Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 10 Mar 1966

Vol. 221 No. 9

Committee on Finance. - Financial Resolutions No. 10— Turnover Tax.

I move:

(1) That—

(a) in the case of dances, and goods sold and services provided in connection with dances where payment for such goods or services is included in the payment in respect of admission or is a condition for admission, tax shall be ten per cent of the taxable turnover of the accountable person and the amount of tax chargeable shall be paid in accordance with regulations to be made under Part VI of the Finance Act, 1963 (No. 23 of 1963),

(b) for the purposes of this paragraph taxable turnover shall be the total amount of money received or receivable from persons admitted to a dance in respect of admission, together with, in case goods are sold or services are provided or both goods are sold and services are provided, in connection with the dance, and payment therefore is not included in the payment in respect of admission, the total amount of money received or receivable in respect thereof.

(2) That—

(a) every person who intends to promote a dance or a series of dances shall notify the Revenue Commissioners in accordance with regulations to be made under Part VI of the Finance Act, 1963, of his intention to do so,

(b) a person who contravenes the foregoing subparagraph shall be liable to a penalty of twenty pounds,

(c) in a prosecution for an offence under this paragraph, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is shown by the defendant that he did not give the appropriate notification to the Revenue Commissioners.

(3) That—

(a) the proprietor of any premises shall not promote a dance therein, or allow a dance to be promoted therein by any other person, unless he has received notification from the Revenue Commissioners that they have been notified in accordance with paragraph (2) of this Resolution,

(b) a person who contravenes the foregoing subparagraph shall be liable to a penalty of twenty pounds,

(c) in a prosecution for an offence under this paragraph, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is shown by the defendant that he did not receive the appropriate notification from the Revenue Commissioners.

(4) That—

(a) an authorised officer, on production, if requested, of his appointment, may enter any place where dancing is proceeding, and any place ordinarily used for dancing, at any reasonable time, with a view to seeing whether the provisions of this Resolution and of the regulations as to tax in the case of dances are being complied with,

(b) any person who prevents or obstructs the entry as aforesaid of an authorised officer shall be liable to a penalty of twenty pounds,

(c) in this paragraph "authorised officer" means an officer of the Revenue Commissioners appointed by them to be an authorised officer for the purposes of this paragraph.

(5) That all penalties under this Resolution may, without prejudice to any other method of recovery, be proceeded for and recovered summarily in the same manner as in summary proceedings for recovery of any penalty under any Act relating to the excise, and, notwithstanding subsection (4) of section 10 of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, summary proceedings under this Resolution may be instituted within three years from the date of the incurring of the penalty.

(6) That subject to this Resolution, the rules of the court concerned for the time being applicable to civil proceedings shall apply to proceedings pursuant to paragraph (2), (3) or (4) of this Resolution.

(7) That nothing in subsection (3) of section 47, subsection (3) of section 48 and sections 49 and 53 of the Finance Act, 1963, shall apply in relation to dances or goods sold or services provided in the circumstances mentioned in subparagraph (a) of paragraph (1) of this Resolution.

(8) That this Resolution shall not apply in any case in which the number of persons to be admitted to the dance is limited to one hundred and the payment on admission does not exceed four shillings.

(9) That in this Resolution "dance" includes a ball.

(10) That for the purposes of this Resolution the expression "moneys received" in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 47 of the Finance Act, 1963, shall be construed as including "moneys receivable".

(11) That, subject to the foregoing paragraph, this Resolution shall be construed together with Part VI of the Finance Act, 1963, and Part VI of the Finance Act, 1965 (No. 22 of 1965).

(12) That the foregoing provisions of this Resolution shall come into operation on the 1st day of May, 1966.

(13) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).

Can the Minister say if the requirement in paragraph (c) of subsection (2) is new? The paragraph says:

(c) in a prosecution for an offence under this paragraph, it shall be presumed unless the contrary is shown by the defendant that he did not give the appropriate notification to the Revenue Commissioners.

Is that a new approach to these matters, that a person is assumed to be guilty?

I understand this is normal enforcement condition in these matters.

