Press.

Mr. Cosgrave

I suppose it is one of the occasions on which the new officer in the Department of the Prime Minister will be employed. We very seldom have any announcement from him and, whenever there is one, it is an explanation of the Government's stupidity or ineptitude or about something they are going to attempt. Sub-section (6) states:—

"Whenever the Revenue Commissioners, in pursuance of an order made by the Minister for Finance under this section, refuse to allow the delivery of goods or prohibit the sending out of goods from the premises of the manufacturer thereof..."

You are going to interfere with manufacturers now; the policy up to this has been to get them more and more into production, but now they are to stock up goods on the premises.

"No action or other proceeding shall lie against any person on account of his failure to perform a contract..."

Of course one of the things that makes business people laugh at Governments, not only in this country but in others, is when Ministers of State, who know nothing about business, and their advisers, who may know a little more but not much, commence to regulate business. Look at the position of the manufacturer here who is allowed to manufacture, let us say, 10,000 pairs of boots and has contracts for these. One person has an outstanding order with him for 1,000 pairs of boots and he has been allowed only ten pairs. The manufacturer has filled up other contracts and one man must go without. That man has as good a right to have his contract fulfilled as the others, but they get in earlier, the Minister's Order is there, and whoever had this contract will not be allowed to get the goods because of the Minister's Order. I do not know whether it was after dinner that this was drafted or not, but it has all the appearance of it. It is a ridiculous, nonsensical, autocratic section which should not be in any Finance Bill. The whole section, from one end of it to the other, is more in keeping with an autocracy or an oligarchy than it is with business. We are told that it is to prevent forestalling. Our experience of these matters is that, although there is a great deal of talk about forestalling, taking one year with another, it cancels out. It does not amount to much. The Minister has always got his expedient for dealing with it—he can change the tax. There is not much left to tax. One thing I suggest that he should tax is Ministers' speeches. The Minister might not get a lot of revenue, but it might be a more pleasant world to live in.

Mr. Lemass

They are the only speeches of any value.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy, not merely put on the Statute Book, but he operated a proposal on very similar lines.

Mr. Cosgrave

Tell us all about it.

Mr. MacEntee

The only thing is that there was a flaw in the drafting. This is to remedy the Deputy's bad handiwork.

Mr. Cosgrave

We will vote against it so as to secure that there will be no flaw this time.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 58; Níl, 37.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Carty, Frank.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Cooney, Eamonn.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Flinn, Hugo V.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Patrick J.
• Friel, John.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• Rice, Brigid M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hogan, Daniel.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Kelly, James P.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Loughman, Francis.
• Lynch, James B.
• McCann, John.
• McDevitt, Henry A.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Meaney, Cornelius.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Moran, Michael.
• Morrissey, Michael.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Munnelly, John.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Loghlen, Peter J.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Conn.

Níl

• Belton, Patrick.
• Benson, Ernest E.
• Brasier, Brooke.
• Brennan, Michael.
• Broderick, William J.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Byrne, Alfred (Junior).
• Coburn, James.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Costello, John A.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry M.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Esmonde, John L.
• Everett, James.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Gorey, Denis J.
• Hughes, James.
• Keating, John.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Lynch, Finian.
• McFadden, Michael Og.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Nally, Martin.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Neill, Eamonn.
• O'Sullivan, John M.
• Pattison, James P.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Rogers, Patrick J.
• Ryan, Jeremiah.

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

Question declared carried.

Sections 18 to 22, inclusive, agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.

Question proposed: "That the First Schedule stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dockrell

On the First Schedule I wish to make a few remarks, and they have relation to reference No. 6, which deals with paper which is, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, of a kind suitable for the decoration of walls or of ceilings. I think there are three different impositions in this particular reference. The special provisions set out that "The duty mentioned at this reference number is in addition to——" and that refers to a duty of 5 per cent. on paper. There is another paragraph in the special provisions column setting out: "The provisions of Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1919, apply to the duty mentioned at this reference number." I take it that means that this number is subject to the Imperial or British preference.

