Amendment No. 2 was being discussed.
Committee on Finance. - Finance Bill, 1952—Committee Stage (Resumed).
SECTION 13 (Resumed).
I think the amendment may be put.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 66; Níl, 54.
Tá
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neil T.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Philip A.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Brennan, Joseph.
- Brennan, Thomas.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Butler, Bernard.
- Carter, Frank.
- Childers, Erskine.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Colley, Harry.
- Collins, James J.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Cowan, Peadar.
- Crowley, Honor Mary.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Cunningham, Liam.
- Davern, Michael J.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- De Valera, Vivion.
- Duignan, Peadar.
- Fanning, John.
- Flanagan, Seán.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Gallagher, Colm.
- Gilbride, Eugene.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hillery, Patrick J.
- Hilliard, Michael.
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Kennedy, Michael J.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Lynch, Jack (Cork Borough).
- McCann, John.
- MacCarthy, Seán.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McEntee, Seán.
- McGrath, Patrick.
- Maguire, Patrick J.
- Maher, Peadar.
- Moran, Michael.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Ormonde, John.
- O'Sullivan, Ted.
- Rice, Bridget M.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Mary B.
- Sheldon, William A.W.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Thomas.
Níl
- Belton, John.
- Browne, Patrick.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Cafferky, Dominick.
- Coburn, James.
- Collins, Seán.
- Corish, Brendan.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Crotty, Patrick J.
- Crowe, Patrick.
- Davin, William.
- Desmond, Daniel.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry P.
- Donnellan, Michael.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Anthony C.
- Everett, James.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finan, John.
- Flanagan, Oliver J.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hession, James M.
- Hickey, James.
- Hughes, Joseph.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Kyne, Thomas A.
- Larkin, James.
- Lynch, John (North Kerry)
- MacBride, Seán.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Mannion, John.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, Michael P.
- Murphy, William.
- Norton, William.
- O'Gorman, Patrick J.
- O'Hara, Thomas.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F.
- O'Higgins, Thomas F. (Jun.).
- O'Leary, Johnny.
- O'Rielly, Patrick.
- O'Sullivan, Denis.
- Palmer, Patrick W.
- Reidy, James.
- Reynolds, Mary.
- Roddy, Joseph.
- Rogers, Patrick J.
- Rooney, Eamon.
- Spring, Dan.
- Sweetman, Gerard.
- Tully, John.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Ó Briain and Killilea; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Breanndán MacFheórais.
Amendment declared carried.
Question—"That Section 13, as amended, stand part of the Bill"— put and declared carried.
SECTION 14.
Question proposed: "That Section 14 stand part of the Bill."
Section 14 enshrines what one may describe as the most obnoxious and disreputable part of this Finance Bill. In view of the interjected assertions made yesterday by the Minister for Finance, it might be well to preface the discussion on this section by repeating verbatim to the House the letter which appears at column 1473 of the Official Debates of the 3rd April, 1952. It will be recollected that the Minister yesterday attempted to disown any connection with the dance-hall proprietors. The letter reads as follows:—
"Miss K. Morris,
Secretary,
Irish Ballroom Proprietors'
Association,
c/o Olympic Ballroom Company,
Pleasants Street,
Dublin.
A Chara,
I have received your letter of May 6th which has been considered by the Fianna Fáil Party Committee. The committee's view is that the entertainments duty on dances is an undesirable tax. As to its abolition in the present financial year, however, a decision must necessarily await the detailed examination of the Budget introduced in the Dáil immediately prior to its dissolution, but it would be the intention of the Fianna Fáil Party to repeal it as soon as practicable."
That has been done.
Now we shall read the letter of Miss Morris of the Ballroom Proprietors' Association. It might even supply an artificial toe for the Deputy.
On a point of order. I am waiting until the Deputy permits me to put the point of order.
Not a point of interruption, is it?
No, a point of order. Is it in order to read this letter, for which no Minister has any responsibility? Is it relevant to the matter under discussion to read this letter?
Of course, it is.
It is a letter, I understand, from an association purporting to represent dance-hall proprietors?
Yes.
There is a section in this Bill which proposes to terminate the entertainment duty upon dance halls as such. Therefore, it is relevant.
Of course, the Minister knows it is relevant, but just to make it more relevant——
Perhaps the Deputy would allow the Minister to make his point?
Therefore it will be relevant to read any correspondence relating to the entertainments duty?
It is from an organisation purporting to represent the dance-hall proprietors.
It is signed by Seán F. Lemass, the present Tánaiste.
I fear I have not made my point clear. A letter written by a Deputy of this House in relation to a matter which was clearly the business of the House would be relevant when the particular matter was under discussion, but, Sir, the letter which Deputy Collins now proposes to read is not written by a Deputy. It is written by another person over whom no Deputy in this House has any control.
Any letter written to a Deputy in this House in connection with this tax is relevant.
Even if it did not elicit a reply?
She is the nigger in the wood-pile so far as you are concerned.
Try to be a bit decent.
I rule it is relevant, but it has been read so often in this House that I must rule that repetition is not in order in this House. I shall allow it to be read on this occasion, but on other occasions I shall apply the rule regarding repetition.
Lest we offend the ordered susceptibilities of the Minister for Finance, let us revert to the filthy bargain in regard to which the excited but satisfied Miss Morris writes to the ballroom proprietors indicating to them the good fellowship and paternal solicitude of the Fianna Fáil Party, indicating that she wants an immediate response, that the response must be in the shape of financial aid, generous financial aid, and that already one doughty warrior had headed the list with a subscription of £250. Many more had promised equal and larger sums, and therefore she asks those whom she addresses to subscribe generously to this organisation. In a Budget imposing a catastrophic burden on the poorer sections of the community she has this one glimmer of relief, this one touch of glory in the abolition of the dance tax. For what purpose? The purpose has already been clearly stated since the Minister made the announcement. The poor dance-hall proprietors do not intend to pass on the relief to the dancing public. "Oh, no, munificent and paternal stepfather, the Fianna Fáil Party has given us an opportunity to reimburse ourselves for coming to their aid by way of a subscription to the Party funds, to reimburse us to the tune of £140,000 per annum, in case there may be any further tribulations before us." Not one halfpenny of the remission in this section goes to anybody but the proprietors of the dance halls, and they have already emphatically indicated that there will be no reduction, good, bad, or indifferent, to the dancing public.
Let us go in for the Minister's charming doctrine of estimation; underestimation when it serves the purpose, overestimation when it serves the purpose. But let us take a reasonable mien of estimation, and take it that 140 big dance-hall proprietors are affected. They get a remission of approximately £1,000 per head per year. Take that on the basis of even a 5 per cent. contribution to their munificent new stepfather, and you get some idea of how the coffers of the last general election were filled, and how the coffers of the pending election are likely to be filled.
What about the other dance halls which are not privately owned?
You poor old gossoon, will you keep quiet? You have been given a job you were never suited for.
I must ask Deputy Collins not to make references of that kind which are undesirable and unsuitable.
With respect, when somebody interrupts he provokes what he gets.
It has no reference whatever to the matter under discussion.
It certainly was not a personal interruption.
We are entitled to put on view before the Irish public the completely shady and disreputable background to the removal of this tax. It is a sordid political bargain made at a stage when the Party making it could not conceive their return to office and fulfilled under circumstances that bring public life into a "new low" of degradation. On the general Budget resolution, I deliberately quoted verbatim from date to signature all these letters. In case anybody thought I was trying to twist, misquote or misuse extracts, I quoted them in toto. The Minister has been invited time after time to deny what is revealed in all its naked implications in these letters and he has not been able to do so. But some of the hardy warriors behind him have made excuses and said that the tax was difficult to collect, that it was difficult to do this, that and the other.
I have adverted before to the fact that in this section the Exchequer is gratuitously throwing away £140,000 which, limited amount as it is, could have gone a long way to satisfy some of the irritating demands that Deputy Breathnach knows about of the old pensioned teachers and that Deputy Colley knows about of the Old I.R.A. men and all the other little pin pricks which have been causing irritation here over the years. Is there any justification other than a sordid political one, with dance crowds bigger than ever, with the earnings of dance halls bigger than ever, for the remission of this tax?
I do not want to labour this. It has already been held forth as one of the most disedifying episodes we have had over a long period. It is shabby, but it is in harmony with those who conceived the idea of giving the concession. It is a miserable bargain, a sordid bargain. It is something to which a salutary answer will be given in July, because no matter what difficulties we may have to face—and the Minister has painted a gloomy enough picture—there is nobody insane enough to think, in face of that published correspondence, in face of the evasion and the absence of denial, that there is not the smell of political intrigue and graft behind this Section 14.
I do not think it will be seriously challenged even by members of the Fianna Fáil Party that this is the toughest Budget this House has seen for the past 30 years. At one fell blow this Budget imposes new taxes on such staple articles of food as tea, sugar, bread, butter, flour and on such near necessaries as tobacco and beverages, having regard to the pattern of life of our people. All these additional taxes are being imposed on the plea that it is imperative, that these taxes are indispensable, that they represent the grim economic and fiscal position which the nation has reached and that nothing else but these taxes will rescue the nation from the difficult financial and economic position in which it is to-day.
That is the plea made by the Fianna Fáil Party. That is the plea for making poor people living below the subsistence line, the under-privileged and the almost submerged classes endure a Budget of this kind. They are asked to pay more out of their slender resources for tea, sugar, bread, butter and flour because they are told it is necessary that the nation must extract this tribute from their meagre resources in order that the nation may live and enjoy its independence of foreign Powers.
Yet in a Budget which demands these sacrifices we set out to give a donation of £1,000,000 to the tobacco manufacturers and we propose to give a gift of £140,000 to dance-hall proprietors. Let us forget this smelly and indecent correspondence which took place between the Fianna Fáil Party and the Secretary of the Dance-hall Proprietors' Association. Let us put that aside and not use it for the purpose of this discussion. Let us judge the Budget on its merits, put on one side the sacrifices it imposes on the masses of the people, many of them living below the subsistence level, and at the same time put on the other side the gift of £140,000 to dance-hall Proprietors. Is there any justification, when we are imposing such heavy burdens on backs quite incapable of bearing them, that we should at the same time give such a substantial gift to a small section of the community who clearly have demonstrated by their assets that they are in no sense in a comparable position with the masses of the people who will be asked to bear heavy burdens under this Budget? I saw a large dance-hall last week, outside which there was a mile and a half of motor cars, bumper to bumper. I made inquiries apropos this tax. I asked how many people patronised that dance-hall. I was told by people who had an interest in the hall that in the winter season the crowd is not as great as it is in the summer season. I was told that they take 2,000 people a night into this ballroom. When one reckons that up — 5/-, 7/6 or 10/- a night — and the auxiliary business that is done in association with a dance-hall — I think no fair-minded man can avoid coming to the conclusion that dance-hall proprietors are not a needy section of our people, and that in any case they are not first in the queue for economic or financial relief, having regard to what this Budget is doing in relation to large masses of our people.