It seems an onerous requirement.

The Resolution as it stands is drawn in an onerous fashion and will take effect in that form. However, between now and the Finance Bill attention will be given to the drafting of the obligations imposed by the Resolution.

The normal procedure in cases of this sort is that a person's innocence is presumed until he is proved guilty rather than the reverse, as is the case in this Resolution as drafted.

First, there is in this Budget a contribution in aid of the old age pension for which the Minister may legitimately claim finance must be found. It is about as grudging a concession as could be made; but he defends that on the ground that he has no money and he turns to this turnover tax on dancehalls to provide him with the revenue. No doubt, as the Leader of the main Opposition has indicated, in those circumstances we will not oppose this because the revenue must be found somewhere.

I want to say in interpolation that two matters arise from that claim by the Minister for Finance to which reference should now be made. First, it is not true—and I think on reflection the Minister will agree with me that it is not true—when he says he is not budgeting for a surplus. He is budgeting for an expenditure of over £250 million this year. In that Budget he has made no provision for overestimation at all. It is true that in the financial year just closing he has achieved a miracle of spending not only all he provided in the Budget 12 months ago but all the customary reserves for overestimation. I do not believe even the present Government could achieve that performance two years in succession. If they do, they will have achieved a record that no Government of this country has achieved in the past 40 years.

That does not arise on Financial Resolution No. 10.

My submission is that this sum is only £15 million. The Minister requires £¼ million to meet the concessions he has made. It might be said this alone meets the entire charge. In fact, on a Budget of over £250 million the Minister has in addition to this £150,000 the inevitable element for over-estimation.

I want to direct the attention of the House to something which has escaped the attention of most Deputies here, that is, the method by which this dance tax is imposed. If Deputies will look at the Minister's statement they will observe on page 7 when he comes to dancing he does not say he proposes to reintroduce the tax on dancing. What he says is that he "proposes to raise"—note the word—"the turnover tax on dancing to ten per cent." I ventured to prophesy when this turnover tax was first introduced in this House at the rate of 2½ per cent that it would rise. The Minister said yesterday the Government gave careful thought to an increase in the turnover tax right across the board to get them out of their financial difficulties and recoiled from such a procedure. I want to warn the House they are giving in the form in which this tax is imposed their first consent to an increase in the turnover tax. Bear in mind if you choose to introduce this tax on dancing again in the form of an increase in the turnover tax, you are giving in principle approval to an increase in the rate of the turnover tax. If you can tax dancing today by this device, tomorrow you can tax food and clothes the day after and gradually go over the whole gamut of commodities affected by turnover tax.

The Deputy will appreciate we cannot discuss increases in the turnover tax other than this one before us.

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle will realise this is an increase in the turnover tax?

As far as dancing is concerned.

If I may borrow this copy of the Financial Resolutions, I want to direct the attention of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to Resolution No. 10. May I read it for you, Sir? The heading of the Resolution is: "Turnover Tax". We cannot reach the stage in Dáil Éireann when a Resolution entitled "Turnover Tax" cannot be discussed as a turnover tax. That is what it is called.

We cannot have a general debate on the turnover tax in connection with an increase in dance tax.

But it is not an increase in dance tax; that is what I am telling the House. Look: t-u-r-n-o-v-e-r t-a-x. If that spells "dance", I am a Dutchman.

The Deputy must confine himself strictly to what is in this Resolution.

Let me read it for you. It will take a long time. It runs into two-pages-and-a-half.

There is no necessity to read it.

I have read out the title, "Turnover Tax", and not even my deference for the Leas-Cheann Comhairle of Dáil Éireann can persuade me to read that word as "dance". It reads "turnover" to me.

The Resolution relates to dance tax.

The Resolution reads:

(1) That—

(a) in the case of dances, and goods sold and services provided in connection with dances where payment for such goods or services is included in the payment in respect of admission or is a condition for admission, tax shall be ten per cent of the taxable turnover of the accountable person and the amount of tax chargeable shall be paid in accordance with regulations to be made under Part VI of the Finance Act, 1963.

