Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 10 Jun 1952

Vol. 132 No. 7

Finance Bill, 1952—Committee (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That Section 14 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

This, Sir, is the section which operates to bestow on dance-hall proprietors a sum of £140,000 out of the Exchequer. The House will remember that when we were on an earlier section of the Finance Bill which operated to impose an additional tax on diesel oil we found it extremely difficult to ascertain from the Minister for Finance the magnitude of the burden that the tax on diesel oil was likely to impose on Córas Iompair Éireann. After protracted inquiry it transpired that he believed the burden would be somewhere between £100,000 and £150,000 per annum. There is a striking coincidence between the £140,000 which the dance-hall proprietors are to receive on foot of their agreement with the Government that if they subscribed to the Fianna Fáil Party funds and the Fianna Fáil Party succeeded in scrambling into office, the Fianna Fáil Party undertook to remit this £140,000 taxation for the benefit of the dance-hall proprietors.

The dance-hall proprietors faithfully performed their part of the bargain and they opened the subscription list, as the House will remember, with a subscription of £250, and the other members of the association of ballroom proprietors-because now that they have become so well "heeled" it is no longer considered proper to call them dance-hall proprietors; they have become ballroom proprietors on the strength of the £140,000-doubtless answered the summons and made contributions which compared reasonably if not favourably with the generous send-off of £250.

The House will remember, however, that we asked the Tánaiste and we asked the Minister for Finance to translate the burden which the diesel oil tax would put on Córas Iompair Éireann into terms of addition to bus fares. The Tánaiste baulked that question, and said he did not know what increase it would involve on bus fares or if it would involve any increase. He went so far as to say that whatever deficit accrues must ultimately be met out of the Exchequer, and he then used a phrase which led some of us to believe he was giving an undertaking there and then that he would not permit Córas Iompair Éireann to increase bus fares in order to recoup themselves for this additional impost, whereupon the Minister for Finance became extremely angry, and jumping to his feet beside the Tánaiste, he said: "No matter what anybody else says, I am giving no undertaking."

Attention was directed to this rather singular divergence of opinion between the Minister for Finance and the Tánaiste, because the House will remember how solicitous the Minister for Finance is for the joint responsibility of Ministers in a Government. He has had two or three weaknesses in this House when he thought of how that sacred principle of joint responsibility was in peril during the previous three years. Grave as were the perils which may have occurred in the previous three years, I do not think that during the period of our Government's occupancy of office we have ever had the edifying spectacle of the Tánaiste and the Minister for Finance slanging one another on the Front Bench. We stand now in the position that the Tánaiste says he does not think there will be any increase in bus fares. The Minister for Finance says: "Whatever undertaking you get from him or anybody else, you will not get any such undertaking from me." This morning, however, there appears an announcement in the papers that Cónas Iompair Éireann is to increase bus fares.

An Ceann Comhairle

We will not discuss bus fares on this section. We cannot discuss every variation of a tax or remission of a tax on the section relating to dance halls. We will have to discuss the remission of taxation on dance halls.

Mr. Dillon

I propose to argue that, inasmuch as this bounty which this section proposes to confer on the dance-hall proprietors will cost the people who travel on the buses a penny addition to bus fares, we should cancel the two sections. You will remember, Sir, that we have been rebuked by the Minister for Finance for advocating remission of taxation without a corresponding suggestion as to where the revenue is to be found wherewith to remit the tax. Here is an ideal case. I am advocating the remission on the tax on diesel oil used in buses so that bus fares need not go up and I am pointing to this Section 14 as the source of revenue wherewith to remit the tax. I do not see Deputy McGrath here. I heard him grunting a little earlier, but he seems to have left the House.

An Ceann Comhairle

The expression "grunting" should not be used.

Mr. Dillon

Protesting then. I heard him making a very civil remark. I think the last time I heard him he was suggesting in this House that I should be shot in 1941 and, if I had, that that would have spared him a great deal of the trouble and tribulation he has to undergo now. Apparently, he has left the House. I want to ask Deputy Burke of Dublin and Deputy McGrath and Deputy Lynch of Cork to join with me in suggesting to the Minister that here is an occasion when two sections of a Finance Bill might with great advantage be deleted without any dislocation of the Exchequer and thereby afford very material relief for a section of the community least able to bear the impost——

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy will remember that earlier sections dealing with mineral hydro-carbon light oil and hydro-carbon oil were disposed of by this House. We cannot reopen discussion on these now in discussing Section 14. Section 14 must be discussed by itself. The proposal is to remit taxation in respect of ballroom dance halls.

Mr. Dillon

Ballroom proprietors. Surely the Ceann Comhairle will recall that the standing rebuke of the Minister for Finance is that Deputies must not press him to remit taxation if they do not indicate a source of revenue wherewith to furnish the remission?

An Ceann Comhairle

This must be approached in a regular fashion. We must not discuss all the other sections or any one of them on this section.

Mr. Dillon

I would not like the House to believe that I was actuated by any malicious desire to impoverish the poor ballroom proprietors. These proprietors have all doubtless purchased return tickets to the Continent on the strength of Section 14 and no one would, out of malice or envy, grudge them that continental trip. Perhaps their eyes may turn to Parknasilla, Rossapenna or even Achill Island-they may go native on this £140,000. We would all be glad to see them have lots of fun. I am not asking that they should be deprived of their spree or the boodle which they negotiated so skilfully to secure and which they are on the threshold of corralling. I am only asking the Minister to say who is to provide this £140,000 for the ballroom proprietors' spree? Surely this House must ask itself before we pass a section of the Finance Bill designed to bestow £140,000 on a very limited section of the community, how many ballroom proprietors are there? Is it 140? Take it it is 140. Really it is a most fascinating proposition. Just imagine if one woke up in the morning and found oneself the beneficiary of a section of a Finance Bill which gave one £1,000 into one's lap with full legislative benediction. It is a dramatic proposition. £1,000 each for 140 ballroom proprietors. Surely Dáil Éireann will ask the Minister to say who will provide this hansel. Out of whom will we screw the money to pay this?

Bear in mind that Horatio Nelson fought the battle of Trafalgar and saved the British Empire in order to get a life pension passed on to posterity. The ballroom proprietors here have only to subscribe once to the Fianna Fáil election fund to get a pension of £1,000 a year in perpetuity. Well may Horatio Nelson turn in his grave. He had to risk life and limb, lose an eye and lose an arm, and then his life in order to pass on to his posterity the same largesse. Great dramatic pictures have been painted of the sacrifice he made to purchase for one descendant a relatively trifing sum.

Mr. Allen

Was that Nelson?

Mr. Dillon

Horatio Nelson. The man to whom the pillar is erected, you know. The ballroom proprietors have neither to face shot nor shell, peril by land or peril by sea. Their rôle is simply to call on the Tánaiste and to say: "What about it?" accompanying the words with a suitable gesture with their thumb and first and second finger of a rotary and abrasive kind. The answer is: "Down with the dough," and Horatio Nelson is in the halfpenny place.

Mr. Allen

What about Mark Antony?

Mr. Dillon

I am talking about Horatio Nelson, the man with the patch over one eye and an empty sleeve. The ballroom proprietors make up 140 Horatio Nelsons that this country is asked to maintain. This is not a proposal to give them one grant of £1,000 apiece. This is a proposal to exempt them for ever more from the £1,000 apiece they have been paying. It is the most astonishing proposition that has ever been brought before a democratic legislature in the history of democracy. What distresses me is that, over and above its manifest immorality, and that does not really cause me any great shock when Fianna Fáil is the source of it, it is deplorably bad business. The capital value of an annuity of £140,000 is very substantial. Would it be unreasonable to expect 20 years' purchase of such an annuity? An annuity, the capital value of which is £2,000,000 sterling, for the £20,000 or £30,000 the dance hall proprietors put up for the Fianna Fáil Party is very bad value. It is one thing to buy votes with public money but when you start buying subscriptions of a few thousand pounds with millions of public money somebody must call a halt.

Come now. Deputy Burke is an experienced Deputy and one who never hesitates to champion the cause of the Dublin working man. Here he can do a public service. Let him join with me in saying that there should be no Nelson pensions for ballroom proprietors here; there should be no perpetual endowment of ballroom proprietors, their heirs and assignees, from the Irish Exchequer. I do not despair that even at this eleventh hour this most disreputable proposal will be amended or withdrawn. I exhort those Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party who have some respect for themselves, if there are any such, to dissociate themselves from this disgusting and disgraceful transaction. In reaching their conclusion, I press upon them that they have a duty to ask themselves out of whose pocket will the money be taken?

Mr. Allen

Where is the money coming from to give relief to the income-tax payers?

Mr. Dillon

I understood that income-tax had gone up by £900,000 per annum.

Mr. Allen

170,000 income-tax payers are getting relief of well over £1,000,000.

Mr. Dillon

But I understand the yield has gone up by £900,000.