There is another paragraph in the same column setting out that where an article chargeable with the duty mentioned at this reference number consists of paper which is suitable for use as wallpaper border, and so on, it shall be subject to a rate specified. I would like to ask the Minister if he realises the extent of this. Perhaps the Minister would not mind saying how many of these strips would be in a roll, and what would be the greatest duty that could result from this imposition? I do not know if the Minister is prepared to answer that. Is he prepared to give me that information? How many strips would be in a roll? They say here that there would be two or more. Would the Minister be surprised if there were 20 in a roll? Is that a fair question to ask him?

Mr. Lemass

The Deputy is entitled to ask any question.

Mr. Dockrell

I am merely asking the Minister how far he realises the extent to which this duty might extend. I am merely asking him how many strips he has envisaged in a roll, as a maximum, and what would be the maximum duty. I do not know if he would be prepared to tell me before I proceed?

Mr. Lemass

I think the Deputy had better conclude his remarks first.

Mr. Dockrell

Very well. I think in this matter, and also in relation to some other duties, the effect on the consumer has been overlooked by the Government. After all, they have got, as they would say, to sell the goods to the consumer and, if he does not think that he has got a square deal, he has the remedy in his own hands. The paper trade, for walls or ceilings, is a peculiar trade, in this way, that it brings a whole lot of employment with it. Things are fairly bad in the building trade and the painters suffer in common with the rest of the building trade. There is also what one might describe as the jobbing trade, and this has a very serious effect on the jobbing trade. I have asked the Minister do the members of the Government realise to what extent this duty can amount.

I will proceed to show my calculation and perhaps the Minister, when he is replying, will tell me if there is any error in it. I want to preface my remarks by saying that it is not merely a question of the sale of wallpaper, but there is the probability that the wallpaper extends to only 10 per cent. of a contract, and a very considerable amount of employment may hinge on whether the public consider they are getting value. The Minister is just as well aware as I am that, before the duty on wallpaper was imposed, if an ordinary customer wished for a selection of borders, there were many thousands of patterns available. You are now down, if you take the pattern book trade, to a selection of 250. That number has to be reduced considerably, because deliveries are in some cases many months behind.

Having got to that point, we will proceed to consider the person who does not think he has got the selection he requires, and who wishes to take some imported article. Let us suppose a border is imported. I would like to contrast the present position under this Budget with the position as it was formerly. The duty has been increased from a ld. the linear yard and 50 per cent., whichever was the greater, to 1d. and one ½d. and 75 per cent. There is also the imperial preference, so that so far as British papers are concerned, when they are less one-third, the 1d. and one 1/2d. would work out at 1d., the original duty. But if you take a foreign border, the duty is increased by 1/2d. the linear yard—that is, 50 per cent. I have asked the Minister how many of these strips you would have in a roll of border.

Perhaps the Minister would prefer to hear my case? I have here a pattern of border, and there are 26 strips in it. Now, there are other borders printed, with more strips, but we will take the 26 strips in that particular border, that I have here in my hand, and let us say that it is a foreign piece of paper. The duty would be increased by one halfpenny a yard, which would be 50 per cent., and 26 times the halfpenny, which would bring the duty to 1,300 per cent. increase on the former duty on the wallpaper, or rather on the border. I do not know whether the Minister considers that duties like that are supposed to be paid or what the idea is, or whether they would justify the term "astronomical" increases in the duties. I do not know what would qualify it for the expression "astronomical increases", but any way that is 1,300 per cent. of an increase, and there are others which, possibly, would be more.

I should like to ask the Minister how far he thinks he can go before he creates a reaction from the people who have to pay for this. Remember, I take it that the Minister's idea is that there should be a sale of wallpaper and that the people who, possibly, cannot get, in certain qualities just what they want, should be able, by paying some moderate duty, to obtain what they want, especially when such a considerable amount of employment is hanging to it as hangs to it in the decorating trade. Another question that strikes one is this: Why, just at this juncture, the Minister should have steepened up the ordinary duty by 50 per cent.? I suppose that he may answer that that was so as to give the British a preference and leave the duty the same as it was before.

