Vol. 83 No. 6
I move amendment No. 3:—
In paragraph (1), page 11, line 28, to delete the figures and words "26th day of May" and substitute the figure and words "7th day of July".
This is putting the date back to the 7th July from the date originally fixed in the Resolution, which was the 26th May.
This amendment will mean a tax on weekly or other newspapers in this country—that is the proposal—and from that tax the Minister expects to get £135,000. Presumably this alternation of the date will reduce that amount, and the sum will probably be in the neighbourhood of £125,000. Two questions arise on this. First, it is an increased tax on the people, assuming that they are in a position still to purchase those newspapers. The second point is that it may possibly interfere with or stop the circulation of those newspapers and thus mean a decrease in employment. It is likely that the tax will materially affect the balance sheets in practically all newspaper offices.
It is for the Minister to say whether the advantage to be derived from the revenue he estimates will balance the disturbance that is likely to be caused. On its face it looks a very big sum of money, but is the Minister satisfied that the newspapers will be able to stand it? In the opinion of several people, it might lead to putting many persons out of employment. Take the daily newspapers that are circulating in this city. Two of them are not in a very prosperous position. One of them has paid no dividend since it started, and the other may not be paying even a preference dividend at the moment. Those newspapers are giving considerable employment and if, by reason of the imposition of this tax, unemployment will be brought about, those papers will be in a much worse position than they are in at the moment.
With regard to the point raised by Deputy McGilligan, there are certain newspapers printed outside this country and, if you consider the effect of some of these Resolutions, those papers get off much lighter than the papers that are actually printed in the country. That is an extraordinary situation for a Government of this country to stand over. I shall leave aside for the moment what I have no doubt the Minister will come back upon as a thing in which he is interested, namely, the getting of money. Surely, even if you do give a preference, there is a principle involved as well as the getting of money. I am surprised to see a man who boasts of so many principles selling this principle for a mess of pottage, even though it amounts to £100,000. There is, undoubtedly, a number of papers which, as a result of this tax, may go out of existence, while others, although they may be able to carry on, will undoubtedly be crippled. The tax hits a large number of papers that are sold in the country. There are still some papers that are sold for a penny, and now 1½d. will be the charge. That, undoubtedly, in the country districts, will seriously affect the circulation of these papers. It is idle to think that it will not.
Of course, I am not in the secrets of the Government, and I do not know whether they want any circulation of opinion at all at the moment in this country. They are certainly taking vigorous measures in other directions to see that there is no circulation of opinion through newspapers. I do not think that is wise. I think that it ultimately gives rise to all sorts of rumours, unfounded rumours, which have not even to go through the sieve of a newspaper examination, sorting out what is possible to publish and what is not. I think it ought to be the business of the Government to help the extension of news even at the present moment; but by two ways now they are trying to prevent that: one—which I cannot discuss at the present moment— by a use of the censorship that was certainly never intended or never imagined by a number of people in this House when consent was given to its establishment; secondly, by now trying to put—or possibly succeeding in putting—a number of these papers out of circulation. Anybody who takes up a paper now can see that the papers are already hard hit owing to the shortage of newsprint. So much so that a number of people are asking themselves quite seriously whether they are getting any value. The result will be that you are going to have the people of this country thrown back for their news, not to newspapers published in this country but to the wireless coming in from other countries. I must say that I do not see the wisdom of a policy of that kind.
One thing about the amendment is that it does throw back this thing for a time. It does give some time, although very inadequate time, for newspapers to adjust themselves to the state of affairs brought about for them by this new tax. The Minister is undoubtedly lending his aid, by this particular tax, to the stifling of such opinion as is still allowed to circulate in this country. It is a serious thing, for instance, for a 1d. paper in country districts to have to charge 1½d. It will mean unemployment. It will mean, in the case of some of them, cessation, and I gather, in the case of some others, as I have said already, it will mean a crippling of their position. What is to be gained? A sum of £100,000 or £120,000 is the answer of the Minister. As regards this preferential treatment for outside newspapers——
Why does the Deputy say preferential treatment?
Because outside papers are relieved from the customs duty.
There was already two-thirds of a penny on them. We are putting one-third of a penny on our own.