We are taxing the old-age pensioner under the Budget. He has to live on tea, bread, butter and sugar. Those commodities represent meat and fish for him as well as bread and tea and butter and sugar. Tea, bread, butter and sugar are the commodities which he uses at all his meals because his meals in the main consist of these commodities. We will make him pay more and on to his miserable pittance of £1 per week we propose to add 1/6 to compensate him for the increased price of bread, butter, tea, sugar and flour and to compensate him also for the increased cost of tobacco and the increased cost of his bottle of beer or his half-glass of whiskey. To offset all that he will get 1/6 compensation. Presumably the reason why he cannot get more than 1/6 is because the country cannot afford to give him more than 1/6.
Does it not seem a vicious contradiction judged merely on the level of equity that we cannot give more than 18 pence per week compensation to an old-age pensioner while at the same time we can give a gift of £140,000 per year to the dance-hall proprietors? Is there any equity in that? Is there any element of fair play? Is there any attempt to reconcile the ideologícal factors which operate throughout the Budget when we grind down the masses of the people by compelling them to pay higher prices for foodstuffs and at the same time pick out the tobacco manufacturer and the dance-hall proprietor for reliefs — reliefs which the dance-hall proprietor class never dreamt it would get under this legislation?
I want to argue this on the basis of levels. There is a smell about these levels that I do not like. Probably there is an explanation for this provision exempting dance-hall proprietors from entertainment tax under this Finance Bill and under the Budget. Will some of the Fianna Fáil Deputies tell the House and the country why in a Budget that makes the masses of the people pay more for their food we should give a gift of £140,000 to the dance-hall proprietors? There is no sense of equity in a Budget which gives a gift of that dimension to dance halls while at the same time compelling unfortunate old age pensioners and other submerged, or partially submerged, classes to bear the burden of the impact which this Budget will have on their simple domestic lives. Is it fair to expect the poor old age pensioner to be compensated by throwing him 18 pence for seven days, less than threepence a day? Is it fair to say to him: "There is your threepence; that is your compensation now for the fact that tea, bread, butter, sugar, tobacco and beer have gone up in price; there is your threepence; you cannot get any more than threepence under this legislation; you cannot get any more than threepence from this Government because this Government wants to give a gift to the tobacco manufacturers and the dance-hall proprietors?"
It is an outrageous concept of justice that in a Finance Bill which is imposing the toughest burden our people have had to bend their backs to bear for the past 30 years we should select the dance-hall proprietors as an object of compassion in a House which, apparently, if it passes this Bill, has nothing but a shocking disregard for the sufferings that many people will endure if this Bill is put through in its present form.
I have listened to Deputy Norton speaking and I think his language was worthy of a better subject. We are discussing here the removal of the tax on dancing. Considerable play has been made by Deputy S. Collins and others with a document which, apparently, was circulated by some secretary of an association of dance-hall proprietors. One would think that at the last general election the question of the views of the majority of the members of this House was in some doubt. This tax was reimposed in 1948 by Deputy McGilligan.
Mr. O'Higgins
1949.
At that time there was considerable opposition to it. There was strong opposition from the members of the Fianna Fáil Party. There was strong opposition from the members of Clann na Poblachta. In 1950 it again came before Dáil Éireann and it was debated at considerable length on two amendments, one tabled by Deputy Aiken and the other by Deputy Fitzpatrick. Deputy Fitzpatrick was a member of Clann na Poblachta. Deputy Davin, a member of the Labour Party, expressed very specific views in relation to this tax. He referred to it as an unpopular and irritating type of tax. At column 1691 of Volume 121 of the Official Report he said:—
"I opposed this unpopular and irritating type of tax when it was originally imposed by Deputy MacEntee when he was Minister for Finance in the Fianna Fáil Government. I argued in favour of its abolition last year because it was, like every new tax which was imposed, unpopular, and because I thought it was a very irritating type of tax in the way I know it to be administered in some parts of the country."
Deputy Davin proceeded to discuss the question at some length, but eventually he voted for the continuance of the tax.
Mr. O'Higgins
As did Deputy Cowan.
I put a completely different point of view. In fact, I supported Deputy Fitzpatrick on an alternative form of tax which I suggested. In 1949 and 1950 the question of this tax was a live issue in this House. It was debated at length in both these years. Many Deputies here received deputations representing dance-hall proprietors, musicians, and representatives of workers engaged in the dance-halls. It was brought home very clearly to us, and we so put it to the Minister, that the continuance of the tax meant less employment in the dance-halls because dancing is, to a large extent in our cities and, anyway, in our big towns, an industry. One cannot get away from that. There are quite a number of people employed in and about dance-halls. One may laugh at that.
An industrial revival?
It is a fact that many people are employed in and about dance halls as musicians and as members of the staff.
And as chuckers-out.
And as chuckers-out, perhaps, though I have no experience of that. That case was made here, and it was as clear as a pikestaff. I see Deputy Dillon laughing.
I am laughing at the Fianna Fáil faces listening to your defence of the dance tax. They are getting gloomier and gloomier.
I think that whatever expressions are on Fianna Fáil faces are probably due to the fact that they are admiring the countenance of Deputy Dillon.
I must be a very depressing spectacle.
The case was made here at that time that unemployment was being created by this dancing tax. Deputy Fitzpatrick and myself— Deputy Fitzpatrick was a dance-hall proprietor and, in fact, became chairman of the organisation of dance-hall proprietors that was formed simply and solely because of the tax—made very strong representations in this House that the tax should be removed.
That is the organisation of which Miss K. Morris is the secretary.
Apparently.
Mr. O'Higgins
Even though this Government could not be bought?
I am not sure whether any price was offered.
Mr. O'Higgins
It was offered and accepted by the present Government.
This association of dance-hall proprietors undoubtedly made a case through Deputies of this House for the abolition of this tax.
A very strong case, backed by £250.
We will come to that. So that, whether there were subscriptions sent to Fianna Fáil or to anybody else, it was as clear as could be that when Fianna Fáil became the Government they would remove this tax. They had imposed it themselves. They found it an unsuccessful tax and they removed it. Deputy McGilligan restored it. I do not think there was any doubt whatever in the minds of the dance-hall proprietors that when there was a change of Government this tax would be removed.
None at all.
Deputies profess to see something extraordinarily wrong in an organisation contributing to a political Party. It is being done every year. Very substantial sums are being paid to political organisations by organisations for one purpose or another. I know that in the case of the Labour Party, while I was there, there were substantial sums of money paid by trade unions to the Labour Party.
Mr. O'Higgins
For tax exemptions?
And those subscriptions were paid so that the Labour Party in this House would fight for certain claims of the Trade Union Congress. I know, from my own personal experience in 1948, that substantial sums were received from the licensed trade and from publicans because of the promises that we made then that the taxes on beer and spirits imposed under the Supplementary Budget would be removed if there was a change of Government as a result of the election. Now those are the facts. There is no doubt whatever about them.
Is the Deputy suggesting that the Labour Party received these subscriptions?
I did not say that. I said that substantial sums were contributed to political parties by the licensed trade and by publicans on the very clear and precise promise that was made—that if a change of Government could be brought about those taxes imposed by the Supplementary Budget would be removed.
The Deputy can rest assured that they did not send their subscriptions to the Labour Party.
I do not think that the equity of associations contributing to political Parties arises on this section.
That is the whole kernel of the attack which is being made: that this alteration in the entertainment duty has been made because of subscriptions received by the Fianna Fáil Party.
When we have a letter before us from the Tánaiste, in reply to a promise of a political subscription, it is relevant.
There are other letters, too, including the one that Deputy Cowan is coming to.
I only want to make the point that there ought to be——
Has Deputy Cowan a letter that you know about?
——a certain amount of common sense in our approach to this problem. No political Party will refuse subscriptions at election time. At least, I am not aware of any up to date.
The Deputy has wide experience.
Everyone who gives a subscription hopes that some benefit will accrue therefrom. Even if a person subscribes to Deputy Dillon's election fund, he may hope that some benefit will accrue therefrom.
These are noble sentiments. Shades of Grattan and Kendal Bushe!
Of course, Deputy Dillon is the man to understand the nobility.
If Grattan does not get off his pedestal in College Green, it will be a miracle.
These are the facts, and Deputy Dillon knows them as well as I and every other Deputy in the House. It was clear that subscriptions were paid to Fianna Fáil by the dance-hall proprietors so that this tax would be removed. It has been removed, and we are now giving the legislative approval to that removal. In 1949 and in 1950 many Deputies in this House, for many reasons, opposed the tax. The tax amounts to approximately £100,000.
Mr. O'Higgins
It amounts to £140,000. It is enough to increase military service pensions.
The tax amounts to £140,000. I am perfectly certain that we would have heard the same criticisms of the Minister if he put on that tax as we are now hearing because he took it off. The tax was originally imposed in 1939. I did not bother to go back as far as that date, but I am perfectly certain it was violently opposed then by Deputies in this House. It was removed, I think, in 1946, and there was a sigh of relief. Now, however, the case is being made that if that tax were retained old age pensioners could be paid an increase and that the Old I.R.A. could be paid an increase. That is the point Deputy O'Higgins made, and there is no sense in it; that £100,000 could not increase old age pensions.
Mr. O'Higgins
I did not say that. I said that Old I.R.A. pensioners and military service pensioners could be paid an increase if the tax were retained.
Their pensions could be increased by exactly one-fourth.
Give the man time to get his breath after that.
This tax was imposed on dancing only in particular areas; it was not a tax on dancing all over the country. Any village with a population of less than 500 had not to pay the tax.
The man is as good as a play.
I do not know what is wrong with Deputy Dillon. I heard some references being made to horse medicine last night. Perhaps the Deputy may have taken some.
As I said, this tax was imposed in parts of the country only and, in addition, it was evaded in many areas. It was a tax which resulted in the loss of employment by musicians and by staff employed in dance halls. As Deputy Davin said, it was an irritating tax, and that was also the view of everybody else. There is something unfair about an irritating tax which only affects part of the country. Would Deputy Dillon tell us where is the fairness or the equity in a tax applicable to a dance held in a place with a population of 501 persons, which does not apply to a place having a population of 499 persons.
Mr. O'Higgins
That is a case for extending the tax.
