There will be gaps. As a matter of fact, it is rather amusing to recall that to a certain extent the Minister and I, although we were on different sides of the House at the time of the 1947 Bill, more or less joined forces in pointing out some of these difficulties. If the Minister looks at Volume 108, column 1926, of the Official Reports he will see that he virtually agreed with the people who said at the time that the complexities of the scheme were such that evasion was practically unavoidable. In reply to me, where I said, "You could not draft anything comprehensive enough to do that", the Minister said:—
"There you are again. The Minister must recognise that argument of his own Deputies, that if you drafted a bookful of amendments you could not prevent the evasion of the 25 per cent. Is that not what it comes to? Then we are going to tax the foreigner. Before this ends I want to give the Minister a three-mark question: What is an Irish citizen? Can he tell me?"
Similar remarks could apply to the 5 per cent. tax. Here is the Minister, in spite of the fact that he must obviously acutely recognise the difficulties that he is up against, bringing in this very complex legislation. It is going to increase administrative costs in the sense of the costs of the client. It is going to increase his legal costs quite apart from the duty. It is going to make it very difficult, indeed, for him to be certain where he stands and certainly it is going to lead to evasion and to legal ingenuity to achieve further evasion. I think that is indisputable. Coupled with the fact that there is no longer a case for imposing 5 per cent. on our own people and coupled with the housing matter I mentioned, it seems to me to be a sufficient argument to induce the Minister to reject this and to approach it rather from the point of view of leaving the law as it was for Irish citizens and concentrating on the question of the 25 per cent. on the foreigner who might come in to buy a property.
While I am on that subject a further matter occurs to me. It follows, I think, directly from what Deputy Sweetman said. It also follows from the point that I raised on the 1947 Act, a point which I have never quite resolved to my own satisfaction, that is the question of the definition of the word "person" in sub-section (4) of Section 24, and of the word "person" in the corresponding section of the 1947 Act.
When I asked the question before I think the Minister characterised it a a six-mark one, and invited the then Minister to answer it. May I return the invitation now? The question is what exactly is the content of the word "person" in the section? I need no repeat all I said then. Deputy Sweetman has also brought in this question of the word "person" in reference to the Control of Manufactures Act, 1934. Not only is there the question of evasion within the terms of this section as it stands, but it brings in the whole question of evasion indirectly within the meaning of the Control of Manufactures Act. Now, on another occasion I think it was to the Minister for Industry and Commerce that I expressed concern. I mentioned a specific case where the Control of Manufactures Act was being evaded under a stimulus that did not exist before the war, a specific instance where by means of certain devices that Act itself was being evaded. I followed that a step further in relation to this Act. For the purpose of my argument I take the case of a foreign citizen who, by devices, is evading the terms of the Control of Manufactures Act. Through that evasion, and under the legal guise afforded him by the Act, he is carrying on business here. He is, therefore, a person lawfully carrying on business, provided the evasion is legal, which is the case in the particular instance I am thinking of within the Control of Manufactures Act. By means of this section, in the case of any conveyance or any kind of thing captured by the section, you then have a double evasion.
Now, where is that kind of thing going to stop? The root cause of it is the complexity of the section, the setting out to do what is, to some extent, an impracticable job—at least making that approach to it—and then the determination to press that impracticality to the utmost limit.
I sympathise with the Minister in his desire to get revenue. I agree with him in principle that if there is a loophole in the law it has to be closed. I have no quarrel with him on that point. If the desire is to maintain the position under the 1947 Act, then, from that point of view, the Minister did right in bringing in the section. On the other hand, he might find it desirable, if he wanted to exempt house property of the type I have mentioned, simply to have left that loophole and legalise it, so to speak, by hedging it around and by directing it into the channels where he would achieve the object he wanted to achieve. Recognising all that, one has the feeling that if it does not lead to litigation, this part of the Act will lead to expense and, to some extent, will be a brake on the transfers of ordinary house property between citizens. It will certainly tend, I think, to increase legal costs. It seems to me that it is going to involve, ultimately, investigations of title and advice on title that normally would not have taken place before. Again, that is an expense connected with title, and it will not even benefit lawyers, I think. The additional work and trouble that will be involved will hardly be a compensation for the additional money. In other words, the client will probably have spent more money and will get more advice, but the amount of work and research involved will hardly pay the people who are giving that advice.
There are a number of other points that I would like to speak on, but I think it is futile to do so. I have no intention of delaying the Minister or the House with them. But, while on the question of houses for Irish citizens and of transfers, there is another aspect of the case that I think should be considered. I think the 1 per cent. should be reverted to in the case of ordinary house property owned by ordinary citizens. This is not only a question of initially acquiring a house by a citizen who very often may require it. The house is his property. It is an asset the citizen has, and an important item of capital to be realised on certain occasions. In that sense the value of that property should not be touched at the present time. Take the case of a civil servant, in one of the numerous grades, who owns a house and dies. The house is probably the biggest asset he has. The widow may not be able to afford to live in it after his death and she realises that asset. Why should the conveyance, arising out of that set of circumstances, attract the highest duty in the present circumstances, quite apart from the question of the initial acquisition of houses by people who want to live in them? The acquisition of a house is an acute problem to-day. If such a house becomes vacant and is available to be bought, why should we put up a duty of this nature, and why should the costs of a citizen in respect of that house be increased, especially at a time when we are subsidising housing?
In the case of house property, anyway, I think there is really something for the Minister to consider reverting to the 1 per cent. In the case of an Irish citizen who has house property. I would strongly oppose this proposal. From the administrative point of view, that type of property should give no difficulty. It should be the easiest thing in the world to find out who owns it—the deeds can be got. It will not be owned by a corporation or by people who cannot be checked, and the citizenship can easily be determined and other relevant facts can equally be determined. There should be no administrative difficulty, no trouble in segregating them into a separate class, if necessary. True, there is no amendment down to cover that point. I merely throw out the suggestion as a subject for consideration and as a specific ground why I think this proposal should not pass. To parse that part of the Bill section by section would be a useless job and it would mean unnecessarily delaying the time of the House. I do not intend to do it.
