Deputy O'Donnell wants us to levy a tax on the valuation of a dance hall. What would be the effect of that? If, by any chance, we were to do as he suggested, to levy the tax at an enhanced rate, an increased rate, an undue rate, on the dance hall, they would come in here and they would be squealing about the poor dance-hall proprietor in just the same way as they are squealing at the moment about the poor publican.
We heard quite a lot of complaints from the Opposition about the fact that the Commissioner of Valuation has been revaluing licensed premises which have been improved in later years and because these improved premises are, naturally, valued at a higher figure than they were before the improvements, renovations and reconstructions were carried out, the valuations went up; the local authority gets more out of the rates; we get some small increase in income-tax and in licence duty. But, the point about it is that, the moment it is done, the Opposition come in here squealing about it and they say it is unfair that a man should be taxed if he improves his premises. But, it is not unfair, apparently, according to Deputy O'Donnell, to tax a dance-hall proprietor if he improves his dance hall, if he provides proper sanitation and proper amenities. Then he is going to be taxed, according to Deputy O'Donnell's plan, more heavily. If he is content to go along with any sort of old shack or barn, which would be a menace and danger to the public health, then, of course, he gets scot-free from Deputy O'Donnell's method of tax. The one thing which would happen in that case would be that, if we were to tax 1,200 or 1,300 dance-hall proprietors according to their valuation, the tax would fall most heavily upon the halls which, from a public health point of view and other points of view, are the most desirable to have in the country and the shacks and the disused barns and other such buildings would go scot-free. That is Deputy O'Donnell's proposal to brighten and improve the amenities of rural life in Ireland.
Then, again, we have this other proposal. Deputy O'Donnell told us that he was acting for a considerable number of dance-hall proprietors in Donegal. He said that solicitors had to collect £2 licence fees. That £2 licence fee does not come to the State at all. I think it goes to the local authority. It is the ordinary registration fee which is payable, again, under the Public Dance Hall Act, which was passed by a Fianna Fáil Government, one of the minor reforms which we carried out in an endeavour to ensure that, so far as dance halls existed in the rural areas or in any part of the country, they would be safe from the point of view of fire, that they would be as hygienic and as acceptable from a public health point of view as was possible in the circumstances of the areas in which they were built. The whole effect of this would be that these 20 dance-hall proprietors for whom Deputy O'Donnell operates would of course have to pay the licence duty. What would happen? Do you think they would pay it out of their own pocket? Does anyone believe that a publican in Dublin pays the licence duty on his premises out of his own pocket? Would not all of this be passed back on to the shoulders of the patrons, with of course the added profit that the dance-hall proprietor would feel that he would have to charge on his outlay? That is not the position in relation to the dance tax. The proprietor does not get anything for collecting the tax because the tax is paid by the patron of the dance hall. In the reverse situation, if you have the incidence of the tax put on the dance-hall proprietor, the dance hall proprietor pays it out of his pocket and inevitably he will pass it on as part of his charges, in the same way as he passes on rates, rents and the cost of his licence, to the patron. The patron again will be mulcted and it will not be the dance-hall proprietor. There is, therefore, no advantage from the point of view of the dance-hall patron in accepting the proposal made by Deputy O'Donnell.
I should like to refer to another matter before concluding. Deputy Cowan and Deputy Kennedy have brought out the point well. Mind you, the vast majority of the halls which are licensed for dancing in this country are not proprietary halls in the sense that they are not halls in which dances are run by the owners of the hall for their own private profit. They are, in general, halls which are vested in one public society or another. They are parish halls, club halls or trade union halls—halls which are let out by various organisations to groups of people who want to run dances in order to raise funds for one desirable purpose or another, such as a football club, a dramatic society or one or other of these organisations which cater for the social life of the common people of Ireland. That is one of the most regrettable features of the attitude which the Opposition have taken up. If you are living in the City of Dublin and you move in certain social circles, it does not matter very much, if you are going to one of the fashionable ballrooms and you have to pay an admission fee of 15/- or a £1, whether 3/- or 4/- dance tax is added to the price of your ticket. It is a very different matter, as every Deputy knows who has had any association or is familiar with social conditions in the towns and villages or working-class districts, where you are paying 2/6, 3/- or 3/6 to go into a dance. It is these people, the working-class people of the country, who paid the greater share of this tax we collected. Out of the £140,000 revenue, I venture to say that at least £100,000 was collected from what you may describe as workers, urban workers and rural workers throughout Ireland. That is what the Labour Party and the Fine Gael Party are contending that we should continue.