It is not a case for extending the tax. It is a case for the removal of an unfair and inequitable tax.
I would not like to prevent Deputy Dillon from repeating the speech which he made yesterday. I know he is anxious to get going on it and to read again this letter which we have heard read so often in the course of this debate. However, I feel that if Deputies looked on this tax in the way it should be regarded—from the point of view of equity—they would be satisfied that it should be removed. If they looked at it from the point of view that it caused unemployment, that it led to evasion and that it caused people to break the law in many parts of the country, they would agree with its removal.
I know a number of clubs and organisations in Dublin that run dances once or twice a year, usually for two purposes, one as a social venture for their own members and the second as a means of raising funds for an athletic club, a football club or for some such purpose.
Surely the tax would not apply in the former case? It would not apply if a club were running a dance for its own members.
It only applies if it is a public dance.
As I said above, clubs here in Dublin run dances once or twice a year for two purposes; they run a dance as a social venture for their members. They run another dance for the purpose of raising funds —in other words, a local dance open to anybody who wishes to pay. This dance served two purposes. However, it is found that when the cost of the dance hall, the band and the tax is paid, that there is nothing left for the funds of the club. That is the experience of people endeavouring to run dances for the purpose of maintaining hurling, football and athletic clubs and even to help cut political organisations. Every Deputy in this House was aware that the person who is standing at the door of a dance hall with a bundle of tax tickets in his hand is very careful, where he is trying to make a few pounds, about the people to whom he gives tax tickets. That is happening everywhere, and there is no use in one trying to conceal the fact.
That happens on the Border, too, but we cannot do much about it.
It is happening everywhere where the dance tax is in operation. Those members of a club or an organisation who are running a dance are very careful with the tax tickets; they do not give them all out, but they retain some of them and have a particular excuse ready if some official from the Department of Finance or from the Revenue Department comes in to inspect the place. Does anyone suggest that this is a desirable practice? It is anything but desirable. Clubs have been put into that position so as to maintain their own little organisations. This practice has been adopted by political organisations, by athletic organisations, by football clubs and by hurling clubs and by all other kinds of organisations. I maintain that a dance tax that has that result is a bad tax from the point of view of the country. I maintain that, if it cannot be enforced 100 per cent., it should be removed altogether.
This argument would also advocate the removal of the Decalogue.
And income-tax.
The first thing that ought to go is the Ten Commandments.
If that is happening——
That is what is happening.
——Parliament must take note of these things. It takes over £100,000,000 to run the State, and the dance tax brings in about £100,000 or £140,000. Are we to have that state of immorality brought about for the sake of £100,000 or £140,000? I think it is time that we ought to look straight at these matters. It is time that politicians should give up creating trouble because their opponents happened to get a subscription for election purposes. Any political Party that refuses a subscription certainly would be entitled to condemn the dance-hall proprietors or anybody else for contributing to a political Party, but it is only if they refuse to accept subscriptions to the political fund they can adopt that particular attitude.
I have spoken to quite a number of people in the city in regard to that. Very few people are being codded with all this nonsense and with all the fulminations that we have had from Deputy Collins, who was repeating, in a different key, the words of Deputy Dillon. These fulminations had no effect on the people, and particularly on the thousands of people who are engaged night after night in endeavouring to run dances for the purposes I have mentioned. The removal of the dance tax is generally welcome, as it would have been welcomed in 1949 and 1950 had we been successful in inducing the Minister to remove it. It was a bad tax. It was, as Deputy Davin described it, an irritating tax, and it is a great job it is gone now.
We have had extraordinary arguments in favour of the removal of this tax. With some of the arguments which Deputy Cowan mentioned I think there would be universal agreement. Any tax is unpopular and there are a number of taxes which are irritating but surely the question which concerns the Dáil and the country on this occasion is whether it is fair, just or reasonable to remove a tax on dance halls under a Budget which proposes substantial increases in the prices of essential foodstuffs.
Nobody for a moment suggests that essential services should not be carried on, that the money required to pay for these services should not be raised, that the money for the Army, Garda and Civil Service, and that whole variety of expenditure by the different Departments should not be met. Revenue must be raised to meet the commitments involved. In this Budget of over £100,000,000 a sum of £140,000 is not a substantial tax. A strong case can be made on the basis that it was difficult to collect, that there was to some extent an evasion, that it imposed trouble on those responsible for running dances, that it was irritating, and a variety of other arguments in favour of its abolition, but do not the same arguments apply to income-tax? With few exceptions, such as in the case of road tax, and probably taxes in respect of spirit licences and taxes collected at source, there is evasion. One of the responsibilities and functions of the officers of the Revenue Commissioners is to stop that evasion and to make tax collections as effective as possible.
In so far as the returns show, the efforts of the Revenue Commissioners indicate that the revenue derived from the dance tax was on the increase. That shows it was possible to collect it to an increasing extent. It shows equally that the alleged effect of that tax on the dance-hall industry was not jeopardising that industry and did not jeopardise the employment of those concerned in it. If it did jeopardise it I would like to inquire what effect the increase in the present Budget in the price of beer and tobacco would have. The Minister waxed eloquent on the effect on the tobacco companies of the suggestion that they should not be allowed to get every farthing of the increase that was recommended by the Prices Advisory Body and the effect it would have on employment. In the case of the dance-hall proprietors this tax will not be remitted to the public. The public will not get the benefit of the remission of the £140,000. That will be put in the hands of the dance-hall proprietors.
I do not think that anyone seriously suggests that the amount of money involved in the remission of this dance-hall tax is large in comparison with the Budget as a whole. We do not agree with the views that have been expressed here that people are not deceived. People are bewildered by the fact that in this Budget the price of petrol, which is used by a variety of people, including traders, business men, commercial travellers and by transport users of all kinds for business and trading purposes, is going up by 4d. per gallon, the price of the print by 3d., the price of a packet of 20 cigarettes by 7d., the price of tea by more than 100 per cent., the price of sugar by 2½d. per lb., the price of butter by 10d., the price of flour by 2½d. per stone and the price of the 2 lb. loaf by 2½d.
All these taxes affect, without exception, all citizens, most of them directly. Those that do not affect every individual directly affect him indirectly. Bread will be dearer. The essentials of life will cost more and yet it is decided in the Budget to make one extraordinary remission in taxation of something like £140,000 to the dance-hall proprietors.
I do not think anybody can seriously suggest that it is sound economy, or that it is good national economy or even sound public finance to increase the prices of a variety of essential foodstuffs, of a whole range of near essentials and increase the cost of transport, in a Budget, which this Finance Bill implements and which remits a tax on dancing of £140,000. When the Táiniste was speaking here on the day after the Budget he said, at column 1301, Volume 130, No. 9 of the Official Debates of 3rd April, 1952:—
"It is clear, however, that the abolition of rationing means that subsidised flour—flour subsidised at the new rate—will be available for the producers of fancy bread and biscuits who are now paying an uneconomically high price for the 75 per cent. extraction flour; and therefore some reduction in the price of biscuits and other foodstuffs produced from the 75 per cent. extraction flour is to be anticipated."
Later, in the same volume at column 1305, he said:—
"Therefore, there will come into operation, almost simultaneously, a substantial reduction in the price of jam, marmalades and other manufactured foodstuffs in which sugar is an ingredient."
It is an astonishing fact that this Budget will have as a direct result the effect of increasing the price of bread to the consumer, the price of butter, the price of flour, the price of tea and the price of sugar; in other words, the essentials of life will increase substantially in price. But under the same Budget jam, cakes, marmalades, biscuits and any commodities manufactured from sugar will be reduced in price; and under the same Budget it is proposed to remit the tax on dance halls. I do not think anybody seriously suggests that this tax remission is justified. It has been alleged that the Opposition has made a lot out of a small amount of money in relation to the whole Budget. As far as that is concerned the amount of money involved is not the important aspect of this question. Leaving aside entirely this letter about which there has been so much talk and to which reference has been made, I believe the important and serious aspect of this alteration in the tax rate is that it is made in a Budget which imposes substantial increases in the price of essential foodstuffs—substantial increases in the price of petrol, tobacco, in the price of a whole variety of commodities, but which also remits the tax on dance-halls.
It is easy to say that the tax is unpopular. It is easy to say that it is difficult to collect. Reference has been made here to past debates on previous Budgets when appeals were made to have this tax remitted but those making these references have omitted to point out that in these Budgets there was no increase imposed on the price of bread; there was no increase in the price of butter; there was no increase in the price of sugar, of tea, or of flour. As a result of this Budget substantial increases in the price of these commodities will occur.
I do not think that anyone for a moment believes the suggestion that this tax remission will mean a sudden revival in employment. The effect of the impact of Fianna Fáil government in the last 12 months has been to drive up the number of unemployed to such an extent that there are now 13,000 persons more unemployed than there were this time last year. Some Deputy, I think it was Deputy Captain Cowan, suggested that this is going to have an effect on employment. I do not think even the most ardent advocate of the remission of this tax will make that case for it.
Leaving aside altogether the question of the undertaking which was given prior to the election by the present Tánaiste on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party, I think that the fact that this tax is being remitted has bewildered, confused and angered people, particularly people who were obliged to pay and will be obliged to pay substantially increased prices for essential foodstuffs. This tax, it retained, could increase by 25 per cent. the pensions of the Old I.R.A. They are only one section of the community that will be hit by these increases in the price of essential foodstuffs, and remember, this is part of the confidence trick that was played on the electorate by Fianna Fáil. In two speeches during the last election campaign two Ministers of the present Government said that there was no truth in the suggestion that the taxes relating to beer and tobacco would be reimposed, and at point 15 of the pamphlet containing the 17-point programme published in the Press on the 5th June after the result of the election, it was stated that one of the points in the Fianna Fáil policy would be to maintain subsidies, to control the price of essential foodstuffs, and the operation of an efficient system of price regulation for all necessary and scarce commodities.
That was part of the Fianna Fáil programme which succeeded in deluding some of the electorate. That was part of the programme that was designed to secure the reins of government on the basis of misleading either the electorate or some of the Deputies who subsequently supported it. That is the programme which has resulted in substantial depression in trade, a Budget which imposes increased income-tax, increased prices by the withdrawal or the variation of subsidy, increased taxes on petrol, on tobacco, on beer and on spirits, but it remits the dance tax because there was an undertaking given during the election that it would be remitted if Fianna Fáil were returned.
I do not think it is fair to ask people to pay more for bread, to pay more for flour, for butter, for tea and sugar, to expect them to pay more if they want to smoke the same number of cigarettes, to expect them to pay more for a pint of beer or stout, to expect petrol users to pay 4d. a gallon more for petrol, to ask income-tax payers to pay——
Less.