If I go into a dance tomorrow and get a paper hat, there is ten per cent turnover tax on the paper hat. If I go to get my supper at the dance, there is ten per cent on my supper. If I go to a dance and forget my dancing shoes and have to get them there, there is ten per cent on the shoes—ten per cent on the hat, ten per cent on the supper, ten per cent on anything else. I warn the House this is not dance tax. This is an amendment of the turnover tax. I think I know the reason why, and I want to remind the House lest old acquaintance be forgot. I want to read to the House the attitude of the Fianna Fáil Party to dance tax. You, Sir, say I may not talk about turnover tax generally, that this is dance tax. I am greatly influenced by your view and so I turn back to find out what Fianna Fáil think of dance tax, and I am glad to be able to quote Miss Kathleen Morris, who was the General Secretary of the Dancehall Proprietors' Association. Who should know more? She wrote to every dancehall proprietor in Ireland about the Fianna Fáil attitude to dance tax. They were in the process at the time of removing £9 million subsidy from food.

May I point out to the Deputy that the history of dance tax does not arise at this stage?

You are telling me I must talk only about the dance tax, that I must not talk about turnover tax. I am keeping to that ruling. Miss Morris told us:

At a special meeting ... held on 8th instant it was decided to communicate with the Fianna Fáil Party, they being the Party responsible for the abolition of the Dance Tax in 1946 and having since vigorously opposed the reimposition of same by the Coalition Government, requesting them to inform the Association of their intentions regarding the abolition of tax should they be returned to power.

Let us give credit where credit is due. Fianna Fáil are consistent. They do not propose in the Financial Resolution a dance tax. It is a turnover tax. The Fianna Fáil Party are scrupulous, very honourable. Miss Morris continues:

I am to inform all members of the Association that I have received what the executive consider to be a favourable reply—

From whom, do you imagine?

—from Mr. Lemass on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Party, a copy of which you will find enclosed.

Following receipt of this reply from Mr. Lemass a further executive meeting was held today, the 15th instant, when the meeting confirmed their pledge of support to Fianna Fáil.

This is not in order on the Resolution. The Deputy will get an opportunity of going into the detail into which he is going on Resolution No. 12. It has never been the practice to have detailed criticism of the taxes at this stage.

Surely you cannot rule that we may not debate the taxes we are asked to vote?

The Deputy may debate the tax under discussion at the moment. The Deputy is discussing the whole history of dance tax in this country, which does not arise.

Why are they imposing turnover tax on dancing? You said it was not a turnover tax, that it was a dance tax. I am pointing out why it is we are advertising to the turnover tax.

I am pointing out that this detailed criticism is not in order.

I challenge that most emphatically. We have to consider Resolutions in detail and we have every right to do so. We cannot be asked to pass Resolutions without considering them.

I admit the Resolutions may be discussed in detail on Resolution No. 12.

There is nothing in the Standing Orders of this House which forbids me to consider in detail Resolutions put before the House. I will defend that right to my last breath.

The Deputy is in order so long as he confines himself to Resolution No. 10 which is before the House, but to discuss the whole question of dance tax is not in order at this stage.

What are we discussing here? Are we discussing a tax on dancing?

Yes, that is correct.

Here is what the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party thought about tax on dancing. I shall not go on with Miss Morris. She seems to be out of order. But Deputy Seán F. Lemass, the Taoiseach of this Government, cannot be out of order. He is out of the House and I do not blame him, goodness knows. I quote "A Chara,"——

From what is the Deputy quoting?

From the Official Report of Dáil Éireann, volume 130, column 1473. I was referring to Miss K. Morris, Secretary of the Irish Dancehall Proprietors' Association, c/o Olympic Ballroom, Dublin.

On a point of order, going back into history is surely out of order on this Resolution?

It is painful all right.

If the Deputy wishes to act as Leader of the Opposition——

No; I gave up leading the Opposition. I am now speaking from the back benches to the great embarrassment of the Fianna Fáil Party. May I be allowed to read?

I submit the Deputy is entirely irrelevant.