However, the point that I really wish to bring, in all seriousness, to the Minister's attention, is: how far duties such as this can be carried without having a very disastrous effect on the demand? Undoubtedly, it can be felt in the better-class section in the decorating trade, but I would ask the Minister, when he is replying, to give some idea, if possible, as to what the policy of the Department is in regard to this matter. In other words, do they want certain classes of business to be carried on at all, or do they wish them to cease?

Mr. Lemass

I do not think it was necessary for the Deputy to make all these elaborate calculations, I think that he would have got the same effect if he had just said that the duty was prohibitive. That is what it is.

Mr. Dockrell

Well, the word "prohibitive" is a relative word.

Mr. Lemass

It is intended to ensure that these materials will not be imported. The sole change which I was anxious to effect in this duty at the present time was to see that, in so far as border was concerned, the duty would apply to the length of each strip of border instead of to a sheet containing a number of borders. That change was made as a result of our Agreement with the United Kingdom, under which certain preferences were to be given, and the terms of that Agreement made it necessary in this case to increase the full rate by the appropriate amount. The change was made at a time when the effect of this duty on prices was being investigated by the Prices Commission, simultaneously with the review undertaken under the terms of the British Agreement. That review has now been completed and the report has been received. I think that the fact that such a review was proceeding would answer to the consumer's interest. However, the effect of the change here is that the duty will apply to each strip of border instead of to a sheet containing a number of borders. The object is to prevent evasion of duty.

Mr. Dockrell

The Minister, to my mind, really has not touched on the point. I was endeavouring to make. Perhaps I did not make my point to the Minister with sufficient care. My point is this: how far a reduction on a selection of many thousands to 250— and that 250 is reduced by gaps in the delivery extending into months—how far he would consider that adequate? The Minister says that the intention of the duty is prohibitive, and that the material should not come in. Well, that is quite honest. He says that I should have applied the word "prohibitive". At any rate, I became emphatic and said that it amounted to 1,300 per cent. Well, I should say that they are about the same. However, the Minister has not answered my question, and that is the question to which I am really anxious to get an answer, namely: How far he thinks he is justified in prohibiting stuff coming in, in the face of the present supply? There is another matter. The Minister says that the Report of the Prices Commission has reached him. Well, it seems to me that this is like two at a sweep. Apparently, the Prices Commission are investigating prices of wall paper. I do not know what conclusion they have come to, but apparently the Minister, meanwhile—and now I want to be quite fair to him—seems as if he were anticipating their decision and increasing the duties on these commodities before a decision was come to.

Mr. Lemass

I explained to the Deputy that the increase in the full rate of duty is incidental to a change we made. Under the terms of our agreement with the United Kingdom, whenever we change a duty we are obliged to institute the preferential rate. The only change which it was desired to make in this duty was to ensure that it would apply, in the case of borders, to each strip of border and not to a sheet containing a number of borders. But having made that change, it was necessary to institute a full rate and give the British manufacturers a preference. That was why the full rate has been increased, and the only reason why. That increase was made with the full knowledge of the fact that the duty was being reviewed at the time by the Prices Commission. I think the point the Deputy is trying to make is that the imposition of a duty upon wallpaper means that there is going to be a restriction in the varieties available to the public. That is so. There is no use in denying the fact. We will have fewer varieties of wallpaper than when we had every manufacturer in the world to pick from, but I think we will have an adequate supply. There will be difference of opinion as to what constitutes an average supply. So far as I am concerned I will put on all the pressure I can to ensure that the persons manufacturing wall paper here will produce the largest number of varieties possible with efficient production. But there is no denying the fact that we will have fewer varieties.

Mr. Dockrell

Yes; that is the point on which I do not understand the Minister. There is wallpaper, and there are borders. Why was it necessary to increase the duty in order to give the British a preference? He has changed the duty so as to leave it the same for the British and increase it for the foreigner. I want to know, theoretically could he not have given the British a preference off the existing duty? Was there anything to prevent him?

Mr. Lemass

He could.