——a shilling in the £ more. The increased revenue which will be derived this year from the variation in the rate of income-tax amounts to £910,000 more than the figure which was secured last year. If this is less money, then the Minister will have to explain it again. I do not understand the effect of a tax which results in gathering in almost £1,000,000 to the Exchequer over that which was gathered in last year and which was put before the Dáil on the basis that less income-tax will be gathered this year than was gathered last year. The fact is that the people of this country, old age pensioners, widows and orphans, blind pensioners, Old I.R.A. pensioners, every citizen, whether he works for the State, whether he has retired as a pensioner, whether he is at present endeavouring to secure a wage increase by application before the Labour Court, whether he is a member of a trade union, whether he is self-employed or employed in business, in trade or in commerce, whether he is a farmer or a farm worker, he is going to pay more for bread, for flour, for tea, sugar, butter, beer, cigarettes and petrol, and if he is an income-tax payer, more on income-tax. But if he wants to dance at night he will not get the benefit of the dance tax remission.. Remember, nobody should be deluded into thinking that people are going to be allowed even to dance more cheaply, because they are not. The fact is that the dance-hall proprietors, under some preelection arrangement which was not made public until after the election, will be allowed to put into their pockets a sum of £140,000. It is a small sum; in relation to the size of this Budget it is a comparatively small figure.
What the public do not understand, however, what those Old I.R.A. pensioners who are seeking an increase and what all sections of the community fail to appreciate, is why this remission amounting to £140,000 is being given to the dance-hall proprietors under a Budget which raises the prices of essential foodstuffs, which imposes increased burdens on all sections and which in no way seeks to alleviate these increased hardships. I do not think that anybody can seriously suggest that the increase of 1/6 a week to the old age pensioners—and God knows they were entitled to it and needed it badly—will offset the rise in the price of bread, tea, sugar and flour and, if they they smoke, of tobacco and, if they drink, of beer and spirits.
Deputies often forget that there had already been a substantial rise in the cost of living since this time last year long before the present Budget was introduced. There was an increase in the cost of essential foodstuffs—butter, bacon, meat and eggs. In addition, there was an increase in transport charges for people travelling on buses and an increase in freight charges. It is in respect of these increases that negotiations and discussions are at present proceeding between the Trade Union Congresses and the representatives of employers regarding an increase in wages. That increase is needed to meet the rise which has already occurred not to mention, not even to think of, the rapid increase which will take effect on the 4th July, when the full impact of this Budget is felt.
It has been suggested that the slight increase in children's allowances and the old age pension will meet the rise in the cost of living. All of these are welcome and all of them are necessary to offset the increases which had already occurred since this time last year. Remember that this is the Government which was to maintain subsidies, control the price of essential foodstuffs and operate an efficient system of price regulation for all necessary and scarce commodities. Deputies are familiar with the speech of the present Minister for Finance during the recent election in which he said that a number of persons in the licensed trade were spreading the rumour that Fianna Fáil if they were returned to power would reimpose the taxes on drink which had been imposed in the Supplementary Budget of 1947. "There is no truth in any such rumour," he added. That speech was made at Rathmines and was reported in the Irish Independent on the 5th May, 1951. The present Tánaiste referred to a Coalition Minister who had made a speech saying that Fianna Fáil if returned would impose these taxes and asked why should these taxes be imposed.
Precisely. Why should they if there had been an honest Budget?
What confidence can the electorate have in the speeches of public men when they saw how during the election campaign they were misled and deluded by them in dishonest speeches when they were seeking the votes of the public? "There is no truth in any such rumour." How wise were the publicans, how right they were, how accurate they were in their prognostications of what would happen on the return of Fianna Fáil. During the election campaign Fianna Fáil did not publish the correspondence into which they had entered behind the backs of the electorate with the dance-hall proprietors. They announced that they would maintain subsidies but the effect of the alterations proposed in the Budget will be to increase the price of bread, flour, butter, tea and sugar, although jams, cakes, biscuits, marmalade and any other commodity manufactured from sugar will be cheaper.
It is astonishing that this Budget and this tax remission in Section 14 of the Finance Bill should be passed by the House. It is astonishing that the case should be made for that remission that the tax was unpopular and irritating. Nobody on this side of the House questions that description of this tax or denies that in relation to the Budget as a whole it is a small sum, but it must be considered in the light of a Budget which increases the price of bread, tea, flour, sugar, and a whole range of essential foodstuffs for old age pensioners, widows and orphans and every section of the community, a Budget which increases income-tax by 1/- in the £ and petrol by 4d. It must be considered in the light of a policy which has already succeeded in increasing the number of unemployed by over 13,000 persons since this time last year. It must be considered in the light of a Government which has already witnessed an increase in the price of milk, bacon, eggs and beef, as well as the cost of transport, in the last 12 months to such an extent that trade union organisations are forced at present to seek an interim increase in wages in order to put into the pockets of workers, wage earners and those responsible for maintaining households some compensation for the depreciation in the value of money. When considered in the light of these things the remission is suggestive.
It has been suggested that in opposing this remission the Opposition are irresponsible, bluffing and doing something for political purposes which we would not do for economic purposes. No question of economy, justice or fair play has so far been brought before the House or the country to justify an increase in the price of bread, sugar or flour, cigarettes, petrol or income-tax. Income-tax is, to some extent, a difficult tax to collect and the Revenue Commissioners from time to time find evasions of that tax. Almost every tax, with few exceptions, presents difficulties of collection from time to time. The problem of these evasions and collecting the tax is a responsibility which the Revenue Commissioners discharge. The dance tax, however, has been represented as one which was evaded and was unpopular with dance-hall proprietors and those responsible for running dances. Nobody should be under any delusion that this will mean cheaper dances because it will not mean a reduction in the charge of admission. Even if it did, why should the House pass a Budget which remits the price of dancing when it increases the price of essential foodstuffs over and above the substantial increase in the cost of living which had already occurred during the past 12 months?
I do not think that any real case has been made for the remission of this tax. I do not think that there is any equity, any justice in a Budget which seeks to remit a tax on dances which in itself is not a very substantial amount of money in relation to the total sum covered by the Budget. It cannot be justified on the grounds that the section of the community it might benefit are as badly off or as much in need of subsidy from the Exchequer as those sections of the community whose subsidies are varied and decreased in respect of bread and eliminated in respect of tea, butter and sugar. Every wage earner, every individual in the community, will be obliged to pay more for all these essential commodities. I have put down a question to the Minister for Industry and Commerce for answer next week to try to elicit what reduction will take place in the price of jams, chocolates and sweets.
On a point of order, is this a Second Reading speech or is the Deputy speaking to the section? Even my colleague Deputy Dillon is yawning.
I have tried to elicit what reductions will take place in the price of these foodstuffs in order to discover what remission people will have in the case of some of these foodstuffs, because under this Budget they will pay more for bread, tea and all these other essential commodities, but the dance-hall proprietors will be enabled to get a remission of £140,000. I do not think any real case has been made for the remission of this tax, and I do not think there is any justice in remitting it when the Budget inflicts hardship, misery, difficulties and increased burdens on every section of the community. There could have been a case, and probably was, for remitting this tax in previous years, when we were maintaining foodstuffs at the same price, when beer, tobacco and all these other commodities were being retained at the existing level. There was some case to be made then for a remission of this dance tax, but there is no justification in a Budget which increases the burdens on each and every section and on every individual for remitting a tax in respect of dances which will not effect any reduction in the imposts being borne by all sections.
I want to emphasise the point made by Deputy Cowan that it is not unusual for political Parties——
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present,
Let Deputies opposite stay and listen to the Minister making the great submission.
I hope Deputy Dillon will stay and listen to it.
The Holy Roman Emperor Henry went to Canossa and the Minister is going to Cowan.
Deputy Dillon is one of the gentlemen who has founded his case against this section on a particular letter which was written by a lady to members of her association——
By Seán Lemass. He is no lady.
——stating that she had received a letter from the then Deputy Lemass indicating that the Fianna Fáil Party were consistent in their views that dancing, as a form of entertainment, ought not to be taxed and that, as Deputy Cowan reminded us, we had, in fact, abolished the tax in 1946, had objected to its reimposition in 1949 and had again objected to it in 1950. If it had not been for the fact that Deputy McGilligan and the Coalition ran away from their Budget and fled to the country, we should have objected to it again in 1951. Therefore, as I have said, when Deputy Lemass, as he then was, and Minister for Industry and Commerce to-day, informed the secretary of the association representing the dance-hall proprietors who had approached him on the matter that we were consistent, the Deputy is not surely going to charge us with any impropriety, because we are consistent and always have been consistent in our attitude towards this tax.
And political subscriptions.
That is all very well. As Deputy Cowan, again with a realistic——
"Realistic" is good.
——with a realistic view——
Of human nature.
——of his former associates, not excluding Deputy Dillon, told us that it would be exceedingly unusual and phenomenal if a political Party were to refuse subscriptions from organisations, and that it was not unusual for political parties to be asked to state what they would propose to do in regard to taxation or various forms of taxation, or indeed other subjects not at all related to taxation, such as the Adoption Bill, the short form of registration certificate or the export of horses — matters which no doubt came to Deputy Dillon's personal attention when he was Minister for Agriculture, and even a candidate in Monaghan at the various elections. It is quite the ordinary thing for organisations and individuals who feel that their interests can be improved to approach political parties and candidates and ask them to state their views and what they propose to do. It is quite a usual thing, too, for political parties to state these views. and, if their views in relation to these matters happen to meet with the approval of the organisations or individuals concerned, naturally——
A trifle passes.
——these organisations and individuals will come out and support the political Party which they think is going to govern the country according to their lights.
Suitably, with an appropriate cheque.
I am glad that Deputy Dillon has at least found this common ground with Deputy Dr. O'Higgins and Deputy McGilligan, because these two Deputies did meet a group of Dublin publicans prior to the 1948 election and were told that, if Fine Gael gave this group certain guarantees money would be no object, that it would be spent like water in order to secure the return of the Fine Gael Party with an over-all majority in Dáil Éireann.
This is so irresistibly reminiscent of the testimony before the Kefauver Committee.