Mr. Allen

You understand the other, too. Where is the money coming from to give that relief?

Mr. Dillon

I freely confess that Fianna Fáil finance is something that quite surpasses my understanding. I only understand such simple propositions as: "If we put down the boodle, what do we get for our dough?" and we have the strange coincidence of Section 8 and Section 14 of the Finance Bill.

Without going into the more complicated aspects of this legislation, perhaps Deputy Carter, who appears to be bristling with interjections, will apply his mighty intellect to the simple antithesis of Section 8 and Section 14 and lend his mighty mind, his eloquent voice and his well-known reputation for disinterested solicitude for the people to my humble effort in order to secure that 1,000 ballroom proprietors will not acquire Nelson's pension at the expense of the working people who must pay bus fares to get to their work. I will give Deputy Carter time and opportunity to intervene and bestow upon us the benison of his view on this matter for I do not doubt that every Deputy here will be illuminated and refreshed to hear the verdict of so penetrating an intelligence on so complex a matter.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare (Mr. Kennedy)

Deputy Dillon talks about 140 ballroom proprietors who will be beneficiaries under the remission of this tax. When I was speaking on the Budget I referred to the fact that there was no enumeration of the number of dance halls throughout the country owned by parochial committees or town improvements committees. In County Westmeath there are 23 such halls. There is only one privately-owned dance hall in that county. In the town of Athlone there are three dance halls-St. Mary's, St. Peter's and Sportex. They are all owned by either parochial committees or some other committee. In Moate, you have a hall which is the property of the Westmeath County Council.

Mr. O'Higgins

Did they subscribe to the Fianna Fáil election fund?

Mr. MacEntee

Did the Scotch House subscribe to Fine Gael?

Mr. Kennedy

I will answer Deputy O'Higgins and say that Fianna Fáil. Fine Gael and Labour have hired these halls and run dances in them. In the town of Mullingar you have three halls. In the town in which I live, you have a town hall which is owned by a town's improvement committee. You have halls in Athlone, Moate, Kilbeggan, Tyrrellspass, Crookedwood, Castlepollard, Collinstown, Delvin, Killucan, Rathowen, Ballinacarrigy, Leney, Boherquil, Knockaville, Castletown-Geoghegan, Fore, Glanidan, Cloughan. All this talk about £140,000 going back to private individuals is not correct. If an analysis were made of the number of such halls in the province of Leinster it would be a safe bet to say that they are at least ten to one against the privately-owned dance hall. When we take into account that this £140,000 is not a net amount but a gross amount, and that, as has been pointed out again and again, the cost of collecting it is very high, the question arises, as it arose in 1946, is the tax worth collecting? I have no apologies, as a Fianna Fáil Deputy, for the abolition of this tax. Fianna Fáil abolished it in 1946. While Fianna Fáil remained in office, the tax was off. It was put on again by the Government previous to the present Government, and so Fianna Fáil is consistent in doing away with it.

We have all these halls in my county that I have mentioned. There are similar halls in the counties of Meath. Offaly and Longford. They are hired time and time again by G.A.A. clubs. N.A.C.A. clubs, coursing clubs, tennis clubs, badminton clubs, by the Red Cross, by Muintir na Tíre, feiseanna, Comhdhála, Macra na Feirme, rugby clubs, soccer clubs, agricultural shows and towns improvement associations. The dance that is run by the agricultural show committee is one of the big dances of the year in Moate. The experience of people in running dances, particularly since the war, has been this: when they hired the hall they discovered that the hire of it had increased since pre-war days and during the war, and that the cost of the band had gone up by at least 100 per cent. They sat at the door and collected the charge and found, in cases where they had honestly paid the dance tax, that they had little or nothing left in aid of the worthy object for which the dance was organised.

In 1946, when the then Minister for Finance abolished that tax, it was regarded as one of the most popular things that he had done, and tributes were paid to him from every side of this House. When it was restored by the previous Government the people who supported the Coalition appealed to the then Minister for Finance not to put on the tax. He modified it somewhat, and did not put on the tax in towns of under 500 of a population. But that did not meet the public requests or public opinion which favoured the continuation of dances without the tax because in the main, these dances were organised to help the worthy objects of such organisations as the Red Cross and towns improvements associations. Nobody, I think, will deny that the objects of these associations that I have enumerated are very worthy ones.

As I said at the outset, when you make an analysis of the number of these halls, in contrast with the others, and examine the gross sum involved, you will see that the remission of the tax goes to the benefit of those people. In the case of the privately-owned dance halls, they are hired out by these associations that I have mentioned. Therefore, I submit that the remission of the tax in these cases will benefit the clubs and organisations which hire these halls in Dublin or wherever they may exist. I think the Minister did a very good day's work when he abolished the dance tax. He certainly has the support and approbation of every G.A.A. man throughout the country of every promoter of a coursing club and of every other organisation that I have mentioned.

Mr. Dillon

Will the Parliamentary Secretary say that he has examined the matter, and tell us what is his estimate of the proportion of the £140,000 which will benefit the ballroom proprietor?

Captain Cowan

Nothing-nil.

Mr. Kennedy

I could not answer that.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Cowan may feel that he ought to be the Parliamentary Secretary. I did not ask him. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. Kennedy

I am not able to answer Deputy Dillon's question, but I would say that the bigger portion of the tax will go back to the benefit of the people I have mentioned.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Cowan is somewhat more courageous. He believes in going the whole hog, and that the £140,000 is being taken off just for love of their neighbour.

Mr. Kennedy

When Deputy Dillon was speaking, he mentioned income-tax payers. The relief to income-tax payers, in the smaller group, amounts to £167,000. That is a good sum.

Mr. Dillon

I was not aware until now that I had referred to income-tax.

Mr. O'Higgins

It was by way of reply to a disorderly interruption.

Mr. Kennedy

Reference has been made to the fact that the proprietors of private dance halls subscribed to Fianna Fáil. That may be true and probably is true. There is nothing wrong in that any more than there is in the public subscribing to Fine Gael. I know one company which subscribed £500 to Fine Gael at the last election. I do not see anything wrong in that. They were making a case for a reduction of the beer tax, the hat went round and they gave it. I would not accuse them of doing anything wrong in that. I want to say, in conclusion, to Deputy O'Higgins that his organisation, as well as my own, has benefited very much by these dance halls. They have run dances in all these places that I have mentioned to get funds. If the dance tax were continued they would cease to run these dances.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary belongs to the G.A.A. or not. I think he made a blunder when he said that the abolition of this tax on dance halls would be welcomed by every G.A.A. club in the country. I say that because it is a well-known fact-Deputy Cowan can verify it—that one of the rules of the association is that Gaelic athletic clubs would not run dances.

Mr. Kennedy

In Wexford.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

That is the rule all over the country.

Mr. Kennedy

It is not observed in Wexford.

Captain Cowan

It is observed more in the breach.

Mr. Dillon

Heresy rears its head. This dance tax will yet wreck the national movement.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

I think the main argument——

Mr. Dillon

Will Deputy Corish confirm this? Am I right in believing that I heard Deputy Cowan and Deputy Kennedy say that the rule of the Gaelic Athletic Association against holding dances is more honoured in the breach than in the observance?

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

It is a stupid rule, but it is the rule.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Dillon must allow Deputy Corish to speak without interruption.

Mr. Dillon

Deputy Corish gave way.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

I think the main objection to the section has been lost sight of altogether. It seemed to me, while I was listening to the speech of the Minister for Finance last Friday, that he tried to justify bribes to a political Party. It would suggest itself to me that he may expect a very big contribution from the brewers of this country and from the big tobacco companies of this country.

Captain Cowan

Brewers is right.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

That is not my objection to this section and it is not the objection of the Labour Party to this section. My objection to the remission of the tax on dancing is that it is ludicrous. It is an insult to the people of this country to remit a tax yielding £140,000 per annum in respect of dancing and at the same time to reduce food subsidies substantially. That is the main objection to the section. We all know that £140,000 is a very small amount in relation to the total bill this country has to pay this year. Nevertheless, I suggest that this £140,000 could be used by the Minister for Finance for the relief of people who will be severely hit when the reduction of the food subsidies comes into effect on 4th July next. I suggest to the Minister that this £140,000 which he proposes to remit would, during every year, enable a non-contributory widow's pension to be paid to a widow without a child at the age of 42 rather that at 48, the age at which she receives it at present. I suggest that that would be a substantial relief to the widows of this country who, ordinarily, would be entitled to a non-contributory widow's pension and who, at the same time, have to wait until they reach the age of 48 before they receive it. That information was gleaned here on Friday last from the Minister for Social Welfare. I asked him how much it would cost to reduce that age of qualification for a non-contributory widow's pension from 48 to 45 years and he said that it would cost £80,000. If, therefore, we take that as the figure, it would mean that that same non-contributory widow's pension could be paid to a widow at 42 or 43 years of age.