Mr. Dockrell

Yes; that is the point I wanted to make as far as wallpaper is concerned. I am unable to understand the Minister's point that he wants to increase the duty on borders to this, what I described as astronomical and he described as prohibitive, extent. Of course, he is entitled to do it, but it is a most extraordinary duty and put on in a most extraordinary way because the duty is usually supposed to be put on the article as purchased and he has cut it up. Supposing, for the sake of argument, a person said to him: "I am not going to cut them up into strips at all. I am going to use it as wallpaper," in what position would the Minister be? It seems an extraordinary position. However, I suppose we will have to be satisfied with the Minister's explanation, but I am afraid that what he has gained on the swings he has lost on the roundabouts, because there is no doubt about it that the present position has had an adverse effect on employment in the painting and decorating industry.

Mr. Dillon

The result of the wallpaper tariffs is that nobody is going to use wallpaper. That has already happened. A great many people are painting their rooms, and that is simply just too bad for the paper-hangers, but they are not the only class of people who have suffered from the reckless use of tariffs in this country. It is useless to think that if we reduce the range of wallpapers to the level it has reached now in this country that wallpapers can be as widely used as they were in the past. Nobody wants to see a dining-room, a hall, three bedrooms and two bathrooms all covered with the same wallpaper in the course of a perambulation down the street in which he lives. That is what is going to happen, because, when you get a very small variety of wallpapers with only a few patterns available, the same wallpapers turn up again and again in neighbours' houses, with the result that eventually people make up their minds that they are not going to paper but will paint the walls. Deputy Dockrell has dealt exhaustively with that.

I want to refer to reference No. 1 Reference No. 1 relates to thread— cotton thread, flaxen thread, hemp thread. We all know the history of that disreputable tariff. The tariff was put here on cotton thread at the request of a bankrupt firm from Leicester. J. & P. Coates offered to manufacture thread in this country, and were told that this bankrupt concern in the middle of England had the monopoly and were going to be left with it. This concern went down to Westport and, in collaboration with the local people, built a factory, and it then transpired that they had been trying to get Coates to buy them for years, and Coates would not take them if they were given away with a pound of tea. But, when they got the monopoly here they went back to Coates and said: "Now have we got something you are prepared to buy?" Coates said: "Yes, you have the Irish monopoly." This bankrupt concern then sold their enterprise including the Irish monopoly, to J. & P. Coates for a very substantial sum of money, and the firm in Westport is now controlled by J. & P. Coates, who were prepared to come in and run the industry for nothing but who, in fact, were required to pay a levy to this bankrupt concern in order to get in. That is the truth.

Mr. Lemass

There is not a word of truth in that statement from beginning to end.

Mr. Dillon

Every syllable is true, and everybody knows it is true, and the Minister's brazen-faced denial of it will not convince anyone. Observe the result of that.

An Ceann Comhairle

The only reference I have to make to the matter is that if the firm has not been declared bankrupt the Deputy is not justified in so describing it.

Mr. Dillon

The firm has vanished. They only waited till they got this plunder and then vanished into thin air, and they did not give a fiddle-dee-dee.

Mr. Lemass

There are no libel laws applying here. The Deputy can say what he likes.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister knows perfectly well that what I am saying is true, and J. & P. Coates now control the Westport Thread Company in lieu of the company to whom he gave the monopoly, and no brazen-faced denial will cover up the Minister. Every conceivable measure was taken to cover up his tracks but, nevertheless, those tracks remain. Observe the result of that. This enterprise that started in Westport pleaded with the Minister that they could not maintain the industry there at all if they did not charge a substantial additional sum for the thread they were producing. While they were still in Westport they managed to secure the Minister's consent to fixing a price for thread that was used by the shirt manufacturers of this country about 60 per cent. higher than the price charged for the same thread in Great Britain. Samples and certificates were sent to the Minister to show that was going on. It was part of the undertaking which that firm gave when they came in here that they would produce thread for the industrialists of this country at a reasonable price.

Mr. Lemass

At the same price at which the same thread was sold in Great Britain.

Mr. Dillon

At the same price at which the same thread was sold in Great Britain. Not for one hour was that undertaking ever kept. From the day they came in they have charged the manufacturers a very wide margin of profit in excess of what was charged for better thread in Great Britain.