It does not arise at this stage. What is before the House is Resolution No. 10 dealing with dance tax. The Deputy is in order, and any other Deputy is in order, in confining his remarks to what is in the Resolution. What happened three years ago or five years ago is not relevant, and I am ruling it out of order.

Surely you are not ruling out of order the Taoiseach's view on dance tax?

It does not arise at this stage.

Very well. However, I warn the Taoiseach and the Fianna Fáil Party that this is the kind of reaction which you might expect to hear from me in regard to dance tax. I would have written to Deputy Booth, who would doubtless have approached the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party, in the following terms:

I have received your letter ... which has been considered by the Fianna Fáil Party committee.

of which I would then be a member——

The committee's view is that the entertainments duty on dances is an undesirable tax. As to its abolition in the present financial year, however, a decision must necessarily await the detailed examination of the Budget introduced in the Dáil immediately prior to its dissolution, but it would be the intention of the Fianna Fáil Party to repeal it as soon as practicable.

In view of this intimation of the committee's attitude, I assume it will not be desired to pursue the request for an interview with me. It will be appreciated that I could not add anything to what is conveyed by this letter.

That is the kind of letter Deputy Booth might have expected to receive from me if I were Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party. Thank God, I am not.

Deputies

Hear, hear.

But that letter, or something very like it, was signed by the Leader of the Fianna Fáil Party. Now, I do not blame the members of the Fianna Fáil Party when they are presenting Resolution No. 10 feeling a little embarrassed by the recollection of the correspondence which the Leas-Cheann Comhairle has ruled we can return to in particular detail when discussing the General Financial Resolution. We will. But, in the interm, I hope the Deputies of the Fianna Fáil Party will repair to the Library; Deputy Booth was, I think, anxious for the reference. It is volume 130. He can himself search the volume for the column itself. A close perusal of the contents of the whole volume will be very instructive to him. It is an earlier Budget introduced by the Fianna Fáil Party. Mark you, Sir, it is an interesting thing that the Fianna Fáil Party went out on their ear very soon after the Budget to which I have made reference.

This is a tax to which I do not object if it provides for the relief of those on whom the burdens of this Budget will fall, but I believe that the yield of this tax, plus the other revenues that will come in course of payment, would have permitted the Minister to do more than he has, in fact, charged himself to do. I do not know how far a Party can become utterly demoralised. I think Fianna Fáil have travelled pretty far along that road and I think the House should watch the lengths to which this Party can go under the stress of the demoralisation under which they now labour. It is two years since I first warned this House of the way Fianna Fáil were heading.

We seem to be entering on a general debate now.

I am not talking about any general debate at all. I am just reminding this House that two years ago I warned them that their present unfortunate Minister for Finance would be sent in here like a sheep to the slaughter to suffer the consequences of his predecessor's folly. Now I want to warn the House that the introduction of this Resolution, headed "Turnover Tax", so certainly as we are standing in this House, forcasts the next bolthole to which Fianna Fáil will slink as they sink further and further into the financial chaos they are bringing about in this country, and I want to warn them——

(Interruptions.)

Listen, if back benchers of Fianna Fáil would not make impudent interjections, they would not get severe replies, whereupon they start crying all over the place that someone hit them with the baby in their arms. Do not make interjections if you do not want sharp answers. I do not want to hurt any of you, particularly those of you who are but newly come to this House. I have been a long time here and I warn you now that this is the first time any proposal has been made in this House to increase the rate of turnover tax. Time and time again, when this House starts on the slippery slope towards a bad development, we always do it at the expense of some body, or some thing, which is unpopular. Now nobody here will weep for the dancehall proprietors; everybody in the House is inclined to say: "God knows, with the people coming out through the windows, they can well afford an increase". But watch. You are taxing dancehall proprietors but the method you are employing is the turnover tax. I am warning you that the method you employ today is opening the door to an increase of the turnover tax not only on the dancehall proprietors, who everybody feels can bear it, but it is opening the door for the increase of that tax on every section of our community.

There is no mention of any further increase in the Resolution. The only increase we can discuss is the one relating to dancehalls.