I have no evidence that what Deputy MacBride says is correct but I am quite sure the Minister for Finance can correct it if it is wrong. An assertion has been made that this £140,000 would give a substantial increase to those in receipt of military service pensions—an increase of 25 per cent. Would it not, therefore, be more equitable that that £140,000 should be devoted to the relief of that type of person and to the people who are qualified or who would be qualified to receive a non-contributory widow's pension than that the tax should be remitted?

I was not impressed by the arguments put up by the Minister and by Deputy Cowan. In normal circumstances I should be prepared to consider and to argue the merits and demerits of a dance tax. This Budget has been described by all sides as harsh and severe and, in these circumstances, it is ludicrous to remit a tax yielding £140,000. I do not suggest that the whole of that £140,000 will go to the dance-hall proprietors. Deputy Dillon was slightly awry, to be kind to him, when he suggested that 140 dance-hall proprietors would each get £1,000. I do not think that argument would get us anywhere. It is distributed not alone over the dance-hall proprietors but over all the different associations to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred. It was not a harsh tax. It did not break the political clubs, the political associations, the football clubs, the camogie clubs, Muintir na Tíre or any of the committees of agriculture. It is a contribution that could well be made during this year and next year and probably during the following years to help to relieve people who are not in a sound position to provide for themselves adequately in view of the other impositions that are contained in the Budget. I want to make that point clear.

I am not interested in what happened between a certain lady and a certain gentleman of the Fianna Fáil Party in regard to the promise of a subscription. Neither am I interested in the allegation which the Minister for Finance makes against Deputy MacBride in respect of the greyhound racing industry. I and my Party are concerned only with the fact that a tax yielding a sum of £140,000 is being remitted to associations and certain private individuals whilst at the same time other proposals in the Budget compel people to pay very steep increases in the price of foodstuffs and other things which they use from day to day.

Mr. MacBride

Deputy Corish has. I think, struck the right note when he emphasises that the real issue is why, at a time when the Government has embarked on a policy of taxing bread, butter, tea, sugar, cigarettes and beer——

Captain Cowan

There is no tax on foodstuffs.

Mr. O'Higgins

Of course, there is.

Mr. MacBride

The removal of the subsidy on bread, butter, tea and sugar amounts to a tax on these commodities. If Deputy Cowan cannot conduct himself properly in this House let him go outside and raise an army.

Captain Cowan

That is an ignorant comment. There is no tax on foodstuffs.

Mr. MacBride

There is. The removal of the subsidy means a tax on the foodstuffs which the people of this country, including Deputy Cowan's constituents, must purchase. Let him explain to the electors of Dublin that the increase in the price of bread, butter, tea and sugar does not amount to a tax.

Captain Cowan

There is no tax on foodstuffs.

Mr. O'Higgins

Deputy Cowan is feeling worried about it.

Mr. MacBride

The various elaborate and rather fantastic explanations given by the Minister for Finance to justify his action in proposing the removal of the tax on dancing and the handing over of £140,000 to the ballroom proprietors will not deceive anybody in this country. The main argument which the Minister used in his Budget statement was that dancing was the only form of entertainment in respect of which those who participate actively are taxed. He waxed eloquent because all-in wrestlers who are engaged in all-in wrestling are not taxed. If the Minister felt so keenly about the injustice of not taxing all-in wrestlers, why, at a time when he is in search of money, did he not impose a tax on all-in wrestlers?

Captain Cowan

That is Deputy Dillon's point.

Mr. MacBride

It is a perfectly ludicrous and fantastic example for the Minister to take. You might as well say that all taxes have to be of universal application in respect of all commodities. May I advert to the attacks he launched on me in relation to greyhound racing as a typical example of the lack of logic in the Minister's arguments? There is a tax levied on all people who attend greyhound racing. They pay an admission tax. There is no similar tax imposed on people who attend horse-racing meetings. They can get in without paying a tax. On the basis of the same line of reasoning as that adopted by the Minister, horse racing should be taxed or greyhound racing should be relieved of the tax which it now has to provide for the revenue.

The simple fact of the case is that at a time when the Government, and the Minister in particular, are declaring that the State is bankrupt, that they must raise revenue by increasing the price of all essential foodstuffs, that they must economise by cutting down even Gaeltacht services, he deprives himself of £140,000 of revenue.

We used in this House to talk, particularly at Budget time, in millions, in hundreds of thousands of pounds, without very often appreciating the value of money. It is probably inevitable, when the House is considering Estimates for substantial amounts, that one talks rather glibly about £500,000, or £250,000 or £100,000. This £140,000 is quite a substantial sum. It could have avoided some of the cuts on Gaeltacht services or some of the cuts on afforestation. It could have provided a substantial increase in the pensions of all Old I.R.A. men. It could have provided 1,000 scholarships of £140 each for primary school children. It could have provided at least 50 first-class halls for the Gaeltacht or rural areas about which the Parliamentary Secretary was so eloquent a few minutes ago.

In a state of affairs where the Government was seeking to remit taxation, was seeking to benefit the taxpayers in some way because it had more revenue than it required, I could quite well understand the merits or demerits of the dance tax being discussed although, even in those circumstances, I think a benevolent Government might find a better objective for its benevolence than the ballroom proprietors.

I think the Minister for Finance and the Government are living in a fool's paradise if they think for one moment that the public have any illusions as to the reason why this tax was removed. I think the public have formed their own conclusion and will find it very hard to believe that the removal of this tax was not connected with the correspondence which has been read and which is on the record of this House between the Minister's Party and the Ballroom Proprietors' Association and with the subscriptions which, presumably, the Minister's Party received to fight the last general election.

The Minister has further weakened his case by resorting to the rather familiar tactic of trying to justify himself by throwing mud all round him. The letter which I wrote to Mr. O'Donoghue on 10th November, 1947, was already the subject matter of the Minister's mud-slinging activities in the 1948 general election.

Captain Cowan

1948?

Mr. MacBride

At that time several columns of the Minister's newspaper, the Irish Press, were filled with speeches and letters by the Minister in regard to that letter. The clear suggestion was made that I and my Party were guilty of some improper conduct. The letter which the Minister referred to but which he was careful not to read the other day in the House was the subject of many speeches by the Minister and many letters. I think that letter compares extremely favourably with the correspondence which is on the record of this House. It is, in effect, I think, a model of the type of letter which a public representative should write when he is approached by a substantial body of citizens who have a grievance to air. But, in those days, the Minister launched his attacks, launched them with the help of his Party paper, on the basis of that letter and the first title that appeared in the columns of the Irish Press over speeches made by the Minister in connection with that letter was, in heavy black type: “Is this corruption?”“Is this corruption?” As I said, I think there is no comparison between the statement I made in 1947 in regard to the greyhound industry in the country and the Government's behaviour in this particular matter.

I think it would be well for the records of the House if I read this letter in full. The Minister carefully refrained from reading it. It is dated 10th November, 1947—when there was no general election pending:—

"I have gone into the question of the disabilities imposed upon the greyhound industry as thoroughly as I could in the short time available to me. The following appear to me to be the relevant factors:

(a) The breeding and training of greyhounds has become an important industry which is of special benefit in that it is diffused throughout the whole countryside and of benefit to the farmers and the agricultural worker alike.

(b) The export of greyhounds amounts to approximately £1,000,000 per annum. This establishes the importance of the industry from an international trade point of view.

(c) The yield from the tax on greyhound racing for the financial year 1945/46 brought in only £19,000 to the Exchequer. The net yield of the tax when the cost of collection has been deducted must be small.

(d) In comparison, the tax accruing from dances brought in £54,000 in the financial year 1945/46. This tax has since been taken off.

(e) There is no tax on horse racing, football or dancing. Neither football nor dancing contributes anything to the national economy.

Having regard to the foregoing factors, I can see no basis for penalising the greyhound industry by imposing upon it a tax which results in such a small yield. I always think in such matters it is well to examine the position on the basis of principle. In relation to a tax, the guiding principle in my view should be that the tax should primarily be imposed on that section of the community best able to bear it. Applying that principle to horse racing and to the greyhound industry, I can see no justification for penalising the greyhound industry. Greyhound racing is essentially the poor man's sport. It is an industry which brings diffused profits to the rural community. It is an industry that is of value to the national economy. Not merely is horse racing untaxed, but it has been heavily subsidised out of public funds at the expense of the greyhound industry.

Who is best able to bear taxation? Those who attend horse racing or those who attend greyhound racing? The owners and trainers of racehorses or the greyhound breeders? The answer to those two questions leaves no room for doubt as to which of these groups are best able to bear taxation. For those reasons I can see no justification under present circumstances for the tax on greyhound racing. Likewise, I can see no justification for differentiating between horse racing and greyhound racing in relation to totalisators. If greyhound racing is taxed on the basis that it comes under the heading of entertainment why then are dances and games not taxed? Owing to the tendency to approach questions of this nature for the purpose of currying support at the elections, I thought it best to set out the principles and the facts which influenced me in giving you my views on the subject. I think these principles and facts must coerce any fair-minded person to the same conclusion."