Fine Gael was not the only organisation which had disinterested support of that sort. I happen to have in my possession a copy of a letter written by a certain gentleman enclosing a copy of another letter written by a former Minister of this State and a present Deputy. In the course of that letter, the then candidate at the general election of 1948. and subsequently Minister for External Affairs and present Deputy, gave certain assurances in regard to the entertainments duty on dog racing and in regard to the establishment of totalisators on dog racing tracks. As a consequence of that letter which he wrote to "Dear Paddy" and which he signed "Sean MacBride", "Dear Paddy" wrote a letter to his friend in which he said:—
"I am enclosing a statement of policy as affecting the greyhound industry which I have obtained from Mr. Seán MacBride, Clann na Poblachta leader, in reply to a questionnaire addressed to him. It is a very logical exposition of the position as affecting the industry. In addition to obtaining funds, I consider it the duty of every greyhound owner, and a good investment, to support this man's policy by sending me a subscription which will be duly acknowledged by his headquarters."
Was there anything corrupt in this little transaction between Deputy Seán MacBride, ex-Minister for External Affairs and "Dear Paddy"? Was there anything politically corrupt in it? Was there anything politically corrupt, so corrupt that "Dear Paddy" regarded a subscription to Clann na Poblachta as a very good investment ? You see, when people come into court they should come in with clean hands.
They will not get as good a return as the dance-hall people.
I want to say this, anyway, that the dance-hall proprietors stand much higher in public estimation than those who are associated with some other forms of sport.
They are getting a good return on their investment, anyway.
This is the point. Deputy Dillon, as Minister for Agriculture, set up subsequently a committee to inquire into greyhound racing in this country and one of the matters which was to be investigated was the advisability of establishing totalisators on greyhound racing courses. Did Deputy Dillon set up this committee to inquire into that question, at the instance of Deputy MacBride, the Minister for External Affairs, who was acting on behalf of his friend who regarded a subscription to Clann na Poblachta as a sound investment, a very good investment?
I thought the Minister said he should not inquire into it.
This is the point. There had previously been an inquiry into the question of totalisators on greyhound racecourses but it did not matter that the issue had been decided. The point is this. Who moved Deputy MacBride? Was it "Dear Paddy" who moved him to induce his dear friend and colleague in the Coalition, the Minister for Agriculture, to set up this committee? You see, Deputy MacBride as he then was—I beg your pardon, Mr. Seán MacBride, as he was then only a candidate at the general election of 1948—had assured "Dear Paddy" that if he was returned to power and sufficiently influential, apparently licences to establish totalisators would be granted to the proprietors of the greyhound racing tracks and the entertainments tax upon dog racing would have gone into the pockets of the same individuals.
To the breeders of greyhounds. It is the poor man's sport.
Why do you not publish the report? You have got it.
The report will be published.
Why do you not publish it?
Just be quiet. These millionaires, the gentlemen who made millions out of the control of greyhound racing did not want the totalisators established.
On a point of order, whilst one might appreciate the Minister would refer to this particular sport or industry, is it in order for him to spend a quarter of an hour on such talk, on a section which deals with the repeal of the dance tax?
Acting-Chairman
It is an entertainments tax.
The section deals specifically with the dance tax. Are we to have a full discussion on the greyhound industry?
Acting-Chairman
The Minister is in order.
That settles that. Will the Minister publish the report?
Deputy Fagan has referred to this as the poor man's sport.
You have got the report. Why not publish it?
It is the greatest industry in this country. Do not stop the poor man coming up with his dog when he comes up to get something. Get the totalisator and he will get something with his dogs.
Acting-Chairman
Order. The Minister must be given an opportunity to speak.
Deputy Fagan is very concerned about the poor man. Mind you, his colleague—perhaps I am anticipating——
Publish the report.
Deputy MacBride turned me down about the totalisator. He was the first man who turned me down, in the presence of Deputy Dillon, when I asked for it. Deputy MacBride was the first man to turn me down in with the Taoiseach.
On a point of order, what relation has the greyhound industry to a tax on dancing?
Acting-Chairman
It is for entertainment.
Is this a proposal to let the greyhounds dance?
Mr. O'Sullivan
On a point of order, will we be allowed to discuss the films which are being shown currently in Dublin, as they are entertainment also?
Are we in order in discussing playing tin whistles or bagpipes?
This is a proposal to amend the entertainments duty. I am talking about former speeches in regard to amending the entertainments duty where, for one reason or another, the proposals came to nothing—perhaps for the same reason as nothing was done about changing the link with sterling currency.
I would like to protest. I think the Chair should take serious notice of the insolence of the Minister for Finance.
Acting-Chairman
I think the Minister ought to be allowed to make his speech.
A Deputy
In order.
Acting-Chairman
The Minister must be allowed to speak.
The Deputy was very much concerned about the letters which passed between Fianna Fáil and Miss Morris, and so was Deputy Séan Collins and Deputy Dillon, who do not like——
The Chair ought to keep the Minister in order.
——to hear about the letters between "Dear Paddy" and Mr. Séan MacBride, this gentleman, as he was then. They do not like to hear that at all. I want to get back to Deputy Fagan's point.
Why not take the role of Fred Astaire and tell us about the dance tax?
Bring in Laurel and Hardy.
Deputy Fagan referred to greyhound racing as the poor man's sport.
On a point of order, will it be in order to discuss shrimp fishing, now that the shrimp boats are going to dance to-night?
Greyhound breeding is the biggest industry in the country, next to the horse-breeding industry.
I can see how Deputy Dillon's mind works. Quite clearly, there is an association of ideas on this plane. "Dear Paddy" was throwing a sprat in the form of a contribution to Clann na Poblachta in order to catch a whale of a totalisator and so Deputy Dillon wants us to discuss shrimp fishing.
The shrimp boats will be dancing to-night—not sprat boats but shrimp boats.
This "Dear Paddy", throwing his sprat in the form of a subscription to Clann na Poblachta, thought it would enable "Dear Paddy" to get hold of the totalisator. He already owned the greyhounds; he already owned the racing track and the electric hare. He did not own the bookmakers, but if he could get hold of the totalisator—well, well, talk about the poor man's sport—he would be a millionaire.
Acting-Chairman
Will the Minister address the Chair?
That was too much even for the Chair.
Another spanking for the Minister.
In these circumstances, when Mr. MacBride, as he then was—Deputy MacBride as he is now— assured "Dear Paddy" that if he was elected he would undertake to use his influence to remove the tax on greyhound racecourses and consent to totalisators on greyhound racetracks, Mr. O'Donoghue—for that is the name of the gentleman in question—wrote a letter to all the greyhound owners in this country in the following terms:—
"I am enclosing a statement of policy as affecting the greyhound industry, which I have obtained from Mr. Seán MacBride, Clann na Poblachta Leader, in reply to a questionnaire addressed to him——"
—and I am not responsible for the syntax—
"——which is a very logical exposition of the position as affecting the two industries. In addition to obtaining funds, I consider it the duty of every greyhound owner—"
—mind you, this is the man who controls the principal track in this country and you cannot get your dog racing on it without his consent. He was telling the owners that he considered it the duty of every greyhound owner—I quote:—
"—and a good investment—to support this man's policy by sending me a subscription, which will be duly acknowledged by my headquarters."
Is that what gave you the idea?
If it was improper— and I do not concede that it was—for Deputy Lemass, as he then was, to inform the secretary of the Dance-Hall Proprietors' Association of the policy of Fianna Fáil in regard to the dance tax, surely it was equally improper for Mr. MacBride, as he then was—now Deputy MacBride—to inform the controller of the largest greyhound racing track in this country of the attitude of the Clann na Poblachta Party in regard to two things—(1) the entertainments duty on greyhound racing and (2) the granting of totalisator licences to the owners of greyhound racing tracks. If one thing was improper, the other thing was equally improper. As I say, I do not concede the first thing.
Next, if it was improper for the secretary of the Dance-Hall Proprietors' Association, at the instance of that association, to inform their members of the policy of Fianna Fáil in regard to the entertainments tax on dances—pointing out, in fact, that Fianna Fáil maintained the policy to which they had given effect in 1946, and that if they were returned to office they were prepared again to exclude dancing from the scope of the entertainments tax—then surely it was equally improper, on the basis of the assurances which Mr. MacBride—now Deputy MacBride—had given him, for Mr. O'Donoghue to go out looking for subscriptions for Clann na Poblachta.
As I have said, Deputy Cowan this morning put the case in its proper perspective. At the time of an election, every Party receives all sorts of communications and requests asking their attitude towards this problem and the other problem and you get subscriptions from various sources. Some people organise themselves into groups and go out to get subscriptions. Nobody will tell me, for instance, that the Fine Gael Party and the Clann na Poblachta Party did not, in the General Election of 1948 secure very generous subscriptions from the licensed trade in Dublin and throughout the rest of the country.
That is not true.
It is true. There is no use in telling me that it is not true.
I say that it is not true.
I am talking about something that happened outside this House. I know what I am talking about. I saw and have in my possession still a copy of a circular sent out in regard to that matter.
That is not what the Minister said.
So we are going to believe that this appeal by the five Dublin publicans was not successful?
That is right.
Are we asked to believe that? I have these documents— just as I have the copy of Deputy Mac-Bride's letter——
Address the Chair.
——and a number of other documents too, all of which can be produced and all of which——
Acting - Chairman
Conversations across the floor of the House are not desirable.
We did not get a cheque for £250.
Nor £50,000 in 1948 from Guiney.
I do not want to go back too far.
Ah!
I would advise Deputy O'Leary to go and see how much the Labour Party got from certain oil interests in this country in 1935 and 1936.
At any rate, we got none from the sources from which you got it.
Let the Minister tell us now.
The Minister has the proof. Tell us now.
We are getting off the track. The point I want to make —and I want to repeat it again——
Is that you have gone to the dogs.
If I am repetitive it is because I am not being permitted to speak coherently because of the senseless interruptions emanating, principally, from Deputy Dillon.
It is a good thing to make the Minister incoherent. It does not require much effort to do so.
As Deputy Cowan pointed out to this House this afternoon, Fianna Fáil have had a consistent policy in regard to the dance tax. Secondly, there is nothing unusual in the fact that political Parties are asked to express their policy in regard to one or other public issues or even in regard to things which are not public issues in the wide general sense but which affect particular sections of the community. Further, it is not unusual, if acceptable assurances are given, for the persons who feel that their interests will be promoted by a certain Party to come along and give it the material and public support which will be necessary in order to secure the election of that Party. These are commonplaces of politics. There is no use in Deputy Dillon's holding his nose as if there were something indecent, corrupt or wrong with it. It just happens. Everybody knows that it happens in that way. However, they do not have a corrupt influence, at any rate, so far as the attitude of Governments in this country is concerned. I assume that we try to administer the affairs of this country decently and honestly. The one thing that does, perhaps, deter us—and we have had an example of that in the Budget of 1951 —is the fact that we hate to do an unpopular thing. Therefore, even though our advisers give us impeccable advice —as Deputy McGilligan was given it in 1951—that several millions more might be required and that the only way of getting it is to increase the taxes on beer, spirits, petrol and tobacco, these are things which we do not like to do. Sometimes, again, as happened in May, 1951, we are not prepared to face up to our obligations and responsibilities in that regard. Otherwise, outside that, I do not think political Parties are influenced very much by subscriptions which they get. In the main, these subscriptions come from people who are sympathetic to the broad policies expressed by these Parties and who are anxious to see these policies made effective. Therefore, without looking for any special return, they are prepared to support us.