Yes, Sir. The turnover tax is the root cause of all the problems with which this country is struggling at the present time. The turnover tax is what started the whole beastly dialectic that is driving the present Minister for Finance into the loathsome assignment which has been imposed upon him.

The Deputy is embarking on a debate on the turnover tax, which does not arise in any way on Resolution No. 10. The Deputy is well aware that Resolution No. 10 relates to dancehalls.

It relates to the turnover tax.

It does not open up a debate on the turnover tax.

Surely, Sir, if you increase it on dancing, you can increase it on everything else tomorrow? However, I have made the argument. You are all on a slippery slope. It is this country's misfortune that you have a majority in this House. There is nothing I can do to check these trends, but I want to warn the House we are all in this together. Whatever happens to this country happens to those of us who are inextricably tied to this country. We are all in grave danger of going down. I warn Dáil Éireann that this is a panic-stricken Government. Remember, the Minister has envisaged the possibility—I do not think it will arise—of an autumn Budget. Ask yourselves this question as intelligent Deputies: suppose he is driven to the desperate expedient of an autumn Budget——

We cannot discuss an autumn Budget on this Financial Resolution. That is a matter for a general debate and the Deputy is well aware of that.

——where will he turn? The House is now asked to vote this tax in the form of an increase in the turnover tax. Watch out.

Mr. Barrett

I do not think the Minister has adequately dealt with the point made by Deputy Cosgrave in relation to clause 2 (c) of this Resolution. This House should not make things too easy for the Revenue Commissioners in this regard. I can well understand the situation where a man is found with a salmon. In these circumstances, under the fisheries code, he must prove his innocence; but there is no analogy in this particular case.

It would be quite easy for the Revenue Commissioners to approach this matter in another way. The Minister is aware that, in other statues, it is provided that a certificate issuing from the Department under the name of an officer shall be prima facie proof of a certain thing. I appreciate that the Revenue Commissioners might have difficulty with their proofs. I do not think we should adopt the dangerous and easy expedient of saying that a man is guilty until he can prove he is innocent. It could quite possibly arise that the Revenue Commissioners would have lost the notification. In these circumstances, it is unfair to some unfortunate person to say: “The Revenue Commissioners have been careless. You must prove yourself to be innocent.” The Minister would be well advised to consider deleting this and inserting another provision such as that which I have mentioned, that a certificate would be regarded as prima facie proof.

Maybe Deputy Barrett did not hear my reply to Deputy Cosgrave. The Resolution is, of necessity, very tightly drawn to ensure enforcement. I said that, between now and the drafting of the Bill, consideration would be given to the possible softening of the regulations and also that particular attentions would be given to the question of obliging the Revenue Commissioners to acknowledge immediately notices required of the dancehall proprietors under sub-paragraph (c). I do not think I could go beyond that at this stage.

Mr. Barrett

The Minister will be careful of it?

I will, certainly. In reply to Deputy Dillon, the dancehall tax, as such, when it was in operation, was generally regarded as being hardly any more, by way of benefit to the Exchequer, than the cost of its administration. To my recollection and having examined the debates to which Deputy Dillon has referred, the main purpose of the abolition of the dancehall tax was just that. But there was another purpose, as well, in that there was wholesale evasion of the tax as it was then operated. I think almost every Member of the House here would have personal knowledge of the attempt to evade the old dancehall tax. I remember going to dances in my young days, not being erudite enough in these matters to look for the stamp on the back of the ticket and, having paid my admission fee, being handed at the office a complimentary ticket which I handed to the man at the door. I was a party to the evasion of the tax but I did not realise what I was doing.

Ceilís, surely.

Dances and ceilís.

The GAA do not attend dances.

I never regarded myself restricted in conscience to that fact. I enjoyed myself to the full extent I thought I wanted, anyway. However, I say that very few Deputies can deny some personal knowledge of the type of practice to which I refer. As well as that, there were officers of the Revenue Commissioners going around the country visiting these dances and they had to be paid to be kept in the field. As a result of the abolition of the dance tax, that staff was withdrawn and its energies were devoted to other Revenue purposes. Since those days, dancing has become more sophisticated. Certainly the halls in which the dances are now being held are bigger.