I stand over every word of that letter. I see no reason why greyhound racing. properly regarded as a form of sport, should be subject to a tax which is not imposed on those who can afford to drive down to the Curragh in motor cars or those who can afford to go to horse racing at other centres. However, let me make it quite clear that I do not for one moment suggest that at a time when the Government finds it necessary to raise revenue by increasing the price of bread, butter, tea, sugar and other commodities the tax on greyhound racing should be removed. That should be done only at a time when the Government finds itself in a position to make some tax remissions. It is quite obvious that in present circumstances, the present Government does not consider itself in a position to make any remission of taxation. On the contrary it has been shouting "bankruptcy" right, left and centre, in justification of its policy in removing the food subsidies.

The Minister has availed of the occasion of the discussion on this matter to make, under the privilege of this House, a great many personal attacks, not merely on myself but on persons who are not members of this House. He has availed of it on this occasion to attack by name not merely Mr. Patrick O'Donoghue but also to make suggestions against his children and the members of his family. Mr. O'Donoghue's record in the affairs of this country and in the struggle for the independence of the country compares favourably with that of the Minister. The Minister should be the last person to make personal attacks on other people's families.

Mr. MacEntee

Apparently Deputy MacBride seems to consider it a reflection on Mr. O'Donoghue's family that a son of Mr. O'Donoghue's should have been a candidate for Ciann na Poblachta.

Mr. MacBride

Anybody who read the Minister's speech would be able to form a good idea of the Minister's methods.

An Ceann Comhairle

The Deputy on the section.

Mr. MacBride

The Minister has taken the opportunity to attack a man who has made valuable sacrifices for the country. Possibly the Minister might have been well advised to discuss this matter with his own leader, the Taoiseach, before making these attacks. He might have learned that the Taoiseach had other opinions of Mr. O'Donoghue and that the Taoiseach not so very long ago, sent for Mr. O'Donoghue. He might have learned that Mr. O'Donoghue was the person who was instrumental in rescuing the Taoiseach from Lincoln Jail. Is there an explanation of these personal attacks? Is the Minister going to apologise for them? Is he at any time going to acquire some sense of responsibility in discharging the responsibilities of his office in this House? The Minister himself knows Mr. O'Donoghue. If I am not mistaken he on many occasions wrote to him letters, beginning "Dear Paddy". If I am not mistaken the Minister on many occasions importuned Mr. O'Donoghue for subscriptions for his own election expenses. Is it because Mr. O'Donoghue refused to subscribe to his election fund that this House is now to be made a medium for attacks on Mr. O'Donoghue?

Captain Cowan

On a point of order. I have before me the record of the debates on this section and I see no attack on Mr. O'Donoghue. I say that if it is suggested that the Minister has attacked a man who is not a member of the House, that the words should be quoted.

Mr. MacBride

The report is not printed yet. Shut up.

Captain Cowan

I have the report.

Mr. MacBride

It is not the report.

Captain Cowan

I have the report of Friday's debate.

An Ceann Comhairle

Deputy Cowan on the point of order.

Captain Cowan

I have the report of Friday's debates so I am not going to be told that it is not printed. There is the report. I have the report in my hand.

An Ceann Comhairle

The report has just come in.

Captain Cowan

If this matter is to be referred to, I ask that the precise allegation be quoted. I have it here.

Mr. MacBride

The Minister and Deputy Cowan are well met in their tactics. I think they are beginning to be known and understood by the people.

Mr. O'Higgins

I heard the Minister refer——

An Ceann Comhairle

Matters of this kind are not likely to add to decorum or order in this House. They are to be deprecated from whatever quarter they come. If statements were made in respect of a citizen outside this House, I allowed Deputy MacBride to make certain statements which he wished to make. I think honour ought to be satisfied now and we ought to proceed to discuss this section.

Mr. O'Higgins

I think it is proper to remind the Chair that this matter was raised on a point of order by Deputy Morrissey in the course of the Minister's speech. Despite that request from the Chair, which was not a ruling of course, the Minister continued on exactly the same line to which Deputy Morrissey had objected.

An Ceann Comhairle

Even suppose that happened, suppose the Minister did?

Captain Cowan

I have the report here and I am asking if it is to be mentioned that it should be quoted from.

Mr. MacBride

Possibly I have what the Minister will regard as the next best thing, a copy of the Irish Press containing a report of some of the Minister's statements.

Captain Cowan

This is putting up an "Aunt Sally".

Mr. MacBride

Deputy Cowan is now the Minister's defender or adviser.

An Ceann Comhairle

We are now discussing Section 14.

Mr. MacBride

The Minister could have no better associate than Deputy Cowan. I hope they will remain together as long as possible, that a parting of the ways will be unlikely.

An Ceann Comhairle

I must insist that the Deputy come to the section.

Mr. MacBride

I do not suggest that the Minister has himself personally received any consideration for the removal of the dance tax. I do think, however, that it will be very hard to make the public believe that the Minister's decision to remit the tax at a time when he is raising the price of bread and other essential foods was not dictated largely by the fact that his Party had received and expect to receive large funds from the Dance-hall Proprietors' Association.

Mr. Cogan

It has been stated that unsavoury incidents are inseparable from Party politics. That statement was made by Deputy MacBride——

Mr. MacBride

Where?

Mr. Cogan

——when Minister for External Affairs.

Mr. MacBride

Where and in what context?

Mr. Cogan

At a meeting of the executive of his Party in connection with the Baltinglass appointment.

An Ceann Comhairle

It has nothing to do with this section.

Mr. MacBride

That is not so. It may have been told to the Deputy by his colleague, Deputy Dr. Browne, but that statement is not true.

Mr. Cogan

True or false. I think it explains very clearly——

Mr. MacBride

It was made in a different context.

Mr. Cogan

——Deputy MacBride's philosophy with regard to public affairs and public life. The Deputy professes to be profoundly annoyed because the Minister brought to the notice of the House a certain transaction of his in regard to dog track operations. I do not want to go into this matter. I am determined in this section to concentrate upon this section of the Finance Bill and to deal with the remission of the dance tax provided for in the Bill. I cannot understand why there is such uproar from the Opposition because certain concessions are being given in this section to the poorer section of the community. Who are the people who will benefit by this remission of taxation? They fall under two headings: the young people who frequent dance halls for a little enjoyment in the city and in the large towns and the parochial clubs throughout the country who organise dances for beneficial and charitable purposes in their areas. So far as the young people are concerned, they do not belong to the richer sections of the community. Deputy MacBride said that dog racing is the poor man's entertainment. I have never been there, but I am told that a great many fivers and tenners change hands at this dog racing. We do not see many fivers or tenners change hands in the dance halls. There you find young boys and girls enjoying themselves for a few hours. They are people of very limited means. They are boys who are serving their time perhaps, girls who work in offices and shops and who get very scanty remuneration. Under this section these people are being offered some small concession.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

They will not get 1d. of it.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Cogan must be allowed to speak without interruption.

Mr. Cogan

Deputy Corish says these people will not get 1d. of it. I do not believe that. I believe that the net result of this remission must be a reduction in the charges for admission to dance halls owned by dance-hall proprietors. I have reason to believe that the various associations who organise dances may not reduce their charges as a result of this tax remission. They may thereby benefit by the remission and in that way benefit many useful causes. Do Opposition Deputies object to organisations like the young farmers' clubs or Muintir na Tíre or any of these beneficial local organisations obtaining a certain benefit from this remission and thereby adding to their funds which they are using for the uplifting of our people? Do they object to the young boys and girls in the cities and towns and wherever there are privately-owned dance halls obtaining that small benefit through this remission of taxation? Is it their policy—it would appear to be —that we ought to encourage drinking rather than dancing? Do they believe it is better for the young people to go into the public-houses rather than into the dance halls? Twelve months ago the leaders of the Opposition were thumping their chests in an attempt to show the world their loyalty to the Bishops and to the Catholic Church. Do we not all know that the Bishops have condemned the increase in the consumption of alcoholic liquor and the growing intemperance throughout the country? Yet, now we have these same leaders of the Opposition, who were so vocal 12 months ago——

Mr. O'Higgins

You have their views on dancing also.

Mr. Cogan

——now proclaiming to the world that our young people should be induced to go into the public-house rather than into the dance hall. Their policy is dearer dancing and cheaper beer.

Mr. Crotty

And your policy is dearer bread.