Yes, but you are putting a tax on these internal papers, a tax that was not there before. Previously, you must have done it in your effort to help the home newspaper. You thought it was necessary. Now, when their lot is harder and paper is dearer on account of the shortage, you come in and hit these papers a blow and do not hit a corresponding blow to the others.
I should like to underline what I said before—even more so—because some facts have since come to light in connection with the position. I should like to ask Deputies of this House to look back over the impression they got of daily newspapers and weekly papers during the period of office of the present Government and before. If anything characterised the daily or weekly papers during the present regime it is the feeling that you always got an impression from some of the papers that there were a few big, flash Government advertisements staring you in the face, and that you would hardly recognise one of our newspapers as a native or Irish newspaper except that it had that characteristic. You all remember when the turf scheme was started. You had big advertisements telling you all about the ancient Irish elk that roamed the bogs centuries ago, and if you only used turf at home what stories of old Ireland would come back to you, when sitting around the fireside—and generally telling you that you would get great value for your money. Then you had big advertisements for the wheat scheme, the beet scheme, and all the various schemes. Now it is compulsory tillage, parish councils, and this, that and the other thing.
We had to complain in the past that daily and weekly newspapers that did not subscribe to Government policy or that criticised Government policy in their leading articles were refused Government advertisements. Large sums of money have been spent and larger sums of money are being spent at the present moment. I suggested, when this Resolution came before us on Committee Stage, that this was simply trying to take back a small amount of the money that was being squandered on advertising of that particular kind. It was squandered, no doubt, with a purpose. It was squandered to get a certain type of newspaper assistance and support for a Government that loved the newspapers and made so much use of them in that particular way, and it had, incidentally, the little handle that newspapers that did not support Government policy or that criticised the Government could get a little reminder from time to time that that kind of thing did not pay.
One of the principal reasons why there is so much of the spendthrift in Government advertising is to try to cover over and make up for the futilities and the lack of preparation and lack of organisation in the present emergency. The parish councils were called to arms to look after compulsory tillage and all that kind of thing, simply because the Government had insisted that the Minister for Agriculture was the one person to handle that particular scheme and did not want assistance from local bodies or anybody else, but when he fell down on his scheme it was found necessary to stir the imagination of the people and pay a compliment to them by means of the organisation of parish councils.
On a point of order, Sir. What have parish councils to do with this? What are we discussing now?
A tax on newspapers.
I am not asking the Deputy. I am asking the Chair.
Financial Resolution No. 13, and an amendment thereto.
And I submit that that Resolution proposes to put a tax on Irish newspapers.
What has that got to do with parish councils?
Am I expected to answer that question, Sir?
You do not know.
I am saying that some of this money is being collected to pay for the profligacy in expenditure on advertisements in newspapers, arising out of Government incompetency, Government lack of proper preparation and work. I am emphasising one of the types of advertisements. I should like to know how much money has been spent on advertisements in daily and weekly newspapers urging people to go and get the compulsory tillage done, whether through appeals to farmers, to parish councils, or anything else like that. I say that there has been a big amount of expenditure in that particular way and it would not be necessary to tax newspapers if that expenditure was not gone ahead with.
I object to this tax for the purpose of paying for that type of thing. I object, firstly, because it is unnecessary. If there was the full freedom of expression of public opinion in our newspapers that we ought to have, public opinion would be quite alive to what the circumstances and what the dangers are, and these dangers, and the necessity for preparing against them, would be much more suitably pointed out, and the people would be much more stimulated to do the work necessary to meet them by the proper spread of ordinary public opinion than by the flapdoodle that goes into Government advertisements. But when this tax is to be collected for the purpose of giving out advertisements in the discriminatory way to which Deputy McGilligan pointed in regard to one particular county, and in the discriminatory way employed in other counties, I object to it. There are papers in other counties which have stood behind all the appeals for the building up of the Army and the Local Security Force, but, simply because they dared to criticise the administration of particular Ministers, they are refused advertisements for the Army and the Construction Corps which are given to other newspapers in their counties which have not a quarter of their circulation.