"Sophisticated" is hardly the word.

Perhaps the people who go there go by more sophisticated modes of conveyance than some of us who had to go on buses or bicycles. Nowadays, almost everybody on a dancehall floor has come in a car.

They will have to go on bicycles again.

In any event, the staff was withdrawn. I have been diverted there, by the interruptions. Dancing now is on a much bigger scale than it used to be and it is acknowledged that very big profits are being made from it. It is reasonable to assume that the public feel that if taxation is to be imposed, then dances ought to be selected as a target for further taxation.

Hear, hear.

I fully subscribe to that point of view and I had the proposition examined in great detail. The first question that arose was whether the tax as it formerly existed should be reimposed. That would have meant recruiting the type of staff that was employed for the purpose of enforcing the dancehall taxation in former days which cost a considerable amount of money and which could perhaps again cost as much as a reasonable tax would bring in and would be a futile exercise as far as the Exchequer is concerned. Therefore alternative ways of collecting the tax were examined and this was found to be the most feasible, the increasing of the turnover tax already on dancehalls from 2½ to ten per cent. I admit that the income from it is modest but I can assure the House that I examined the matter in detail to ensure the maximum intake and the most effective enforcement. That is the position as far as this turnover tax is concerned and it has no sinster significance of the kind attributed to it by Deputy Dillon.

I am obliged to confess that the Minister is a skilled debater and has a disarming way of meeting criticism. It is well that he recognises that emphatic criticism involves no personal affront. I think there will be general agreement that it is not a source of revenue to which a hardpressed Government must seriously turn in present circumstances. I understand the Minister's explanation of his reluctance to turn to dancehalls but I must be permitted by the Leas-Cheann Comhairle to ask why he should be permitted to explain that if I was not permitted to elucidate——

The Deputy had gone far enough for me to make the explanation.

The Minister was fully entitled to explain the reason for his change. In the light of the Minister's explanation of the reason for his turning to this tax rather than what we used to call the dance tax, I may say I regard this as an extremely dangerous precedent for the House and one of which Members ought to be warned. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that, in the circumstances, this is a tax to which we should consent; but it is a tax on dancing on which I have warned the House most solemnly against the principle of an increase in the turnover tax and I warned the House most solemnly that if this principle were extended, chaos would ensue.

I am obliged to the Minister for his explanation of the circumstances in which he determined to resort to turnover tax. It does not alter my view in the least of the very grave dangers attending the principle enshrined in his device but I agree with him that the tax on dancing is a suitable source of revenue, when you have nowhere else to turn to provide even so wretched a provision as 5/- for such old age pensioners as can prove themselves to be utterly destitute.

We are supporting the imposition of this tax mainly because of the fact that we believe it is something which can bear extra taxation, and also because of the fact that the money being collected can be used to relieve even the very wretched poor, which is the description which most fits those who will benefit by this extra 5/- per week.

There is one thing which I suggest the Minister might consider in relation to this dance turnover tax—call it what you like. There is the danger of starting an increased turnover tax under any heading. I am sure the Minister is aware that for a number of years a situation has been allowed to continue in this country which is definitely dangerous, the situation in which, particularly in country areas, dancehalls and ballrooms licensed to hold a limited number of people, say, up to 1,500 or 2,000, are crammed full with 5,000 or 6,000 people who cannot find standing room. It is all right saying that the Government will collect from them. I hope the Government will not relax any of their levies or try to cut down on tax at these dances because I honestly believe that eventually there must be a serious accident if this is allowed to continue. I know that some local authorities have recently been attempting to enforce the law but, unfortunately, too many of them are too lax about it. The tendency might be to feel that the more who attend, the more the Government will get out of it; but there is a very serious fire hazard in a number of these halls. It is just too bad to find 5,000 or 6,000 people crammed into a hall which is licensed to hold only 2,000.

Has the Minister any intention of exempting recreation halls or parochial halls where parish functions are held?

The only exemptions will be in relation to dances at which not more than 100 people will attend and at which the admission price is not more than 4/-.