In regard to the question of the dance tax, on its merits, and having disposed——
Hear, hear. On its merits.
Up to the present, this tax has been discussed on the basis of a letter——
It has not.
Ah! Deputy Dillon, I think on Section 6 of this Bill, opened the matter by referring to this letter. He was told by the Ceann Comhairle that he could more properly raise that issue on Section 14, and it was on Section 14 that the issue was raised by Deputy S. Collins, who opened the debate for the Opposition. The debate was continued on the same lines by a very suggestive speech by Deputy Norton. "No," he said, "the letter was not an issue." He kept repeating it time and time again—and all the time he was making it an issue. We had the same performance from Deputy Cosgrave. I have no doubt that if I had not got up, and if Deputy Dillon had got up before me we should have had from Deputy Dillon for the third time to-day a speech referring to that letter. Having, as I said, shown that there has been nothing unusual in regard to the letter, that the transaction was perfectly plain and open, I have only to repeat what I said yesterday.
It was a promise.
A statement to this effect—given in certain terms—that we were making no promise; we would consider the situation as we found it, but pointing out that we had in 1946 removed the tax and, in 1949, opposed the re-imposition of the tax, and again opposed the continuance of the tax in 1950. That was the general terms of the letter. I have not it in front of me. Arising out of that letter, this lady, at the instance, I assume, of the former——
Mr. O'Higgins
Of the Tánaiste.
——of the former member of the Clan na Poblachta Party, who was, I think, a candidate at that election, who was chairman of the Dance-Hall Proprietors' Association, wrote this letter asking for subscriptions to the Fianna Fáil Party and asking for votes and influence and support for the Fianna Fáil Party, just the same as at the last general election, the official representatives of the licensed trade went out against Fianna Fáil——
Naturally, after the Supplementary Budget.
Naturally, of course. There was nothing improper, apparently, in that but, apparently, it is a very improper thing for the dance-hall proprietors to ask their members to support Fianna Fáil because Fianna Fáil has taken up and has maintained over the years a certain attitude in regard to taxing dancing as a form of public entertainment.
You took bribes.
How much did you get?
You put 1/8 in the £ on the ratepayers by the letters you sent out.
A Deputy has accused me of taking bribes.
Your Party.
I do not think the bribes were ascribed as being given to the Minister. I understand they were ascribed as being given to a Party. I must say, however, that the suggestion is undesirable and should not be used, but it has not been said that bribes were given to any particular person.
Of course, if I happen to be a member of the Fianna Fáil Party and the bribe is given to the Party, I must participate in the benefits derived from the bribe. The implication is quite clear.
The lady said you got £250 from her. Will you deny that?
I want to say that no member of the Fianna Fáil Party has any responsibility for what Miss Morris wrote.
Do you deny it?
I do not know what she wrote because I did not see her letter.
I will read it out for you.
I do not know what she wrote. I have not seen the letter. I do not know the lady.
Surely you have heard the letter read?
Whether I have or not is beside the point.
How much did you get?
I know what "Dear Paddy" wrote.
Will the Minister give way and I will read out the letter?
No, but I will read out what "Dear Paddy" wrote. I do not propose to give way.
I thought you would not.
The Minister is entitled to speak without this barrage of interruptions.
He is destroying one of our greatest industries.
Apparently we have to discuss this question in the atmosphere which Deputy Dillon and the others have endeavoured to create around it. I only want to say in regard to this matter that I have no responsibility, nor has any member of the Fianna Fáil Party any responsibility, for any letter which was written by the secretary of the Dance-Hall Proprietors' Association. We have no control over the lady.
You have control of what was in the envelope.
If any proprietor of a dance-hall saw fit to subscribe to the funds of the Fianna Fáil Party, that was his business.
Or hers.
They got very good value.
There is nothing more improper in taking a subscription from a proprietor of a dance-hall than there is in taking a subscription from a proprietor of a greyhound racing track or the proprietor of a public-house, and we know there were very hefty subscriptions given by some proprietors in Dublin.
We have the evidence; the Minister has not.
There was no conspiracy.
All Miss Morris said is that one dance-hall proprietor gave a subscription——
Of £250.
Whether it was or not, what subscriptions did Mr. O'Donoghue give?
She said much more than that.
Mr. O'Donoghue owns or controls the National Greyhound Racing Association.
He does not own it; he is the chairman.
He controls it and a lot of other things connected with it which are not for the benefit of the greyhound-racing industry.
We in the Irish Coursing Club are trying to keep coursing straight and we want a totalisator to keep it straight.
He gave such a generous subscription to the funds of Clann na Poblachta that he was able to run his son as a candidate for the Party in Kerry and South Kerry in 1948.
On a point of order. This is just a matter for the record. I am not interested in the merits or demerits of the Minister's line on this or as to what demerits there may be in it but I am concerned about laying down procedure in this House and starting rather dangerous precedents. The Minister is attacking a person, a named individual.
A decent man; that is what he is.
It does not matter. That has nothing to do with it. He is attacking a named person outside this House in a particular, personal way. I suggest to the Minister and to you, Sir, that that is not only improper and disorderly, but that it is highly undesirable and, if this is allowed to go, then I think no citizen outside this House will be safe from attack. Personally, I would not like to see that established here.
I have already said that statements of that kind are entirely undesirable and should not be made use of in this House in respect of any citizen of the State.
I wonder how that applies to Miss Morris, who was described in these terms by Deputy Norton this morning, as being a nigger— a nigger in the woodpile.
If the Minister does not understand the expression, he must be very ignorant.
Deputies do not like their medicine. I am asking if there is anything wrong in taking a subscription from a dance-hall proprietor and nothing wrong in taking a subscription from a proprietor of a greyhound racing track, which he himself boasted about, about which he wrote a letter to the public. Every greyhound owner in Ireland got it.
It is wrong to take a bribe.
Was this a bribe? Are we to assume, then, that the subscription which "Dear Paddy" gave to Mr. Seán MacBride, as he then was, to the funds of Clann na Poblachta, was a bribe?
There was no undertaking.
Of course, there was. That is the whole point. There was an undertaking given that he would use his influence to remove the tax on greyhound racing and to secure consent for the establishment of totalisators on greyhound racing tracks.
Would not that be good for the industry?
It would not. We viewed the matter differently.
Why did you give them a licence for the track in Chapelizod? You did that yourself as Minister for Local Government.
That promise to remove the tax on greyhound racing and to permit the establishment of totalisators on greyhound racing tracks was the consideration — and Mr. O'Donoghue makes no secret about it —which induced him to issue this letter to the greyhound owners of Ireland telling them that it was their duty and, he said, a very good investment, to subscribe to the funds of Clann na Poblachta.
It was general policy.
On a point of order. The Minister has had a fair run. He has been 40 minutes now without once dealing with or trying in any way to sustain his case for the removal of this dance tax. He spent over 30 minutes on greyhound racing, Mr. O'Donoghue and Mr. O'Donoghue's letter. After 30 minutes on that at least we might have a few minutes from the Minister on whatever case he can attempt to make for the removal of this dance tax.
I am sorry, Sir. I know I have to ask for a certain amount of consideration. This proposal is not being considered by the Opposition on its merits. The suggestion has been that because somebody gave a subscription of £250, we were doing something improper in removing the entertainments tax on dancing. I am asking is there anything more improper in tendering a subscription of that sort and taking it from the proprietor of a dance-hall than there is in taking a subscription from the proprietor of a greyhoundracing track, having given that proprietor an assurance that if you were returned to power, you would use your influence to secure that the entertainments tax would no longer apply to greyhound racing and that permission would be given for the establishment of the totalisator on greyhound tracks.
That has been said by the Minister several times.
That is the question I want to put to the Opposition and the onus is on them to answer that question.
Hear, hear! I hope they will get an opportunity to answer it.
We have been consistent in our attitude in regard to certain things. Somebody has said "corrupted." I think it was Deputy MacEoin. He is a good judge of corruption.
That is an expression that should be withdrawn in respect to any Deputy.
Deputy MacEoin has been named by the Minister.
The expression should be withdrawn.
On a point of order. The Minister has deliberately made statements like that both yesterday and to-day about a certain matter which in my opinion are completely untrue. I do not mind it at all because anything he says is only vulgar abuse.
I have said that the expression should be withdrawn in respect to any Deputy. I do not think Deputy MacEoin spoke at all, so that the expression should be withdrawn not only specifically in regard to Deputy MacEoin, but in general in respect to any Deputy.
I unreservedly bow to your ruling, but I understood some person certainly to use the word. I do not know who the fellow was, as he was afraid to stand up, but some person certainly did use the word "corruption". It was heard by me and heard by my colleagues. I assumed, because of the intonation, that it was Deputy MacEoin. I am very sorry if I accused him in the wrong, and I withdraw the accusation unreservedly in his regard.
To charge any Deputy with corruption is unparliamentary and it must be withdrawn without qualification.
I am withdrawing it without qualification, but what I want to know is what the Chair proposes to do in regard to the Deputy who used the word "corruption", if he has not the courage to stand up and repeat it. I do not know what Deputy used it, but I am perfectly certain that it was used, as my colleagues and I heard it.
The ruling of the Chair is that the word should not be used in association with any Deputy. That ruling is general and it applies to all Deputies.
It was not used in association with any Deputy. It was used in association with the Fianna Fáil Party.
Look here, the whole does include the part.
Does anybody doubt that the dance-hall proprietors' performance was corruption by the Fianna Fáil Party?
What about six months' back pay for nothing? Was that corruption?
I do not know whether I would be entitled to pursue the matter which has been raised by Deputy MacEoin in regard to something which I said yesterday. I am perfectly prepared to have that matter raised in a formal way because I can say that Deputy MacEoin did mislead the House——
This is outrageous.
The Minister made a definite statement that I knew all about corruption, suggesting that the corruption is a personal matter to myself. May I assure the Minister just of this one fact: that when I invited him to seek the permission of the two people he was talking about to raise the matter in this House, he failed to do so.
This matter is a riddle to me.
It seems to me that we are at cross-purposes.