I object to taxing newspapers for the purpose of spending money in that way, but there is another objection to this tax. It has been pointed out that the shortage of paper and the censorship are hitting the circulation of newspapers. We have Ministers going to journalists' dinners and telling the journalists and everyone else how important it is for democracy to have a free and sound Press. A very considerable blow has already been dealt against a free and sound Press by the censorship, and newspapers are really almost discredited in the public mind as conveyors of either the important information which people should get, or of reasonable and reasoned opinions on matters connected with those things which are important in our national economy, or the emergency in which we find ourselves. On top of that, this tax is now imposed, and when one comes to think over the whole attitude of the Government with regard to public opinion, one must regard this tax as an endeavour on the part of the Government further to stamp out public discussion and public opinion. I think they are going too far. It was possible to have a public opinion in Ireland, and a unity of mind when newspapers were not so plentiful as they are to-day, and I think this very action of the Government, in further crippling the machinery for the spread in print of fact and public opinion, represents the last straw which will bring the people to a realisation that the ordinary spread of public opinion through the newspapers is being crushed out.
There will inevitably be a reaction on employment. It is very serious to have brought about, through taxation of this kind—unnecessary, as I said—a state of affairs by which people of a specialised trade, a specialised calling, who cannot easily, even in normal circumstances, fit themselves into any other occupation, will be put out of employment; but when you consider that in connection with the other objections to this tax, I do not know how anybody who thinks this is a democratic country, who thinks that these emergencies should be prepared for with full public knowledge of the facts and with sound opinions coming from the ordinary minds of the people, could support for a moment the imposition of such a tax. If he does, then he is only continuing the futility and incompetency with which he has backed some of the things this country has suffered already.
I should be prepared to accept portion of Deputy Mulcahy's statement as true, that this tax has to be imposed in order to pay for the extra advertisements that have had to be inserted, but Deputy Mulcahy or any other of the Deputies opposite should be the last to mention that fact. If the Government have to pay for the putting in of advertisement after advertisement in regard to tillage operations, in order to drive out of the people's mind the poison instilled by Deputy Mulcahy and his colleagues with regard to tillage over a number of years——
That matter does not arise.
I respectfully suggest that Deputy Mulcahy spent half an hour at it.
I did not hear Deputy Mulcahy on that matter.
I regret that you, Sir, were not in the House at the time.
I am ruling now on what I do hear.
Yes, and Deputy Mulcahy's argument on this matter definitely was that this extra taxation had to be imposed in order to pay for extra advertisements inserted by the Government in connection with this, that and the other. With regard to the other side of the picture, I have seen some very peculiar things happen in newspapers from time to time. I saw, on one occasion, a half-page advertisement, asking the people to grow wheat, in a certain daily paper, and, in the same paper, an editorial of two columns on the lunacy of growing wheat. In one case the Government was paying for an advertisement, and, in the other, the paper itself was doing its utmost to prevent the Government's advertisement having any effect.
That is nearly as bad as the case Deputy McGilligan quoted a few minutes ago.
I saw those two things in the same paper, and I cannot blame the Department which looks for the advertisement it has paid for and finds that the paper in which that advertisement appears has devoted two columns to endeavouring to prevent that advertisement having any effect, for——
Those advertisements are not relevant to the Resolution.
Two arguments have been put up here——
The Deputy should realise that he is irrelevant.
On a point of order, is Deputy Corry or any other Deputy not entitled to follow the same line as Deputy Mulcahy, and to answer the argument of Deputy Mulcahy?
Even if one Deputy were out of order, bad example should not be followed.
He was not ruled out of order. He spent half an hour pointing out the inefficiency of the Minister for Agriculture.
It is quite outside the scope of debate. Administration of Agriculture Department has got a three days' debate.
On the point of order raised by Deputy Allen, may I say that Deputy Corry is not answering my argument but simply indicating to the House that what I said was true?
Which is not relevant.
The arguments put forward by Deputy Mulcahy—and for which he was not ruled out of order— were definitely that this extra taxation had to be imposed in order to pay for Government advertising of the tillage policy and other matters of that description——
The Deputy is not ruled out of order on that point.
——and that preference was being shown in the distribution of these advertisements as between one daily newspaper and another.
Administration may not be discussed on Financial Resolutions.