Would the Minister not consider the cases I have mentioned? Would he not agree that they deserve consideration?

They do, as long as you can identify them, but the trouble is that the old reliefs were given to activities held for charitable purposes and almost every activity was then deemed to have been held for that purpose.

Is it intended to include socials in this, that is, where a hundred or two hundred people attend a hall for a meal and dance, called a "hooley". Is it intended to include such functions, despite the fact that the meal and whatever entertainment is given takes up most of the money collected?

I understand a "social" to be a party of an organisation, of a club or something like that.

——concluding with a dance, in the country.

That would not be a dance in the ordinary sense.

Where there is a dinner dance for, say, 30/- will they pay ten per cent on the dance and 2½ per cent on the remainder?

No, ten per cent on the whole charge.

The soup, the mutton, the pudding and the paper hat!

May I ask one question of the Minister? Without having inspectors, how is the Minister going to do this in a dancehall where drink could even be included? In the city of Dublin where, say an hotel is catering, how can it charge ten per cent on one section and 2½ per cent on the other?

Drink would not be included.

It has happened.

It is ascertainable then.

The hotel is paying 2½ per cent turnover tax and, on this particular function, ten per cent. How will the Minister ascertain this without having inspectors on the spot doing it?

There will be checks.

In other words, he will have to have somebody inspecting. The Minister's argument a few minutes ago was that that would not be necessary but now he says he will have them, in these cases, in hotels to check.

Dancehall proprietors have been paying turnover tax hitherto, so there is a known system of checking on these things.

I want to ascertain how this will be administered. Will the administration of this not be just as costly, or else they could cod you up to the two eyes?

I think the problem Deputy P. Belton has in mind is this. A person pays for admission to a dinner dance in an hotel; he sits in the ballroom and will be required to pay ten per cent on drinks purchased during the course of the evening. But, if he leaves the ballroom and goes to another part of the hotel, there will be a 7½ per cent reduction on the price. If this is to be related to tax on a dance held in a particular premises, how is the hotel owner to differentiate? Is he to lock everybody into the ballroom until they leave the premises any time a person enters the premises for the occasion of a dance? If not, the effect will be that people will leave the ballroom.

I thought it was understood that it is the inclusive charge for a dance and, if the dance involves supper or dinner, the price of the supper or dinner would be in the inclusive charge which would be subject to turnover tax. But if, as happens at dances, people sit at the table and have not got their supper or dinner as part of the charge but will order a bottle of wine or gin or whiskey, that is completely outside the ten per cent turnover tax charge. It will be paid in the ordinary way and will not be affected.

What the Minister says is not very clearly stated in paragraph (1)(b) which says:

for the purposes of this paragraph taxable turnover shall be the total amount of money received or receivable from persons admitted to a dance in respect of admission, together with, in case goods are sold or services are provided, or both goods are sold and services are provided, in connection with the dance, and payment therefore is not included in the payment in respect of admission, the total amount of money received or receivable in respect thereof.

Unless the meaning of the English language has changed, this paragraph means that the ten per cent will have to be paid on every cigarette, every cheroot, every drop of intoxicating liquor, every bowl of soup and every cup of tea purchased at a dance, over and above the normal admission subscription, as long as these articles are purchased in connection with the dance. If persons leave the dancehall and go to the hotel proper and purchase these, the ten per cent will not have to be paid, but if they are bought in the dancehall, they will be liable to the ten per cent.

If the Deputy will look at subparagraph (b), he will see that if these things are sold in connection with the dance and payment for them is not included in the payment in respect of admission, the tax will be paid on the total amount received in respect of the dance. This section means that the cost of the services so provided would be chargeable to turnover tax. It could be that the admission fee to a certain function would be a nominal one, but having paid that, the person entering would be obliged to pay inside 15/- or 20/- for a meal. If that were the condition of entry, the total charge would be subject to turnover tax. If you pay a full admission fee which includes drink and food served inside, the tax will be on the admission fee.

