Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 29 Oct 1947

Vol. 108 No. 7

Financial Resolution No. 8—Excise.

Mr. Aiken

I move that the Dáil agree with the Committee in Resolution No. 8:—

(1) That, on and after the 16th day of January, 1948, sub-section (5) of Section 25 of the Finance Act, 1932 (No. 20 of 1932), shall have effect as if, for the rates inserted therein by sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1947 (No. 15 of 1947), there were substituted the following rates, that is to say:—

				Rate of Duty.
Where the payment for admission, excluding duty,
s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.
exceeds 0	4 and does not exceed	0	5	0	3
,, 0	5,, ,,	0	6	0	4
,, 0	6,, ,,	0	8	0	6
,, 0	8,, ,,	1	0	0	9
,, 1	0,, ,,	1	3	1	0
,, 1	3,, ,,	1	9	1	6
,, 1	9,, ,,	2	3	2	3
,, 2	3,, ,,	3	0	3	0
,, 3	0,, ,,	4	0	4	0
,, 4	0			4	0 for
				the first 4s. and 4s. for every additiona 4s. or part of 4s.

(2) That, on and after the 16th day of January, 1948, sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Finance Act, 1936 (No. 31 of 1936), shall have effect as if, for the rates inserted therein by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1947, there were substituted the following rates, that is to say:—

				Rate of Duty.
Where the payment for admission, excluding duty,
s.	d.	s.	d.	s.	d.
exceeds 0	4 and does not exceed	0	5	0	3
0	5 ,, ,,	0	6	0	4
,, 0	6 ,, ,,	0	6½	0	5½
,, 0	6½ ,, ,,	0	8	0	8
,, 0	8 ,, ,,	0	10	0	10
,, 0	10 ,, ,,	1	1	1	3
,, 1	1 ,, ,,	1	4	1	8
,, 1	4 ,, ,,	1	6	2	0
,, 1	6 ,, ,,	1	9	2	6
,, 1	9 ,, ,,	2	0	3	0
,, 2	0 ,, ,,	3	0	4	6
,, 3	0 ,, ,,	4	0	6	0
,, 4	0			6	0 for
				the first 4s. and 6s. for every additional 4s. or part of 4s.

(3) That paragraph (c) of sub-section (3) of Section 11 of the Finance Act, 1936 (No. 31 of 1936), shall, as respects entertainments duty (within the meaning of the said Section 11) paid on payments, made on or after the 16th day of January, 1948, for admission to an entertainment in any such theatre as is mentioned in the said sub-section (3), have effect as if, for the words "thirty per cent. of the said duty" (inserted by sub-section (3) of Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1947), there were substituted the words "fifteen per cent. of the said duty."

Mr. Morrissey

I want to oppose this fresh imposition. I do not share the view that is taken, apparently, by certain sections to be the popular view, that the cinema is an unmitigated evil and that people should be discouraged from attending. I do not subscribe for one moment to what we often hear said by certain people in this House and very often hear from the Bench, that whatever demoralisation there is in the country, and particularly amongst the youth, can be traced directly and entirely to the influence of the cinema.

I look upon the average cinematograph performance as a very legitimate type—and prior to this year a very cheap type—of enjoyment for our people, and particularly for the poorer sections. I remember many years ago seeing in Dublin Opinion a drawing of a cinema in the back streets of the city and a queue of obviously very poor people, in clothing that was rather ragged, waiting for admission; and there was just one word under the drawing—“Escape”. To a great many people in our cities and towns, a cheap seat in a warm, comfortable cinema for two and a half or three hours is two and a half or three hours' escape from the sordid conditions under which they have to live at home.

Remember the additional taxes, which it is sought to impose under this Resolution that we are now considering, are not confined to the more expensive seats in the cinema. Proportionately, the tax on the cheapest of the seating is higher and, needless to mention, will bear more heavily on those who are forced to occupy the cheapest seats. Where the payment for admission does not exceed 5d., the rate of duty is to be 3d.; where it does not exceed 6d., the duty is to be 4d.; where it does not exceed 8d., the duty is to be 6d., and where it does not exceed 1/- the duty is to be 9d. I venture to say that there are very few members in this House who have occupied a cheaper seat than a shilling one. If the Minister tried to make a case for this particular imposition, he would find it hard to do so. It is hard to justify it, particularly on the very cheapest seats. It is all right for the Minister to say that those people need not go, just as he said they can drink a pint or a bottle of stout less in the week or smoke a packet less cigarettes or an ounce less tobacco. The people are entitled to some relaxation after a day's work and, even if we have to mulct posterity, whatever relaxation the poor have ought not to be further restricted. People who are compelled by their financial circumstances to go into the 5d., 6d. and 8d. seats have not a choice of a wide variety of enjoyments, fixtures or functions.

I venture to say—and I can speak with some knowledge and authority on this matter—that after labouring in a working-class home from 7 o'clock in the morning to 12 o'clock at night, struggling to rear a family on a wage that cannot keep pace with the cost of living, a woman's sole relaxation is perhaps one visit, or two at the outside, to the local cinema each week. Surely, a woman who is working in surroundings which some of us can visualise, from one end of the week to the other, Sunday and Monday, providing for her husband and her family, is entitled to some relaxation, without being penalised in the way proposed in this Resolution.

I do not look upon the cinema, certainly as regards the cheaper seats, as being a luxury. Unless the very poor, those who are struggling from one end of the year to the other to make ends meet, on a comparatively low wage, are to be deprived entirely of any little enjoyment, we should not seek to impose this particular tax on them. I am just as much opposed to this, even more opposed to it, than to some of the other taxes.

Mr. Everett

I want to raise the question of an agreement arrived at between some of the cinema operators and the Revenue Commissioners, to increase the tax for the cheapest seats in picture houses. I think that last year, in that case, permission for an increase by 2d. was given. Under this Budget, is the Minister going to sanction a further increase now? Is he going to sanction a further increase now in the arrangement between the Revenue Commissioners and these people in regard to the cheaper seats to compel the people to pay 8d. instead of 6d.?

Mr. Aiken

In answer to Deputy Everett's question, it is not the Revenue Commissioners who fix the price of seats in cinemas. What we are doing in this Resolution is that if a certain amount is charged for a seat the tax will be the amount set out in the Schedule.

Deputy Morrissey says that the tax on the cheaper seats is proportionately higher than the tax on the dearer seats. That is not so. The tax on the very cheap seats is nil. Up to 4d. it is nothing.

Mr. Morrissey

Are there any seats under 4d.?

Mr. Aiken

Yes.

Mr. Morrissey

Where?

Mr. Aiken

Here in the city.

Mr. Morrissey

I never heard of them. God knows they must be grand.

Mr. Aiken

The tax starts under the new scale at 37½ per cent. and goes up-gradually to 60 per cent. on the higher seats.

Mr. Morrissey

Perhaps I did not put what I meant to say as clearly as I should have. What I meant to say was that the 37½ per cent. tax would bear more heavily on the people who occupy the cheaper seats than a 60 per cent. tax would on the people in the more expensive seats.

Question put and declared carried.