I do not know anything about this.
I have not accused Deputy MacEoin of corruption. What I have accused him of, and what I am prepared to stand over if this House asks for an investigation to be made, is of misleading the House, when he was Minister for Justice, in order to protect his colleague, the then Minister for External Affairs, Deputy MacBride.
That is untrue.
A Deputy
That is a positive charge.
I am quite prepared, provided the Minister has not interfered with any of the files I left behind me, to have an investigation by the Committee of Procedure and Privileges into these files.
I cannot allow this matter to develop. There is nothing before the House but the Finance Bill. I do not know exactly what the Deputy is referring to. I do not know to what Deputy MacEoin has been referring. The House must revert to the amendment.
Deputy MacEoin referred to a statement made by the Minister in the House yesterday.
That is clearly a matter upon which I cannot adjudicate because I have no knowledge of the circumstances.
I have the Official Report.
I cannot accept ex parte statements of that kind. The matter must be raised in a regular way. The Deputy will get an opportunity of presenting the matter in a regular way to the House. At present I cannot do anything in a matter which is not before me.
Then I take it you will rule out of order the accusations made by the Minister again Deputy MacEoin.
When personal accusations are made against any Deputy I shall deal with them as they arise. When a charge was made against Deputy MacEoin I immediately secured its withdrawal. There was a withdrawal of the charge of corruption against any Deputy. I cannot deal with a matter about which I do not know anything and which has not arisen before me.
The Minister has repeated the charge just now.
I have endeavoured to disabuse Deputy MacEoin of the idea that I had accused him of corruption in the sense of taking cash or other consideration for any favour. I did not accuse him of corruption in that sense.
There must be no charge against Deputy MacEoin or against any other Deputy of corruption. Inasmuch as Deputy MacEoin was specifically mentioned, I asked that the charge be withdrawn in his regard specially. That is the ruling.
I unreservedly withdrew it.
Why repeat it?
I withdrew the association of Deputy MacEoin's name with a lie. I was told that the word lie was unparliamentary and so it is. I withdrew it. I did not walk out of the House and then slink in again to vote.
Let us get back to Section 14.
I withdrew it and that is all.
You are addled.
I have been wondering for a long time what was the matter with the Deputy.
The matter before the House is the section.
It is a long time since the Minister saw it.
The Minister for Finance on Section 14.
We can now come to discuss the section on its merits. As I pointed out when moving the Second Reading of the Bill, this dance tax is a complete anomaly. It is the only form of entertainment the participants in which are taxed. The people who engage in dancing as a social amusement and have to go to a public hall to do so are taxed for doing that. If they happen to be professionals, however, and they are dancing on the stage you can go and see them dancing and they are not taxed and you are not taxed. But if people go to a dance hall in Dublin and take their wives, fiancées or sweethearts, they are taxed even before going in. If one happens to have a wooden leg and wants to go out in the evening with the rest of a party, wooden leg and all, he is taxed on going into the hall. If you happen to be an amateur all-in wrestler and you go to Croke Park or anywhere else and throw your opponent about and subject yourself to torture, you will not be taxed. Anyone who goes to look on will not be taxed either. If you go to a racemeeting you will not be taxed for going.
A Deputy
Unless you win.
But if you happen to be interested in dancing and take your family out for the evening, again, as I said, you will be taxed. The whole thing is completely anomalous and that is why it was removed.
Why tax petrol, then?
I am talking about entertainments. I think it was Deputy Costello who suggested that one could swallow petrol. I do not know anybody who takes petrol as an entertainment or as a beverage.
Motor cars run on petrol.
Of course they do.
Why tax anything?
You can reduce any argument to an absurdity. But surely the onus is on the man who wants things to be taxed to prove that they ought to be taxed. Is not the onus on Deputy Corish to prove why dancing ought to be taxed, not to oppose the Government who are taking the tax off people? Surely it is the man who is advocating taxation who must prove that things must be taxed, that you cannot avoid taxing them. Does not the whole onus lie on those advocating the taxation of anything, whether it be entertainments, amusements, luxuries such as mink coats and Chrysler cars, or beer, spirits or tobacco?
Or Frank Aiken's top hat.
When we come to top hats——
There is nothing about hats in this section.
Except this, that occasionally when worn by certain persons they become a form of entertainment for others and therefore they might be drawn within the ambit of an entertainment tax. I was pointing out that this tax is, in essence, a complete anomaly. If it is wrong to tax football, hurling, swimming and boxing, it must be equally wrong to tax dancing. There cannot be any way out of that.
Tell the country people why you took it off and put it on to butter.
Not only that, but the developments which have followed from the reimposition of this tax in 1949 have been entirely undesirable. You have, as I pointed out, large dance halls springing up and offering great attractions outside ordinary urban areas.
Then there should be nothing in rural Ireland? Dublin is to have everything.
The Deputy should at least be rational in his interruptions and logical in his conclusions. Nobody is trying to keep dance halls from springing up in the country. What is happening was referred to by Deputy Norton to-day. He told us about a dance hall in the country where there were often 2,000 people trying to get in. I have no objection to people going to dances at the seaside or in the country or anywhere else. What I do think is undesirable is that they should be attracted a long way from their homes in order to go to these dances and that there should be exceptional cases of persons coming home under the influence of drink late at night who are a menace to themselves and other users of the roads.
Will the removal of the tax correct that?
It will at least make people look for amusement in the vicinity of their homes. Apart from the undesirable developments which have followed from the reimposition of this tax in the particular form in which it was reimposed, this tax has been proven to be very, very difficult indeed to administer.
Will the Minister admit that the removal of the dance tax was a political and financial blunder? He is trying to talk himself out of it.
As everybody knows, if a dance is held in a village the population of which does not exceed 500, or is held outside a certain radius from a centre of population of more than 500, it is free of tax. But the population of this country varies from year to year, and from census to census. The population of these towns varies from census to census. It could happen that on the day before a census was taken and enumerated admission to dance halls would be free of tax and on the following day be subject to tax.
How often do you take a census?
Every five years.
How often has this catastrophic thing occurred?
After all, if you are to have a tax administered at all it must be certain in its incidence. It must fall once and for all on a definite person.
Have sense. Incomes are assessed every year if under the law they are subject to tax.
That is quite a different matter.
It is not a different matter. One year you pay income tax and the next year you may not, all according to what your income is.
I cannot deal with the puerilities——
Puerilities, my foot!
——of Deputy O'Sullivan and the irrational interruptions of Deputy Dillon at the same time. Deputy Dillon goes on forever like the babbling brook. Sometime he really ought to put a stopper on himself. After all, he aspires to be again a member of the Government of this country. Surely he does not behave like this around the Cabinet table.
He never had to sit opposite the likes of you in the Cabinet. If he had his hair would be grey as well as thin by now.
The situation has, in fact, developed that the patrons of a dance hall may be subject to a dance tax one day and may be free from it the next. The converse may occur; they may be free from it one day and subject to it the next. Not only that, but one can—and I pointed this out in my speech on the Second Reading— hold a dance in a country mansion provided that mansion is three miles from anywhere in the sense that it is three miles from any village. One can charge 16/- or £1 or 30/- and call it a hunt ball or anything else. Patrons going there will not be subject to tax. But if a dance is held in the village and if the village has more than 500 persons in it —if it has 501 persons in it—one is immediately subject to tax, irrespective of the admission fee charged. If patrons are charged 5/- that 5/- is subject to tax. Is not that a completely illogical situation? Is it not illogical that a person can go into a country mansion and dance in the ballroom there free of tax provided that mansion is three miles from anywhere in the sense that it is three miles from any centre of population? A patron may be compelled to pay 30/- or £2—whatever the proprietor likes to charge for admission to this dance—and he will not be subject to tax.
How often is that type of dance held?
I do not know.
Two or three times a year.
The Deputy is now asking me how often is a man justified in committing murder before he is hanged. That is what his argument amounts to. How often must an abuse of that kind occur or how long should an anomaly of that kind continue before it is remedied? What we are trying to do in this section is to prevent an abuse and remedy an anomaly. We realise—and Deputy McGilligan realised it in 1950—that there is an anomaly. We are trying to remedy a completely anomalous and illogical situation, and the only way in which it can be remedied is by reverting to the position that existed after the 1946 Finance Act was passed.
What about young farmers' clubs?
We are reverting to the position of leaving dancing free of tax in the same way as boxing is free of it, football is free of it, swimming is free of it, cricket is free of it, hurling is free of it and every other amusement——
Cinemas.
Cinemas are not an amusement in which the audience are the actors. We are leaving it—dancing —free of tax in the same way as amusements in which the people participate as actual actors on the scene are left free of tax.
You took the tax off dancing and you put it on the age-old pensioners. That is what we would like to hear you answer.
It is most exhausting to the patience of the House and particularly to the speaker to continue to argue a case surrounded with a sort of barrage of completely nonsensical interruptions such as those of Deputy Dillon and Deputy O'Leary.
Mine were most relevant.
I am sorry to see Deputy O'Leary sink to the depths that Deputy Dillon does. He ought to keep himself above that level.
You are sorry now that you took the tax off dancing.
The moral tone of this House is not rising and the tenor of the discussion so far has been—and Deputy Cowan was part of the discussion when he constituted himself an advocate of the Fianna Fáil Party— that after all the purchase of votes is pretty generally practised in politics and why should we not all accept that. I could not help thinking of the statues of Grattan and Flood and of an Irish Parliament sitting here. Did they ever dream that we would reach the depth of degradation in which the Government of Ireland would seek to justify itself by the arguments employed by Dutch Schultz before the Kefauver Committee?
"I did nothing worse than what others were doing. I only took the graft that was going. Why do you pick on me?"
Is not that a loathsome defence to hear made by an Irish Government in this Parliament? That is the defence that the Minister for Finance makes. If this is a bribe to sell a benefit, did not Deputy MacBride accept a bribe to sell a benefit? I do not think he did. In any event, there is the fundamental difference that, whatever was thought was promised, what Mr. O'Donoghue got was an inquiry the report of which is in the Minister's hands to-day. He is free to publish that report.
Absolute nonsense.
That is the distinction. The Minister says that he knew nothing of this business or of his colleague's undertaking. He has changed his tune because his colleague, Seán F. Lemass, in his letter of 10th May says that Miss Morris' letter on behalf of the Ballroom Proprietors' Association of May 6th has been considered by the Fianna Fáil Party Committee.
"The committee's view is that the entertainments duty on dances is an undesirable tax. As to its abolition in the present financial year, however, a decision must necessarily await the detailed examination of the Budget introduced in the Dáil immediately prior to its dissolution, but it would be the intention of the Fianna Fáil Party to repeal it as soon as practicable."