In regard to sewing cottons, I have sent to the Minister, I have shown to the Minister, I have read out in this House that firm's price-list in Great Britain and their price-list in Ireland. I have shown him that they were charging 15 per cent. more in Ireland than in Great Britain. Those standards having been fixed before the transfer to J. & P. Coates took place, they are carrying on on virtually the same basis to-day. And nothing is done about it. Does the Minister deny that the shirt manufacturers of Donegal laid before him certificates and price-lists to show that for the thread they could get for 57/- in England they were being charged something like 80/- here.

Mr. Lemass

It is not so.

Mr. Dillon

Did the Minister receive representations from the shirt manufacturers?

Mr. Lemass

I got allegations which on investigation proved to be completely unfounded.

Mr. Dillon

The allegations consisted of samples of thread supplied by the people here, samples of thread supplied by the people in Great Britian, quotations from both firms, and a certificate from the testing laboratory in Manchester that the tensile strength of the thread supplied from Ireland was lower than that supplied from Great Britain.

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Dillon

I saw them. I had them in my hand. I read them before they went to the Minister. Yet the Minister has the barefaced effrontery to say "No." I actually had them in my own hand and read them, and saw the samples, and I know that the Minister received them, and I saw his letter saying that he was considering them. If the Minister consults his own files he will find a letter stating that he received those samples and documents, and yet he says that he never got them. Parliamentary discussion becomes absolutely impossible if that is to continue.

Mr. Lemass

Absolutely.

Mr. Dillon

But the Minister has these documents on his own file. I saw those representations and samples being despatched to him, and I saw his acknowledgment of the receipt.

Mr. Lemass

And the Deputy, if he is so familiar with this question, must know also that the investigations proved that the allegations were completely unfounded.

Mr. Dillon

I know that the allegations were absolutely true, and I know that I myself brought it here and read out price lists showing the prices of cotton thread and showing that the price charged here was 15 per cent. higher than the price in Great Britian. Does the Minister deny that that is true?

Mr. Lemass

I do not propose to intervene again in this discussion. On a number of occasions investigations which were carried out by my Department have shown that the undertaking given by the Westport Thread Factory was scrupulously adhered to from the day they started.

Mr. Dillon

That is astonishing. It shows immense courage of a kind which I must say should command little respect. I know that the Minister received it, and that it is in his Department. It is incredible; I cannot believe it.

Mr. Lemass

Neither do I.

Mr. Dillon

I am trying to say something in a roundabout way that the Rules of Order do not permit me to say bluntly, because I know that definite, conclusive and inescapable proof was placed in the Minister's hands.

Mr. Lemass

The Rules of Order apply to me also.

Mr. Dillon

Exactly. We must recognise that and deal with one another accordingly. I know that inescapable proof was placed in the Minister's hands that prices were 15 per cent. higher than the prices charged in Great Britain. They are charged at the present moment. Not only that, but terms and conditions of trade are sought to be imposed by the Westport company which were never imposed by the British company, and the Minister knows that, because I directed his attention to it myself. Leaving out of the question the excess cost that has been imposed on the ordinary consumers of sewing cotton, the manufacturers of shirts in Donegal who are competing with the Derry shirt manufacturers find that this essential raw material has been raised in price to them and they are at a proportionate disadvantage in competing in the British market with the shirts that they are trying to sell and that they did sell in very large quantities there.

Now, these manufacturers ought to be allowed to import that thread under licence and they are being denied that right. Take the case of the embroidery people. There are people here who were induced by the Minister to get into the business of embroidery with cotton thread—coloured embroidery on a white background. They got thread from Westport and did a large order with it. The order was delivered, but the bulk of it was returned on the ground that the colour in the thread ran and stained the white material on which it was embroidered. They complained, and the Westport Thread Company said they were now enclosing a hank of thread which would come up to the requirements and which was guaranteed to be a fast dye. The firm used that and when it was washed in cold water it ran. Eventually, the firm lost the order altogether.

I do not know what the situation is now with regard to those coloured threads, but at that time it was perfectly impossible to get any thread from Westport that could be relied upon to retain its colour at all; with the result that that industry was very gravely prejudiced. It was a valuable industry, one that had established and developed itself without the assistance of tariffs, one that had extended itself at the request of the Minister into new branches. So far as I am aware it has largely lost the trade that it was developing of embroidering with coloured threads on other backgrounds.