Mr. Cogan

I think the leaders of the Opposition have been badly shown up in relation to this particular section. While the Minister was speaking in defence of this section I watched Deputy Dillon. At first he wore a malicious grin on his rather pugnacious countenance. As the Minister proceeded to unfold the operations between "Dear Paddy" and Deputy MacBride the malicious grin disappeared and was replaced by an angry scowl. Before very long we had Deputy Dillon on his feet howling, yowling and spitting like a cat with its tail caught under a door. There was no fun for him in the operations the Minister was unfolding to the House. He and his colleagues were shown up as utterly insincere in trying to make political capital without having any reasonable case. The name of a certain lady was mentioned ad nauseam in this debate. It was only right that the Minister should offset that by producing to the House the very affectionate correspondence that passed between Deputy MacBride and “Dear Paddy”. But “Dear Paddy” and the secretary of the Ballroom Proprietors' Association were only trotting after the distinguished Christy Reddin who did not put any of his transactions on paper.

Mr. O'Higgins

On a point of order. Is it right that a person should be attacked——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Cogan should not refer to people outside this House. The Deputy should confine himself to the section.

Mr. O'Higgins

Of course, he is only following the example set by the Minister.

Mr. Cogan

Miss Morris was mentioned here.

Mr. O'Higgins

Did anyone attack Miss Morris?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes, you did.

Mr. O'Higgins

Read the record. I have not spoken on this yet. Just sit quiet for a moment. I will speak shortly.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputy Cogan on Section 14.

Mr. Cogan

People sometimes find a difficulty in listening to the truth. The truth must be told. In opposing the remission of this dance tax Deputy O'Higgins is opposing something that is desirable. We all want to see well-conducted dance halls throughout the country. We want to see them run as they should be run. Deputy O'Higgins and his colleagues want to see the young people drinking in the public-houses. They want more and more drinking and less and less dancing. That is the policy they are openly preaching now in defiance of the teachings of the Irish Hierarchy.

There is an existing evil that needs to be emphasised. When it was decided by the Coalition Government to reimpose the dance tax strong representations were made to that Government that the imposition of that tax in the rural areas was very undesirable inasmuch as it was making it virtually impossible for dancing to survive. As a result of those representations the tax was remitted in towns and villages with a population of less than 500 people. We have all experienced the difficulties in getting a true estimate of population. We know that populations vary from census to census.

Apart from all that, there is evil in relation to the remission that was given. Any publican in a rural area can increase his income by building a dance hall adjacent to his public-house. In areas within reasonable distance of an urban centre of population many such halls have been erected. These dance halls are in a rural area and benefit by the remission but they are not there for the benefit of the rural population. Wealthy people from the cities, the spivs and the children of spivs, and other wealthy sections of the community frequent these dance halls because they can get there and home again in their motor cars. They can get all the liquor they want. Steps are frequently taken to exclude the rustic population from these centres of amusement inasmuch as the charge for admission is usually so high as to render dancing for the rural community prohibitive.

That is a growing evil under the concession which was made in relation to the rural areas. The only method of solving that difficulty is to remit the tax entirely and give the few pounds or the few shillings back to the young people who attend these dances or to the local associations that run them for the benefit of the local community. Some people may say the concession is not worth while. We must remember that the young people who are the backbone of the dancing industry are in the main people with very limited incomes. They may be agricultural workers, farmers' sons or junior civil servants. The few shillings that are handed back as a result of this remission will be of benefit to them and will to some extent offset the increased contribution they will have to make because of the increased tobacco tax.

These young people do not go in for drinking to any great extent. It seems to me that the guiding motive behind the opposition to the remission of this tax is jealousy on the part of sour-faced old politicians of the young boys and girls of to-day. They envy the young people their youth and their romance. They forget that they were young themselves once. They feel that while it was all right for them to enjoy themselves while they were young, the young people of to-day should be deprived of any enjoyment except what they can be got in local public-houses.

Mr. O'Higgins

Take a look at all the young faces behind you.

General MacEoin

Look at the youth!

Mr. Cogan

I have not heard many young people opposing the remission of this tax, but I have heard grizzly old sour faces denounce it bitterly. The only reason I can see why they are denouncing the remission of the tax is that they begrudge to see the young people of Ireland enjoy themselves.

I was glad to see Deputy Corish reprimand Deputy Dillon for his gross exaggeration in regard to the effects of this remission. Deputy Dillon suggested that there were 140 dance-hall proprietors, and that they would each receive £1,000. Deputy Corish, of course, did not accept that at all, because he knows that the dance halls all over the country are owned by various associations and committees. He knew that the real beneficiaries of this remission will be clubs who organise and run dances for public or amusement purposes and, of course, for the young people who enjoy those dances. I think that Deputy Dillon was in a rather bad mood when he opened this debate on Friday last. He was just after being severely castigated by his new Party Whip for being late for the operation "beer barrel" which was staged for 10.30 on Friday morning. Apart from personal abuse and ridicule, Deputy Dillon made no case whatsoever against the remission of this tax. His suggestion that all this money will go into the pockets of the dance-hall proprietors is, of course, too ludicrous to be accepted by anybody. I do not think anyone would seriously suggest that it is only the rich who enjoy dances—that dancing is one of those great luxuries which only the rich can enjoy.

Some Deputy, I think, said that dog racing was the poor man's sport. I thing that, to a great extent, dancing is a form of amusement which is greatly enjoyed by young working men and young working girls. Therefore, I think it is only right that some small concession should be made to them. The people who will benefit by this remission are the young people attending dances, those who are not old enough to receive the increase in the old age pensions which is being provided in the Budget, and unmarried people who will not benefit by the increase in the children's allowances. In this section, a small concession is being made to those young people. As I have said, the sour-faced old kill-joys of Fine Gael begrudge the young people this small concession. I wonder do people realise that, when Deputy Dillon was a member of the Fine Gael Party before, it withered and dwindled and became so small that they threw him out.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with the section.

General MacEoin

It has.

Mr. Cogan

For some time last Friday, and for a considerable time to-day, Deputy Dillon set a new headline for his Party from which he was evicted for trying to get Dublin, Limerick and Waterford blitzed. He is seeking now to forget that he was thrown out for that dastardly operation, and for advocating such a policy. He is seeking now to lead the Fine Gael Party again from the extreme end of the Front Bench. He tells them that their line in regard to this section is to concentrate on filthy abuse of that small section of the community which happens to own dance halls in this city, I presume. By building his case against the remission of the tax on abuse of that section of the community, he thinks that is good Party propaganda—now that he is in the Party. I think he will realise, and if he does not his newly found friends or colleagues will realise that the people of Ireland have a little bit more common sense and a little bit more intelligence than to be deceived by that kind of propaganda.

The people of Ireland know that dancing for young people is better than drinking, and that we have all over the country well run dance halls which have been established in our towns with over 500 of a population. These dance halls cater not only for the provincial and urban centres, but also for the rural areas which surround those towns in which these dance halls have been established. These halls are of immense value to our young people. They provide a means of enjoyment and entertainment for them, much better enjoyment than they would be likely to obtain elsewhere.

We know that social workers who want to uplift our people are advocating the building of more halls for our young people—better halls which will be better equipped and provided with every amenity. With the remission of this tax there will, I suggest, be more money available for those beneficial purposes. The local associations will have more money to spend on the provision of bigger and better halls for our young people. Is not that a desirable purpose? Is not that what we should aim at rather than follow the grizzly kill-joys of Fine Gael, who denounce all form of amusement for the young and recommend only one type of enjoyment—that is the type of enjoyment which can be obtained by getting totally drunk?

Mr. Sweetman

Any dances which Fine Gael held in your constituency have always been packed out.

Mr. Cogan

The dances in my constituency will always be well attended and Deputy Sweetman will always be welcome to them.

Mr. Sweetman

I always obey the law.

Mr. Cogan

I am not one of those who would be so narrow-minded or jealous-minded as to boycott any amusement which was organised by Deputy Sweetman for his friends. In fact, I am particularly broadminded in matters of this kind. Indeed, I would like to see a little more broadmindedness amongst those members of the Fine Gael Party who still claim to be young, who are perhaps young in years but appear to be very old and soured in mentality.

Mr. O'Higgins

Listening to Deputy Cogan's contribution to this debate, it is perfectly obvious that he has not yet recovered from the indigestion which he suffered 12 months ago. His reference here to Deputies who have contributed to this debate was, to put it mildly, in extremely bad taste. It is rather amusing to find that a Minister, who shares in some way Deputy Cogan's propensity for language a little bit distasteful, should have this proposition supported by two guardian angels, Deputy Cowan and Deputy Cogan, one from the left-hand side and one from the right-hand side.

We are asked to pass this section because of arguments advanced not by the Fianna Fáil Party, with one notable exception with which I shall deal later—they have remained very silent on this proposition—but by Deputy Cowan and Deputy Cogan, one speaking from the left-hand side and the other speaking from the right-hand side. I do not intend to follow the arguments advanced by these two gentlemen in any detail. I should like to discuss this section as reasonably as it is possible to discuss it in this House. I think that any Deputy in the House will agree that it is not possible to discuss a proposal such as this without considering the entire background of the Budget which contains this proposal for exemption. In order to consider whether the exemption is justified, one cannot divorce from one's mind the framework of the Finance Bill in which this exemption proposal is contained.