What is wrong with that?
I will tell you. I have 20 minutes at my disposal and I will tell you. Does that not suggest that the Fianna Fáil Party felt that if a tax remission were permitted in the Budget situation they discovered when they became responsible the merits of that application would be considered with any rival application. But that is not what happened. This House yesterday voted to put 1d. on the bus fares in Dublin and Cork by way of tax on diesel oil to yield £100,000, and that is the money that will be used to pay the debt to the dance-hall proprietors.
Has Fianna Fáil let you into any of their secrets yet?
The Minister asked what could be more natural in democracy than that a body of persons who had reviewed political policy and had come to the conclusion that generally a particular political outlook pleased them and suggested to them a desirable repercussion on society as a whole, what was more natural than that they should solicit subscriptions to promote the interests of that Party? But that is not what the dance-hall proprietors said. They said that it would be appreciated that this association is entirely non-political. It was not interested in policy. It was not interested in the impact of Fianna Fáil on society.
(Interruptions.)
Go down and look for the mayoral chain in Cork. There will be no division to-day. You are a rough old man but you should not draw my tongue on you too much. Go away or keep quiet.
"It will be appreciated that the association is entirely non-political, and that having failed utterly"— mark this—"to impress the previous Government or the Minister for Finance, though it pointed out the hardships caused to ballroom business, to clubs hiring the ballrooms, musicians, staffs, etc., the association has now no alternative but to support the Party who has indicated that they are prepared to repeal this tax as soon as it is practicable.
The association has decided that the support of Fianna Fáil——"
This is what the Minister has described as a realistic approach in politics,
"——should take the form of substantial financial help and also that all members both city and country should lend a hand in every possible direction to secure the return to power of the one Party who has given the association an indication that they as a Party are opposed to this undesirable entertainment tax on dances."
That letter is dated the 15th May, 1951. I ask the House to note the form of words:—
"The association has now no alternative but to support the Party who has indicated that they are prepared to repeal this tax as soon as it is practicable..."
The letter goes on to say that they are the one Party which has given the association an indication "that they as a Party are opposed to this undesirable entertainment tax on dances." I now ask the House to listen to the letter of Deputy Seán F. Lemass:—
"I have received your letter of May 6th which has been considered by the Fianna Fáil Party Committee. The committee's view is that the entertainments duty on dances is an undesirable tax. As to its abolition in the present financial year, however, a decision must necessarily await the detailed examination of the Budget introduced in the Dáil immediately prior to its dissolution, but it would be the intention of the Fianna Fáil Party to repeal it as soon as necessary."
Miss Morris is not moved by the general tenor of Fianna Fáil policy. She is moved by the specific words implied by Deputy Seán F. Lemass in his letter, that the entertainments tax on dances is an undesirable tax. But more is to come. She says:—
"It will be appreciated that in order to have the desired effect our financial aid must of necessity be generous. I may mention that one leading commercial ballroom in Dublin has headed the list of subscribers to this fund with a generous sum of £250 and other members of the executive have also indicated their willingness to subscribe very generously.
Whilst the association does not specify any particular amount to be subscribed, they request you, in your own interest, to give as much as possible. I shall deem it a great favour if you will reply promptly as time is getting short before the general election, and if we are to help it must be done immediately."
Now, I give this credit to Fianna Fáil that, faced with the duty of defending that transaction before the country, they summoned Deputy Cowan to their aid. Behold the advocate! The strain and the pain in the countenances of the criminals in the dock as their resourceful advocate sought to put a gloss upon their conduct reflected some credit on their hardened consciences. They summoned Deputy Cowan to their aid and, to give the devil his due, he followed most dutifully every hare that he thought could be chased, and one hare proved more rheumatic than the other. As they crept their way around the floor here they met with derisory laughter from all those who were listening, so that the tattered reputation of Fianna Fáil became not only tattered but aromatic. We were finally forced to this stage: "They are a poor lot, a mean lot, but, sure, what do you expect them to be? After all, they are only T.D.s and you do not expect much of T.D.s in this country." I say that is typical of the rotten, corrupting and blasting effect which Fianna Fáil have had on everything that they have touched in this country, that it is conceivable that men could get up in Dáil Éireann and say: "After all, they are only T.D.s, and what more could you expect from them?" I think we are entitled to expect from members of this Parliament the highest standard of honour and integrity.
Not like you in this House.
We all accept the obligation of sitting in this House and of working with individuals whom, quite possibly in other circumstances, we would not touch with the other end of a 40-foot pole but for the fact that the Irish people conferred on them the privileged position of being Deputies of Dáil Éireann and placed on every one of us the honourable obligation of going into their malodorous company and of appearing with them as equals.
It is a monstrous thing if the doctrine is to be enunciated here that there is an obligation on us to equate our standards of conduct with the lowest standard of conduct that Deputy Cowan can think up as practical for any legislator or public representative. I think we are entitled to demand, every one of us, high standards of conduct. I think the Minister ought to be ashamed to come into this House with the crawling, ghastly alibi: "I did nothing worse than others did; somebody else did something queer; I have evidence he did, and so my act is no worse than his."
That is a contemptible defence. I want to comment on it not only for the failure of the analogy between what the Minister referred to and his own conduct, but because it is base, humiliating and degrading that an Irish Minister should think it an adequate alibi to say: "Why pick on me; they are all at it; if I got money by the way, why pick on me; we all do it?" We do not all do it, and it should not go out to the people in this country that Dáil Éireann accepts the proposition that every political Party goes before them seeking their suffrages and claiming the right to be ruled by a morality entirely distinct from that which should rule the lives of ordinary men and women, and no ordinary man wishes to boast of the fact that he undertook to do something in the course of duty because he received payment for it over and above what he was entitled to get.
This section deals with a specific tax. The Deputy is now on the question of parliamentary morality.
I am saying that Fianna Fáil was avowedly paid £250 by a particular dance hall association to introduce this section into the Bill. I am saying that the Minister for Finance defended his conduct by saying that Deputy MacBride promised to do so and so, and "I denounce Deputy MacBride as having done something dishonourable." The Minister says: "If I can establish that he did something dishonourable why pick on me for doing something dishonourable?" I answer that I do not see any analogy between the two cases referred to. However, even if there were a perfect analogy, it would be completely wrong to say: "If somebody else did something wrong, why pick on me?"
This is the important point to remember. What actually transpired in connection with the greyhound racing committee which we have heard discussed to-day for 40 minutes was that a commission was set up to inquire into it.
And the tax was taken off.
There was no change in the tax.
There was.
What actually happened was that an inquiry was set up into the whole greyhound racing industry, including the greyhound breeding industry. The fact is that the report of that inquiry is in the Minister's hands, but he will not publish it. What the greyhound industry got was an inquiry to examine most exhaustively every turn and twist in the coursing business, the greyhound racing business, the breeding business, and the buying and selling of greyhounds. Let that report be published, and let legislation coinciding with its recommendations be enacted, and let anyone in this House get up and say that those recommendations were bespoken by people connected with that industry who were in bad faith. Now compare that with what happened. They did not ask for an inquiry; they did not ask for any investigation; they asked for cash on the nail, and they said: "If you give us so much cash, we will give you so much cash, and they gave the cash."
Right.
Deputy Cowan says "right". He is a practical realist. He claps the desk and says "right". That is the whole issue. Is it right that the Government of Ireland should say to any group in this country: "If you will put down the cash, we will put down the taxpayers' cash." I say that is not proper; I say that is corruption; if it is not corruption, I want somebody to correct me. Is it proper for a vested interest in this country to walk into the executive of a political Party from whose membership the Government is drawn and to strike a bargain and say: "We will give you so much money. How much money will you pass to us through the Finance Act"? I say that is corrupt. Am I wrong in so saying? I understand Deputy Cowan to say that that procedure is right. He is the advocate and the defender of the Fianna Fáil Party who say: "If we can sell it to the country and get them to realise that it is the practical thing to do, we may get away with it." I do not think that Fianna Fáil can hope to effect that degree of degradation. Our people are no prudes; they are no fraudulent moralists; they know the difference between right and wrong, and they know the standard they expect of their public men; they do not expect them to be angels. They sent people like Deputy McGrath in here. They expect that even for people like Deputy McGrath there will be certain Rubicons across which they will not venture to put their feet. They expect that there will be certain standards of conduct from which our public men will not stray. Our people are very good judges of what conduct should be. It is for that reason that I sound this note of warning to the Fianna Fáil Party. Let them not try to ride off with the alibi——
Would somebody give him a lollypop?
——that "if our sin is a sin, it is not a very big one". Our people do not like that attitude. They expect a man who has done something wrong in public life to admit that wrong and to repair it. Our people will not swallow any doctrines advocating the complete abandonment of standards of decency in this country. I want to know do the Fianna Fáil Party, in the open light of day, endorse what they did behind closed doors, because this proposition was made at the meeting of the Executive Party Committee.
Read the letter again.
They agreed to take so much money for Section 14 of the Finance Bill. I assert that there is no precedent for a transaction of this kind in the public life of this country. Has Dáil Éireann ever before been asked to pass a section in an Act of Parliament to honour a bargain sealed for the payment of money to the political Party of which the Government is constituted? Is that an unfair description of this transaction? Is there any precedent in the 30 years of life of this Parliament for this Assembly being openly asked to enact legislation to fulfil a bargain sealed with a monetary payment by the vested interests of the political Party from which the present Government is drawn? Are we to allow this practice to pass as the accepted procedure of Oireachtas Éireann? There is no other Legislature in the world outside the banana Republics of South America where that could be done and got away with. Could you imagine what your reactions would be if you read in the newspaper that a proposal was brought before the Congress of the United States of America advocating that money should be appropriated for a vested interest which had paid a substantial sum to the democratic Parties of the United States on condition that they would enact legislation appropriating them a substantial amount of money?
I have heard that allegation time and again.
Deputy Cowan would shrug his shoulders and say: "What could you expect from a degenerated, capitalistic society of the like?" I can imagine the expression on the Deputy's face when he would be speaking about the disintegrating capitalistic Government which was engaged on these imperialistic adventures. How many speeches has he made about it? I bet that Deputy Cowan has made the welkin ring at the awful spectacle of corruption that surrounds and permeates the public life of America. Yet, he is the man who has come before us to-day advocating that we should take this policy to our bosom with both arms and adopt it as the practical standard and the realist's approach to politics in Ireland. If he thinks there is disintegration in the public life of the United States of America, why does he want it here? I move to report progress.
Progress reported; the Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 10th June, 1952.