There is a reasonable modus vivendi that can be arrived at and that is that that firm in Westport that is now controlled by Coates—and no one makes better thread than J. and P. Coates of Paisley—should manufacture in Westport black thread and white thread— black sewing cotton and white sewing cotton, and should get licences to import coloured threads, and should bring the price of the thread down to the same level as that charged for the same thread in Great Britain. Then there would be no serious ground for complaint. There is no valid reason why they should not do that, and the Minister ought to insist that they do it, but if not, if they cannot be made to do that, then those manufacturers who use thread as a raw material in an export industry in this country ought to be allowed to import thread free of duty.

Now, sir, there is also a reference here to flaxen thread. The Minister has never given any explanation of that. There were two groups of firms shipping flaxen thread into this country —the Linen Thread Company of Glasgow, and Barbour's, and there was one other firm in the North of Ireland. Then somebody started a linen thread company in Dublin, and it was represented to this House that the Linen Thread Company of Scotland was so big that it could afford to dump thread here without any profit in order to capture the market for itself. As a matter of fact, it never had succeeded in doing that, because Barbour's and the other North of Ireland firm always sold linen thread here in competition with them; but, on that excuse, there was a duty of 100 per cent. put on linen thread to keep the Glasgow Linen Thread Company out and to keep Barbour out. And what happened? After the 100 per cent. duty had been put on, the Linen Thread Company of Glasgow arrived in Dublin and bought the Dublin firm, and they are now mulcting the consumers of linen thread in this country behind the tariff of 100 per cent. which is now operating.

Mr. Lemass

It does not operate.

Mr. Dillon

If it does not, what tariff is operating?

Mr. Lemass

I am only just stating. that the Deputy is wrong.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister got so lost in the labyrinth of his own follies that it is extremely difficult to follow him. Up to recently we had the ridiculous situation where a 100 per cent. tariff was put on in order to keep out a linen thread company and it is now operating to protect that linen thread company in Ireland against the competition of Barbour and other Northern Ireland linen thread manufacturers. Yet, nobody seems to give a hoot. No one seems to care. If tariffs are going to be used in this country in this way, inevitably the bona fides of the Government will become suspect. Personally, that is not very distressing to me, because the more tariffs that are imposed by imprudent men the more manifest their own inherent evil will become to the people.

It is one consolation to those who recognise the horror of tariffs that they have that intoxicating effect on those who use them. They drive them from madness to madness, until, eventually, the people revolt against being made the slaves of the vested interests who thrive and prosper on the tariff ramp. Nevertheless, so long as there is a Parliament in this country, it is right that those of us who do see the profiteers and tariff-mongers, who live on sucking the blood of the consumers of the country, getting these monstrous tariffs and so shamelessly abusing them, should show them up and that the people should be informed of the outrageous character of the machinations of those who deal in such things. I urge strongly that the shirt industry and the embroidery industry should be relieved of the burden which they are at present bearing as a result of these tariffs. I think it is fatal to both industries if the present abuses are allowed to continue.

Mr. Lemass

I should say that the sole change effected by reference No. 1 is to give the Revenue Commissioners power to exempt from duty ply yarns of cotton imported for use in a braiding machine.

Mr. Benson

I should, first, like to mention that I support what Deputy Dillon had to say on the question of coloured cotton. So far as I know, there are at present four fast-dye cottons made in Westport. That is the entire selection. The rest of the sewing cotton is such that the colour washes out after one wash. There is no fastness in it at all. With regard to reference No. 4, I should like to know from the Minister what is the purpose of this duty. Is it purely a revenue duty, and, if so, how much revenue does it produce? This duty affects one industry only. It is an old-established industry running back nearly 100 years to the first existing plant in Dublin. It receives, and has received, no form of Government assistance whatever, and, in fact, rather the reverse, because large numbers of its raw materials are governed by duties and quotas. It is an industry which gives employment to over 3,500 persons, and which pays out in wages nearly £350,000 a year.