I do not think it is necessary, on the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill, to refer to other sections in which taxation is imposed. It is important to remember that under Section 14 of the Bill the Minister is asking the House to relieve from a tax liability of almost £150,000 a certain section of the community and at the same time is imposing very severe burdens on the community generally and particularly on the poorer section. The poorer section—as well as the rich, of course— find that under the financial proposals which are being given legal effect to in this Bill, their foodstuffs are taxed and other impositions are imposed upon them. That is the background to Section 14 under which the Minister becomes the fairy godmother of the "Scala" and other ballrooms throughout the country. One must approach the consideration of whether or not this proposal is justified from that point of view. Approaching it from that point of view, when we find that the people are being asked to bear, whether with justification or otherwise, very heavy burdens, we must look with suspicion on any proposal to exempt a particular section of the community while all the remaining sections are taxed. I think it is right that we should regard it with that suspicion. If the Deputies on the left-hand side of the Chair were free to think and free to talk, I am certain that they would agree with me that this proposal is a proposal which, in present circumstances, should be very carefully examined and very rigorously inquired into before it is acceded to. Now, applying a careful examination to the Minister's proposal to wipe out the dance tax, as I think we should——

Captain Cowan

That we should wipe it out?

Mr. O'Higgins

Now, Deputy Cowan——

Captain Cowan

I want to be fair to the Deputy.

Mr. O'Higgins

I am very glad to find that Deputy Cowan wants to be fair to me. I have always tried to be fair to him.

Mr. Carter

Deputy O'Higgins is getting lost.

Mr. O'Higgins

Applying, as I think we should, a searching examination to this proposal, there are certain aspects from which we should discuss it. If, despite the stunting of Deputy Cowan, the Minister, in his capacity as Minister for Finance, were able to say to this House: "This tax is uneconomic. It does not yield a revenue commensurate with the cost of the staff which is employed in its collection"—if the Minister were able to make that case —then perhaps fair-minded Deputies such as Deputy Cowan could with justification say that despite the taxes imposed on the community, including Deputy Cowan's own constituents, in relation to their food, obviously it could not be allowed to stand.

It is clear to anyone who listened to the Minister's Budget statement, which he was reading from the official brief prepared by his Department, and speaking as the Minister for Finance in this country—therefore, speaking deliberately and with responsibility, an unusual rôle for the Minister—that his reason for abolishing this tax was not the difficulty of collecting it and was not the small revenue which it yielded. In referring to the exempting of the dance-hall proprietors from entertainments duty—mind you, it is the dance-hall proprietors and only the dance-hall proprietors who benefit from this exemption——

Mr. MacEntee

Ah!

Mr. O'Higgins

——as I propose to show the House very shortly, the Minister, in Volume 130, No. 8, column 1147, is reported as follows:—

"I am proposing a concession as regards entertainments duty. Dancing has been the victim of varying fortune in this regard. The duty on entertainments was first imposed in 1916 but payments for the right to take part in dances did not come within its scope until 1932. In 1946 the tax, as applied to these payments, was abolished, but was restored by my predecessor in 1949. Dancing is the only amusement which is discriminated against by levying a tax on active participants as distinct from spectators. I have never been quite convinced that the discrimination was justified by any social purpose and I propose to abolish it altogether as from the 1st August next."

Incidentally, I think that it was a Fianna Fáil Minister for Finance who, in 1932, included dancing within the scope of the duty on entertainments. According to the Minister it was in 1932 that it first came within the scope of the tax. In the quotation which I have just read out, the Minister, speaking with responsibility, declared that his reason for abolishing the tax was not the difficulty of collecting it, was not the small revenue which it yielded, was not any of the reasons that have been hastily thought up during this debate by his two guardian angels, Deputy Cowan and Deputy Cogan, but was because it was a tax on entertainment which was imposed upon the participants of the entertainment. The Minister says: "I have never been quite convinced that the discrimination"—which, he postulated, existed—"was justified by any social purpose..." That, for good or evil, was the reason advanced by the Minister for remitting this tax. It was a tax on participants and the only form of entertainment tax that reflected itself on those who participated in the entertainment.

Since this is the Minister's proposal, we must examine it from the point of view of the reasons given by the Minister in support of it. He says that because it is a tax on the participants we must wipe it out. I must admit that I find it difficult to understand the Minister's reasoning in that respect. I would have thought that in relation to most taxes—not all— but most taxes on entertainments to a certain extent participants have to bear the tax because, if they did not participate, no tax would be levied. In relation to taxation on beer, tobacco and cigarettes, which constitutes taxation on entertainments. the only way the tax comes to be levied in the long run is by a person either drinking or smoking. The same thing applies to horse racing—I am not sure whether taxation still exists—the tax falls on a winning bet.

That is the reason the Minister puts forward for wiping out this tax. Approaching it from that point of view, the House will have to remember that over the period of 14 years, from 1932 to 1946, this dance tax was imposed and maintained by a Fianna Fáil Government. It was removed by them in 1946 and restored by their successors in 1946. During that entire period no one ever suggested as a reason for abolishing the dance tax that it was unfair on individual dancers because everyone realised— and I am sure Deputy Cogan should realise, if he ever went to a dance— that the dance tax, while it may have been intended to be a tax imposed on the individual participant, in fact is not such. Every single dance nowadays advertises a ticket inclusive of tax and every single person who goes to the dance pays a sum which includes the tax. Remove the tax that it is being sought to remove here and the 5/- dance ticket still remains 5/- and the 1/6 goes to the promoters of the dance.

Captain Cowan

That is not necessarily the proprietors.

Mr. O'Higgins

I am talking of the promoters. I will come to the dance-hall proprietors in a moment.

Mr. Carter

How do you reason that out?

Mr. MacEntee

He does not reason. That is beyond the Deputy's capacity.

Mr. O'Higgins

I do not know whether the Minister for Finance can throw his mind back to the days when he gladly danced.

Breanndán Mac Fheórais

He still does, and well too.

Mr. O'Higgins

I am talking of the days when he gladly danced. He will recollect that the ticket he bought, to which the tax applied, was a ticket inclusive of tax. He should be able to recollect that in 1946, when the dance tax was removed—I think the Minister for External Affairs was then Minister for Finance—the admission price to dances remained exactly the same. There was no reduction in the price that the young boy or girl that Deputy Cogan referred to had to pay. They had to pay exactly the same. A 5/- ticket remained 5/-. The tax on a 5/- ticket is just 1/6. That 1/6 went to the revenue of the dance; it went to the promoters of that dance, whether or not they were the owners of the dance-hall, running the dance for commercial purposes—as many dances are run at the moment. In this city and throughout the country, in all population centres, there are commercially-owned dance halls in which the owners on all the popular dates promote and run dances and entertainments for their own profit, which they are perfectly entitled to do.

Captain Cowan

They are a minimum of dances. The majority of dances are run by clubs and organisations.

Mr. O'Higgins

And they are exempt from tax.

Mr. MacEntee

They are not.

Mr. O'Higgins

I will inform the Minister for Finance of some of the tax exemptions that he is presiding over as head of the Department of Finance. There is not a single educational association, charitable association, young farmers' club or any of these bodies that is liable to any dance tax, good, bad or indifferent, provided it does not run the entertainment on businesslike lines or spend more than 20 per cent. of the receipts in relation to expenses.

Before my attention was deflected by Deputy Cowan, I was dealing with the suggestion made by Deputy Cogan that the Minister for Finance, by wiping out the dance tax, will confer a benefit on people who attend dances. Deputy Cogan may derive some solace from that belief; it may ease his political conscience but other Deputies, particularly old hoary Fine Gael Deputies like myself, who, according to Deputy Cogan, apparently, have no experience of ordinary mundane matters, can assert that the people who attend dances will derive no benefit, good, bad or indifferent, from this tax exemption. In view of that fact, the reason advanced by the Minister for the removal of this tax, namely, that it is a tax on participants, cannot be regarded as a sound reason.

The Minister's defenders have not confined themselves to Deputy Cogan's absurd proposition. They have come along to say: "Let us forget all about the dance-hall proprietors. What about the young farmers' clubs? What about the Gaelic Athletic Association that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare was talking about? What about the different associations and country halls? Will they not get a benefit?" If one could accept that, I am quite certain one could vote for this tax exemption, despite the fact that it is an exemption in a Budget that taxes food, with an easy mind, at least, with an easier mind than one might otherwise have in voting for that proposition.

Here are the facts: The dance tax that it is now proposed to abolish is a tax which applies only in centres where the population exceeds 500. The small country hall that the Parliamentary Secretary was talking about, even if it is run for commercial purposes, is not taxed. The people who go to dances there are not taxed in relation to their entertainment. In the entire countryside there is not a single hall, big or small, that under existing legislation has to pay any dance tax. That is fact No. 1.

We find the Parliamentary Secretary reading out a list of 23 small dance halls in his constituency. He should remember that these particular halls, if they are in rural areas, are not liable to taxation.