I regret that Deputy Mulcahy was not ruled out of order on these arguments. However, I have given the position as I have seen it, and if Deputy Mulcahy thinks that if a newspaper publishes a Government advertisement, for which it is paid, and well paid, and, at the same time, devotes two columns of an editorial to preventing that advertisement having any effect——
That matter is not in order.
Very well, I am quite satisfied.
I object to this tax being put on periodicals that are published inside the State at weekly or lesser intervals. It redounds to the financial credit and betterment of newspapers outside the State but which circulate here. I object to it particularly as I find that some papers published outside the State will be benefited by the passing of the Resolution at the expense of their competitors here, papers which contain information that no paper in this State would be allowed to publish. I have in front of me a paper which, in its issue for March 7th, on one page has an advertisement about fuel from this country, an advertisement with regard to fisheries from this country, an advertisement with regard to dog licences from Northern Ireland, an advertisement about local government from Northern Ireland, and, finally, an advertisement which asks the people to do all they can in a particular way as by doing so they are helping to smash Hitler and win the war, which, of course, no paper in this country would be allowed to publish. All that paper needs is to get some sort of an advertisement from whatever republican group there is in this country and derive revenue from the people concerned, and it will be exempted from the taxation which is applied to home-produced newspapers.
Deputy Corry's national heart will be wrung by hearing that this paper, which is preferentially treated, carries in its issue of April 11th an advertisement as follows:—
"CIVIL AUTHORITIES (SPECIAL POWERS) ACTS (NORTHERN IRELAND) 1922 AND 1933.
Whereas there is reason to believe that assemblies of persons have been or about to be convened for the purpose of holding meetings or processions in Northern Ireland to commemorate the Rebellion of Easter Week, 1916, or for the promotion of the objects of the Irish Republican Army, or any other unlawful association:
And whereas there is reason to apprehend that such assemblies of persons and the holding of such meetings or processions will give rise to grave disorder or conduce to a breach of the peace or promote disaffection and thereby cause undue demands to be made upon the police force:
Now, therefore, I, the Right Honourable Sir Richard Dawson Bates, Bart., D.L., M.P., Minister of Home Affairs for Northern Ireland, being the civil authority under the said Acts, do hereby, in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 4 of the Regulations made under the authority of the above-mentioned Acts, prohibit the holding of any such assemblies, meetings or processions in Northern Ireland during the period from the 9th day of April, 1941, to the 16th day of April, 1941, both dates inclusive.
Given under my hand at Belfast this 7th day of April, 1941.
R. DAWSON BATES,
Minister of Home Affairs
for Northern Ireland,
Civil Authority."
If the Deputy wants anything in the nature of incongruity, that issue of the Derry Journal had laudatory articles with regard to the rebellion of 1916. It did not think it any disgrace to publish a laudation about the rebellion of 1916 and to receive payment for publishing a notice prohibiting meetings in Northern Ireland for that purpose. I object to that type of discrimination. I object also to the further discrimination with regard to advertisements, but that is a matter that can be raised elsewhere. For the reasons I have given I object to this tax being imposed on the home-produced newspapers.
It is interesting to hear Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy McGilligan complaining of discrimination against newspapers. There was a period before those Deputies left office when they had notes on their files not to give advertisements to certain newspapers.
I am not prepared to hear anything further about alleged discrimination against newspapers.
When Deputy Mulcahy was speaking——
Matters of administration should be raised on the Estimate.
When Deputy Mulcahy was speaking——
The Chair is not interested. It is not in order. There are many opportunities on the Estimates.
Deputy McGilligan was making the case that papers outside the State are exempt from tax. Of course, that is not so. The Derry Journal and the other Northern papers which circulate in Donegal, Cavan, and Monaghan are paying two-thirds of a penny in tax. One would imagine that none of the money spent by these newspapers reaches employees in Donegal or other Northern counties. There is a group of newspapers published in Omagh which circulate in Donegal— the Derry People, Fermanagh Herald, etc. Those newspapers expend about £1,000 a year in those areas. The Derry Journal is also responsible for the expenditure of a large sum of money in Donegal by way of payment to local correspondents, newsagents, etc. In that way there is a considerable amount of money spent in Donegal. Deputy McGilligan, I presume, is interested in safeguarding the interests of another paper which may be said to be a rival of the Derry Journal in Donegal. He has not produced a copy of that paper. I challenge him to contradict the statement that that paper carries Government advertisements, and, alongside the Government advertisements, publishes the sort of thing that Deputy Corry was alluding to, namely, leading articles ridiculing the advertisements which it carries.