It is, however, unique in this, that its chief competitor is its own customers, because, unfortunately, practically everybody can do a certain amount of laundry work at home. The iniquity of this duty is to be found in paragraph (b), under which domestic washing machines are free of all duty, as a consequence of the London Agreement. Why it should have been confined to domestic washing machines I do not know. Hotels have, in many cases, installed these so-called domestic washing machines, and that is another form of competition which is, to an extent, subsidised by the Government. Admittedly, that does create a certain amount of employment, but I think it must be considered better from the public health point of view and every point of view that this work should be done in a large factory, specially designed for the purpose, rather than, possibly, in a cellar, or some other such place in a hotel.

It seems to me that there is no possible reason for this duty. I have outlined some of the reasons as to why I think it should not be imposed. The laundry industry which is affected by it does all the things I have mentioned— gives considerable employment and pays good wages and it receives no assistance of any description from the Government. The Government then comes along and imposes a duty of 20 per cent., which is certainly not a protective duty and cannot produce very much revenue. The Minister will probably tell me that this is an old duty. I know it is an old duty—it is merely altered by the fact that the component parts are now free of duty —but the fact that it is an old duty does not make it a good duty, and I do not think it could possibly be considered a good duty.

However, lest my eloquence should not have converted the Minister to my view, there is one other point I should like to make on it, on the assumption that it has to stand. What is the interpretation which is to be put on paragraph (c) which refers to "drying cabinets and drying machines"? I do not know what was originally intended when this was imposed, but I believe it has been interpreted as covering a machine known as a hydro-extractor.

That is a centrifugal machine which forces water out of clothes by centrifugal force. It does not dry them, in the ordinary accepted sense of the word, but it has been so considered by the Revenue Commissioners. It is a high-speed machine travelling at up to 1,750 revolutions per minute, or more. One effect of the alteration in the duty is that these machines will be imported in parts and it seems to me that, if it is intended that that particular type of machine should be covered, the Minister should consider the question of altering it, so that the machine may be imported in one piece and so that any danger which might arise from ineffective assembling of such a high-speed machine would not arise.

Mr. Lemass

This duty is a protective duty. Its purpose is to encourage the assembling of these pressing and washing machines, and drying cabinets here. It has had that effect. These machines are being assembled. The change which is being made here is to exempt from the duty the component parts of these machines. Heretofore, the duty applied to both the machines and the component parts. It is not intended to change the duty. I could not at this stage, however, deal with the case of a particular machine which might, or might not, be a drying cabinet, as defined here, but which has been held to be such by the Revenue Commissioners. If the Deputy will get in touch with my Department, I promise him this, that if there is a machine which is not being assembled here, or which is not procurable here, and which is required by the industry in which he is interested, or any other industry, we will consider whether it would be possible to bring it outside the scope of the duty. The sole intention here is to ensure that this duty will apply to machines which are, or can be, assembled here.

Mr. Benson

Would the Minister explain why it applies to commercial machines, and not to domestic machines, which are in direct competition with the commercial machines?

Mr. Lemass

I presume that the answer to that is that domestic machines are not being manufactured.

Mr. Benson

Why not? They are a very much simpler job than the commercial machines.

Mr. Lemass

I was wrong in that statement. I am aware that they are being manufactured here, but they are not being protected.

Mr. Benson

Why?

Mr. Lemass

It might be an oversight.

Mr. Benson

It is not an oversight, because you cannot do it. According to the London Agreement, they are on the free list. My point is that if the domestic washing machine which is in direct competition with the commercial machine is allowed in free, there is no justification for imposing a duty of 20 per cent. on the commercial machine.

Mr. Lemass

But there are a number of firms assembling these machines here and there should be no difficulty in procuring them. Some very competent firms are engaged in this assembling.

Mr. Dillon

Yes the same as you can get a motor car but the motor car that costs £160 in England, costs £230 in Dublin.

Mr. Lemass

What is the Deputy talking about now?

Mr. Dillon

Motor cars. Cars which cost £230 in Dublin can be bought in England for £160.

Mr. Lemass

There has always been a revenue charge here.

Question—"That the First Schedule stand part of the Bill"—put.