Mr. MacEntee

The Deputy would be talking through the top of his hat, if he had one on. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned three towns specifically. He mentioned the town of Athlone.

Mr. O'Higgins

I shall deal with that.

Captain Cowan

And Longford.

Mr. O'Higgins

The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned, apart from the halls in Mullingar and some halls in Athlone, that there were 23 local halls throughout the counties he represented. I want to inform him, and I am sure he will be delighted with the information, that these 23 local halls, if they are situated in rural areas, are not liable to be taxed under the existing code.

Captain Cowan

Granard has a population of over 500.

Mr. O'Higgins

If it has a population of over 500, it is liable but Streamstown, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows, has a population of less than 500.

Captain Cowan

Moate.

Mr. O'Higgins

There is a hall outside Moate in a small area three or four miles outside——

Mr. MacEntee

How many miles precisely must it be?

Mr. O'Higgins

I could not say, although I have the section in front of me. In any event, these particular halls are not liable to the tax. Therefore, when the Minister seeks to abolish the tax, that applies only to halls in population centres of some considerable size.

Captain Cowan

Of 500.

Mr. MacEntee

Of 501 and upwards.

Mr. O'Higgins

I have said it before on public platforms and I repeat it now, that one of the troubles of the Minister is that he has never been outside Dublin since he came up here. A centre with a population of 500 under Fianna Fáil is a centre of a fairly considerable size, and if we do not get rid of them quickly, we shall have far fewer centres with populations of 500. The fact is that this entertainments tax is a tax which is applicable to the larger population centres throughout the country; the tax does not affect to any substantial degree the rural population. I mention that because of the references to smaller halls. In fact, this is a matter about which one could have two points of view. I have a definite view myself. Under existing legislation the maintenance of dance tax exemptions for the countryside has substantially benefited rural areas. That may be a good thing or a bad thing, but the fact is that the entertainments tax code, in relation to dances, as reimposed in 1949 and maintained for the last three years, substantially benefited halls in the countryside. Employment has been given, and quite a considerable amount of money has been made available because of the exemption granted to centres with a population of 500 or lower.

The Parliamentary Secretary, having referred to small halls, as he called them, went on to talk about the type of association or organisation that might run these dances. He mentioned the young farmers' clubs and other bodies of a sporting or educational kind that might get together to run dances. That is a very cogent argument but it is not a new argument. It is an argument that was made in the British House of Commons in 1916, when it was first decided to impose duties on entertainments. Members of the House of Commons spoke, as the Parliamentary Secretary has spoken, with regard to charitable and philanthropic organisations, educational bodies and associations of that kind, that were not profit-making—young men or women who organised balls, as they called them in those days, and they asked what was going to happen them. A case was made for exemption which was then incorporated in the Finance (New Duties) Act of 1916, which is still part of our taxation legislation. Under Section 1, sub-section (5) of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, care is taken to provide that any entertainment promoted by a charitable or philanthropic organisation, educational body or an entertainment provided by any group formed for educational or scientific purposes, such as young farmers' organisations, will not be liable to pay the entertainments tax provided there is no profit-making of a personal kind involved in the promotion of the entertainment and provided the expenses do not exceed 20 per cent. So when we find the Parliamentary Secretary advancing as a reason for abolishing the tax the hardships which it might have on certain organisations, already exempt from the application of the tax, we have got to wonder what is the real case that can be made or is supposed to be made for this exemption.

I do not think we have heard from the Minister's side of the House—and I include supporters from the left and right—any cogent reason advanced as to why this tax should be remitted. Of course, there could not be any reason. There could not be any argument.

A Deputy

There was an argument in 1946.

Mr. O'Higgins

That was different. Food was not being taxed in 1946.

Mr. Allen

It is not being taxed now.

Mr. O'Higgins

Food—tea, bread and sugar—is being taxed.

Mr. Allen

Under what section of the Bill?

Mr. O'Higgins

Under the Budget. If Deputy Allen and other Deputies on the opposite side think that they are going to make me forget what these financial proposals contain, and what they involve for the people, they are making a real mistake. The fact is that no argument has been or could be advanced by any Deputy as to why the dance tax should be wiped out. I endeavoured to discuss this proposal from a reasonable point of view, and being as anxious as ever I could to help the Minister, Deputy Allen and Deputy Cowan if there was any reason that could commend this tax exemption to Deputies of the House, I would appreciate it. I do not think there is. Even if we could forget the hardship imposed by the Budget and by the Finance Bill, I think the proposal to exempt dancing from entertainment duty is an unsound one.

It is extraordinary how a bad case will drive one to advance a fantastic argument. I found myself sympathising as a barrister with Deputy Cogan when he was eventually driven to saying: "The Bishops of Ireland are against drinking and this will prevent people from drinking and compel them to dance." I always thought that one of the concerns of many of the organisations which Deputy Cogan mentioned has been to get on to the good side of the parish priest in order to get permission to have a dance. I do not think that that argument will commend itself to the intelligence of the House. Although I have endeavoured to help the Minister, I am afraid I am driven to the conclusion that there is something else behind Section 14 other than arguments that should appeal to responsible and intelligent Deputies. I was impressed, I must say, by Deputy Cowan. He is a great old campaigner. In the last Dáil, Deputy Cowan was the first into the breach to defend Deputy McGilligan from the assaults of the present Minister for Finance.

Captain Cowan

I made a case for the abolition of the dance tax.

Mr. O'Higgins

The Deputy was always available to defend Deputy Dillon from the snapping of Deputy Cogan. Deputy Cowan has always been ready to step into the breach to defend anyone and to advance any argument; it does not matter very much what the argument may be. Deputy Cowan said the people were talking about the dance tax. Do you not remember the last Dáil and a former Deputy who was concerned with the effect of the dance tax, a former Deputy who was a member of an important portion of the inter-Party Government? I had great sympathy for Deputy Cowan and I felt that he was doing his best for the unfortunate Minister.

All of us remember the dance tax being reimposed in 1949. There was a shriek all over the corridors of this House that the Government was going to fall. Fianna Fáil stepped into the breech straight away and said: "Now, lads, we have them. Now we will get Deputy Cowan's Clann na Poblachta Party and we will be able to drive them out of the Government." The present Tánaiste saw what he thought were the opportunities and put down a proposal to oppose the reimposition of the tax. Unfortunately for the Tánaiste and the present Minister for Finance they were dealing with a Government which could not be bought. Despite the opposition that Deputy Cowan referred to from a person who was then a Deputy, despite the pressure brought on the then Minister for Finance, that tax was passed into law with the vote of Deputy Cowan, with the vote of Deputy Cowan and with the vote of other Independent Deputies now supporting the Government.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy is now discussing last year's Budget.

Mr. O'Higgins

I am discussing the arguments advanced on this section by Deputy Cowan. I think I am entitled to answer that argument. Despite that opposition, that tax remained because it was a good tax, properly conceived and thought out, and because the inter-Party Government could not be bought.

Mr. Carter

Poor soul.

Mr. O'Higgins

I suppose these facts are not known to Deputy Carter but they are known to Deputy Cowan and other quasi-responsible Deputies. We are now examining the naïve proposal of the Minister for Finance that for some reason unascertainable we should reverse the decision of the House last year and in previous years and suddenly lift the tax off the dance-hall proprietors. It is the dance-hall proprietors, the people who own commercial dance halls, who are designed to be benefited by this tax exemption. No reason has been advanced to commend this exemption on its merits. I suppose, however, it will be passed because of the two guardian angels of the Minister, but not on its merits. Its merits have not been established. It will be passed because for the time being the Government have a majority of one or two, but we know that Section 14 was purchased out 12 months ago, bought by the hard cash of the proprietors of the dance halls.

Captain Cowan

You are spoiling the argument.

Mr. O'Higgins

That is an argument which will be put legitimately and fairly before the people in the coming months.

Captain Cowan

It will be put; there is no doubt about that.

Mr. O'Higgins

It will be put legitimately and fairly to the people and I hope the people will be given an opportunity of deciding the question.

Captain Cowan

Will the Deputy accept the decision?

Mr. O'Higgins

Of course, I will accept the decision of the people; I always do. I wish I could recommend the same course to Deputy Cowan. The fact, therefore, is that this House is being made the conduit pipe—I am not referring to the Minister for Finance —between the Fianna Fáil Party and a section outside this House to give them the benefit which they have purchased. That is something which may be understandable, as the Minister tries to say. It may be quite understandable from a practical political point of view, as Deputy Cowan seems to think, but it is nevertheless a fact. Why have we this façade erected over a bit of Party bargaining of stupid, ridiculous, fantastic arguments advanced here by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Social Welfare, by Deputy Cowan on the left, and by Deputy Cogan on the quasi right? Why are these arguments advanced when the fact remains that this section has been bought by the dance-hall proprietors and they are now being paid?