I should like to see a copy of it.
I can produce several.
Bring them in here. I have brought this in here.
There is not a newspaper in the State which is more critical of Government policy than that paper, and, so far as I know, there has been no discrimination against it.
There were a number of matters raised in the discussion when you, Sir, were not in the Chair, that I gather are not now regarded as being in order.
I make no comment on any other occupant of the Chair and will hear none. I rule as seems right to me, according to my judgment.
I am not objecting to any of your rulings, Sir, but it is rather unfortunate for those who want to reply to some matters that your ruling, Sir, was in a certain direction. In passing I shall only refer to what Deputy Mulcahy said about censorship by saying that he could not object to censorship in principle because he exercised a much more vigorous censorship than anyone else in the country at one period. I will not go into that further; we can develop it at another time, if the Deputy wishes. The Deputy also talked about this Government lavishing money on the newspapers. After the war started, I received a deputation of newspaper managers, Dublin newspaper managers principally, and they complained that this Government had been mean and miserable with regard to advertisements in the newspapers as compared with the last Government. That was one of the statements they made to me, and I imagine they ought to know. Deputy McGilligan is a resourceful man, possibly much more so than I am, and I would be very happy if he would assist me by suggesting how I could tax those papers that are printed across the border. I would be very glad to get tax revenue out of them.
What about the tax the Minister has withdrawn? What about the tax on the weeklies and the tri-weeklies?
I think the Deputy would agree with me in this if it were shown to him, that the tax on these imported newspapers—the tax plus the difficulties in transport since the war— had resulted in a loss of 60 per cent. of their trade. The case made by the distributors of these newspapers here was that this further tax, plus the still continuing transport difficulties, would end the chances of any of these newspapers being imported in the ordinary way, and would kill their ordinary trade. I am sure the Deputy would not wish to kill it. That was the case that was put to me, and I agreed to forego the tax.
If the trade in the foreign newspapers has been so reduced, is there not a case then for the Minister to go in for greater economies in the amount spent on advertising?
That, too, is a matter for administration.
From the figures that I have seen, I believe this Government has been much more economical than the last Government in the matter of advertising.
The Book of Estimates is a bit of a delusion.
I do not know that the Book of Estimates tells exactly what is going for advertisements.
Has the Minister the figures for advertising?
I have not.
Well, we will ask a question about it.
As the Deputy knows, the debate to-day does not end the discussion on this matter. I believe it to be a fact that at least as great generosity in the way of advertisements was displayed by the last Government towards the newspapers as has been displayed at any time by this Government.
And the Minister is saying that without having the figures.
That was the statement made to me by the newspaper managers when I met them—the statement requesting that we should be more generous to them.
That is the daily papers.
Yes. I agree with Deputy Cosgrave that it is possible this tax may mean some unemployment. That applies, I think, to every tax. There is practically no tax that this Government, or any Government, imposes that does not affect the employment position in some way or another. I do not know to what extent this will affect employment. I believe it will affect it to some extent. That is regrettable. I would like to be able to get in some other way the £100,000 or the £120,000 that we may get this year. Some may regard that as a small sum. To my mind it is a considerable sum. I would be particularly happy if I could get it in any other way that would not cause the unemployment of a single individual. In reply to Deputy O'Sullivan's question, the imported dailies are still subject to a duty of two-thirds of a penny. The tax on the home papers will be one-third of a penny.
There is no tax on the tri-weeklies at all.
No.
Is there any other paper except the Derry Journal a tri-weekly?
Yes.
Where?
One is the Waterford News.
A foreign newspaper.
Surely Derry, where the Deputy comes from, is not a foreign place.
Is there any paper produced outside the national territory, which is a tri-weekly, except the Derry Journal?
I do not know.