The Committee divided; Tá, 62; Níl, 27.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Bourke, Dan.
• Brady, Brian.
• Brady, Seán.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Cooney, Eamonn.
• Kennedy, Michael J.
• Keyes, Michael.
• Killilea, Mark.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Loughman, Francis.
• Lynch, James B.
• McCann, John.
• McDevitt, Henry A.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Meaney, Cornelius.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Moran, Michael.
• Morrissey, Michael.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Corry, Martin J.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• Everett, James.
• Flinn, Hugo V.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Fogarty, Patrick J.
• Friel, John.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hogan, Daniel.
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Kelly, James P.
• Munnelly, John.
• Norton, William.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Loghlen, Peter J.
• Pattison, James P.
• Rice, Brigid M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Martin.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sheridan, Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Victory, James.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Conn.

Níl

• Benson, Ernest E.
• Brasier, Brooke.
• Broderick, William J.
• Browne, Patrick.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Costello, John A.
• Curran, Richard.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry M.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Esmonde, John L.
• Fagan, Charles.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Giles, Patrick.
• Hughes, James.
• Keating, John.
• Lynch, Finian.
• McGovern, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Nally, Martin.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Sullivan, John M.
• Reynolds, Mary.
• Rogers, Patrick J.

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

Question declared carried.

Second Schedule agreed to.

THIRD SCHEDULE.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 11, as follows:—

In page 23, to insert, at the end of Part III, a new reference number as follows:—

5

Second Schedule reference number 15.

Whenever the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied that any paper imported on or after the 13th day of June, 1939, and chargeable with the duty mentioned at the said reference number 15 is intended for use in the printing of paper-covered novels, the Revenue Commissioners may, subject to compliance with such conditions as they may think fit to impose, permit such paper to be imported without payment of the said duty or may repay any such duty paid at importation.

The duty on unprinted paper.

This is the amendment to which I referred when dealing with amendment No. 7. It proposes to exempt from duty paper for printing paper-covered novels.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Dillon

Reference No. 3 of this Schedule refers to the motor-car duty on certain component parts of chassis. Has the attention of the Minister been directed to the wide discrepancy in the prices of assembled cars in this country and identical cars in Great Britain? One of the smaller cars can be bought at £160 in Great Britain and Belfast, and here, for the same type of car, one has to pay £230. What justification can there be for a discrepancy so wide as that?

Mr. Lemass

The prices of cars here have been fully investigated by the Prices Commission within the past 12 months, and reductions have been made. The Deputy must not leave out of account that there are revenue taxes on motor-car parts imported here.

Mr. Dillon

Surely the Minister does not suggest that the revenue duties would amount to £70 on a £160 car?

Mr. Lemass

The duty on British cars was 22 2-9ths.

Mr. Dillon

There is one car costing £160 in Great Britain and £230 here.

Mr. Lemass

There are cars selling here more cheaply than they are selling in England.

Mr. Dillon

I am talking of the car which is selling at £160 in Great Britain and at £230 here. I know that this matter has been examined by the Prices Commission and that is one of the reasons why it appears so astonishing to me that there should be such a wide discrepancy in prices. I should be glad if the Minister would explain what the reason is for the discrepancy.

Mr. Lemass

A number of factors might operate—the number of cars, and so on.

Mr. Dillon

The discrepancy seems to me to be very excessive.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

FOURTH SCHEDULE.

Mr. Dillon

There is a short reference in this schedule to duties on articles of iron or steel wire which gives the Minister the right to issue licences for free importation. I understand that, in the stained-glass industry, there is a certain type of nail used which they are unable to get without paying an immensely enhanced price. How nails are used in making stained-glass, I cannot imagine, but they are used. If the details are brought to the Minister's attention will he provide the two stained-glass manufacturers of this country, who conduct one of our most valuable industries, with licences to bring in these nails free of duty?

Mr. Lemass

Certainly.

Fourth, fifth and sixth schedules agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?

Mr. MacEntee

If the House is agreeable, I should like to have it put down for Tuesday.

Mr. Dillon

We agree to either Tuesday or Thursday.

Mr. MacEntee

We can put it down for Tuesday.

General Mulcahy

If it is not taken on Tuesday, is the Minister agreeable that it shall not be taken until Thursday?

Mr. MacEntee

I give that undertaking.

Report Stage fixed for Tuesday, 20th June.