I do not think it would be in keeping with the honour, dignity and responsibility of this Parliament if this tax were not opposed as vigorously as it is possible for us to oppose it. In normal times arguments might be advanced for the remission of this tax. I have endeavoured to find some such arguments, but even my powers of advocacy fail me in that respect as they have failed Deputy Captain Cowan and others. It may be that in normal circumstances this House might sympathetically consider a plea by the dance-hall proprietors for the abolition of this tax. The House cannot be sympathetic in present circumstances when we know that these gentlemen did not make their case in a democratic manner to the representatives of the Irish nation but made them to the backroom boys of the Fianna Fáil Party.

Mr. MacEntee

Like the five publicans.

Mr. O'Higgins

That particular dog will not run either, as the Minister well knows. The people affected by this tax did not make their case here. They made it in the stress of a general election and at a time when Deputy Captain Cowan was declaring war on the Fianna Fáil Party.

Captain Cowan

When was that?

Mr. O'Higgins

Last April 12 months. The Deputy has a very short memory.

Captain Cowan

I certainly did not declare war.

Mr. O'Higgins

I think the Deputy must be living in a different country. We find now that these gentlemen did not come to us—the Parliament of the nation. They went behind us to some gentleman called Seán F. Lemass and now we are being asked to ratify a decision come to in Mount Street.

Captain Cowan

In what?

Mr. O'Higgins

There is a particular place in Mount Street. I understand it happens to be the headquarters of the Fianna Fáil Party. I do not know if Deputy Captain Cowan has ever heard of it but they have heard of him.

Mr. Allen

They did not burn it, anyway.

Mr. O'Higgins

I would not be so sure they did not. You would want to increase your insurance.

Captain Cowan

It was not included in the 17 points.

Mr. O'Higgins

I am glad the Deputy has reminded me of that. Twelve months ago this particular organisation that inhabits a premises in Mount Street and which has the support now of Deputy Captain Cowan made two promises to the electors. One promise was that they would maintain the existing food subsidies. The other was that they would remove the tax on dancing. Undoubtedly, promise No. I had an effect on Deputy Captain Cowan. Promise No. 2 had an effect on the manner in which the last election was fought by the Fianna Fáil Party.

Now, 12 months later, we are looking at the dishonouring of promise No. 1, the maintenance of the existing food subsidies, and the honouring of promise No. 2 — the remission of the tax on dancing. Fianna Fáil honoured their promise to the dance-hall proprietors and dishonoured their promise of cheap food to Deputy Captain Cowan's constituents. We are quite satisfied—and I am sure Deputy Captain Cowan and other Deputies like him who are released from the care of Party and can give this subject their full consideration are quite satisfied— that the promise to the ballroom proprietors has been honoured because cash was exchanged, goods were given, a quid pro quo or a consideration passed. On the other hand, the promise of cheap food to the poor people has not been honoured. I cannot discuss that under this particular section but it is in these circumstances that the naïve Minister for Finance now proceeds to ask the House to remit this tax on dancing.

He has not made a very good case and his supporters have done him no service in this debate. It might be as well, if our consciences permit us, to forget this very sordid business as rapidly as possible. This is just an example of a little bit of "hokey pokey" being found out. This is just an example of one of the things that happened in Mount Street being shown up to the public gaze.

We in Fine Gael, and I am sure the same can be said of the other Parties on this side of the House, hope that the people will be afforded an opportunity very shortly of passing a verdict on this section of the Finance Bill. Should that opportunity arise and should the naïve Minister for Finance become the destructive Deputy MacEntee again he will be asked to vote for a proposal radically altering the exemption he now seeks to bring about in present circumstances.

Mr. Allen

Deputy O'Higgins said that when one has a bad case one is driven to fantastic arguments to support that case. I think it will be agreed that Deputy O'Higgins had a very bad case to make against the abolition of this tax and that he advanced fantastic arguments in support of it. He told us the Government proposed to take the tax off dancing and put a tax on food. Possibly the Deputy is repeating an election speech he made last Sunday when he told people down the country, where he assumed they would not know any better, that this Government was imposing taxes on food. The Deputy should have some regard for the truth. He would like to be looked upon as a responsible Deputy. As far as it lies within his power, it is his duty to tell the people the truth on matters of public interest.

This dance tax was first imposed by a Fianna Fáil Government, curiously enough, away back in 1932. Its imposition was vigorously opposed at the time by no less a person than the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce, Deputy McGilligan.

Mr. O'Leary

That was 20 years ago. There is a change now.

Mr. O'Higgins

There were no food taxes then.

Mr. Allen

At column 2172 of Volume 41 of the Official Report Deputy McGilligan said:—

"Dances will be a peculiar performance next year. People will be going to them in their hair-shirts."

Mr. O'Higgins

I wonder who was imposing the tax?

Mr. Allen

The Fianna Fáil Government.

Mr. O'Leary

Why did you do it then?

Mr. Allen

They were the first Government of this country.

Mr. O'Higgins

They were what? Did I hear the Deputy say they were the first Government?

Mr. Allen

They were the first Government to impose this tax here. The British Government may have done it. A few years prior to 1932 Deputy McGilligan introduced a motion here to take 1/- off the old age pensioners when he needed a little money.

Mr. O'Higgins

Deputy McGilligan?

Mr. Allen

The same Deputy McGilligan.

Mr. O'Higgins

That, of course, is not true.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That does not arise on this section.

Mr. O'Higgins

Nevertheless, it is incorrect.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is irrelevant.

Mr. O'Higgins

Irrelevant or not it is not true.

Mr. Allen

Deputy O'Higgins, amongst his misstatements in regard to the abolition of this tax, did not tell the House that in 1946 a Fianna Fáil Minister for Finance, in the Budget of that year, removed all taxes on dance halls in the country. Their removal at that time was objected to by, amongst others, Deputy Dillon. He objected to their removal in 1946, but in 1949 he supported the then Minister for Finance in imposing one of the few new taxes which the Coalition Government dare impose. They dare not impose any other than a dance tax because of their previous guarantees and commitments to vested interests outside this House. Because of the large and munificent contributions which those vested interests made to the Fine Gael group in the Coalition, they dare not impose any tax other than a dance tax. It was the only new tax which they imposed during their three years in office. It is very peculiar that, in the year in which they did that, they reduced the income-tax.

These are the facts about the dance tax. Deputy O'Higgins did not tell the House about it then. Neither did he tell the House that the leaders of the Fianna Fáil Party, when the dance tax was being reimposed in 1949, undertook that if the opportunity ever presented itself, they would remove that tax again. This is the first opportunity which a Fianna Fáil Government has had since 1949 of carrying out that undertaking. That is why the tax is now being removed. It has been the considered opinion of this Government since 1946 that this is a tax which should not be in operation. One of their main reasons for so thinking is all the fraud which took place because of its operation previously.

Mr. O'Leary

Who committed the fraud?

Mr. Allen

Numbers of the youth of the country were trained in fraud and in tax evasion. It was one of the few laws in operation which probably brought more discredit than any other. It trained young people in the ways of fraud. It did not matter what group organised a dance in the country, people set themselves out to evade the payment of this tax. All types of fraud were committed over the years between 1932 and 1946, and that was the main reason why it was abolished in that year. The revenue officers down the country who tried to carry out their duty by collecting it pointed that out time and again.

Mr. O'Leary

And Fianna Fáil people running the dances?

Mr. Allen

Fianna Fáil, Labour and many others were running dances. That happened, even in connection with dances which were run for charitable purposes. Irrespective of what the object for which a dance was organised, the revenue was being defrauded. That kind of evasion went on and it was morally bad for the community in general. The tax was in operation but it could not be properly collected. The young people set themselves out to avoid paying it. That, as I have said, was the main reason why the Minister for Finance in 1946 decided to remove it. Representations had been made to him by members of this Party, by the clergy and by the people down the country, that the continuance of the tax was undesirable. The matter was carefully considered and that is why it was removed.

The Coalition Government made a very grave mistake in reimposing the tax in 1949. That decision of theirs created many serious problems in the country. Even though the revenue is going to lose £140,000 a year, I think it is a wise move on the part of the Minister for Finance in this Finance Bill to remove this tax completely. Several anomalies have arisen since the reimposition of the tax in 1949. It applies to towns with a population of 500 and over. What has happened is that people have built dance halls on the outskirts of those towns. In that way, they could avoid the payment of the tax. In a town, say, where the population was 1,000 or 2,000 people, the dance tax was 1/6 on a 5/- ticket, but if the dance were held in a hall three miles outside that town, there was no dance tax. I think that is a very undesirable state of affairs, and should not be allowed to continue. It is far better to abolish it altogether. We have no doubt, of course, that the abolition of the tax will be misrepresented all over the country. There will be plenty of that misrepresentation in the rural areas during the next three weeks. We fully appreciate that and we are prepared to meet it. We also know, of course, that our people have plenty of common sense, and that they will accept the reasons as to why the Government are proposing to remove the tax. I move to report progress.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.