Mr. Barrett

I wonder if the Minister would consider defining "dances" in any subsequent legislation that may arise from this? Speaking for myself, I must say that some of the best dances I was ever at were not intended to be dances at all. If there is a gathering of people and there is a good pianist present and five or six people begin to dance, as very often happens, would that come under this charge? If that happens, these people might find themselves in the soup. A dinner addressed by the Minister could quite easily turn into a dance if there were a good pianist there.

That is a point worth looking at.

Generally, dinner dances are held by business organisations or by people who wish to make money for charity. They are usually run on a non-profit basis. All these people wish to do is to clear themselves. Surely the people the Minister is after here are the dancehall people for whom dancing is big business, dances at which there may be an attendance of 2,000? The normal dinner dance is a non-profit making event and 60 per cent of them are run by charities or by business concerns.

Would the Minister not confine this to the commercial dancehalls where dances are big business? Dances run for charitable purposes and by business concerns should not be subject to it.

These points are more appropriate to the Finance Bill than to this Resolution.

We are trying to find out whether we should vote for this or vote against it.

Surely the House is entitled to know the effects of the Resolution on which it is being asked to vote? That is all we are trying to find out and if that is irrelevant, then this whole business is irrelevant.

It has not been the practice to go into these details on the Resolution itself. These matters have usually been dealt with on the Finance Bill.

Mr. Barrett

It is helpful that the Minister should get suggestions from the House so that he can consider them for inclusion in the Finance Bill.

There are ample opportunities to give the Minister relevant suggestions.

And very few of the Fianna Fáil Deputies know what they are voting for when they are voting for this Resolution.

We are trying to make up our minds whether to support this Resolution or vote against it and all we are doing is looking for information. The Chair seems to be trying to do its best to frustrate that objective.

The Chair is not trying to frustrate anybody. The Chair is doing its best to keep the discussion in order and it has not been the practice to discuss these details on the Resolution.

Every line in this long Resolution is relevant to the discussion. There is nothing in Standing Orders to prevent such a discussion.

It has not been the practice to discuss these on the Resolution. The Chair is doing its best to keep the discussion in order.

Is there provision in Standing Orders that these Resolutions must be passed quickly?

It is the practice not to discuss details on the Resolution.

Practice has nothing to do with it. There is no practice and nothing in Standing Orders to curtail this debate.

The Chair is not trying to curtail the debate. As long as the Resolution is discussed in an orderly fashion, the Chair will do everything to assist.

I feel that the Chair is trying to rush us and to rush this matter through the House.

The Chair is not trying to rush anything or anybody. The Chair is just trying to keep the discussion in order.

Mr. Barrett

Deputies have always had the right to discuss these matters in detail. If they have not always used that right, it does not mean that it should be taken from them; it does not mean that it should become the practice that they should not do so. That would be contrary to the right of free debate in this House.

There is no question of restricting the debate. The Resolution is put down for the purpose of giving Deputies the right to debate relevant matters, as long as they do so within the rules of order.

Mr. Barrett

If I have the right to speak and I do not exercise that right for five years, it does not mean that I am never to speak again. I still have the right to speak.

So long as Deputies speak relevantly, they are in order, and the Chair will not intervene.

Mr. Barrett

You said it had become the practice in the House not to discuss details on these Resolutions and I want to know how a thing becomes a practice.

May I seek some information on the Resolutions to show that we will not dance to the Minister's tune? Paragraph 9 says that the word "dances" includes a ball. What is the difference between a dance and a ball and why is it necessary to put in this explanation?

This is a drafting matter.

Then why not put in that a dance includes a hop? Why not put in that a dance includes a showband show? I would like to know the social or historical reasons for indicating a doubt that obviously existed in the mind of the draftsman.

There are traditional meanings attached to the words "dance" and "ball". Hops and showband shows are innovations and could be defined by the term "dance".

With regard to the suggestion about concessions for parish hall and other such functions, I would say that once you get into the granting of concessions, you will never stop. Almost anything can be described as charitable. If somebody throws a halfcrown into a hat for the purpose of digging a hole in a parish priest's garden, that could be described as a charity.

In reply to Deputy Farrelly and Deputy Belton, I just want to say that once you get into the field of concessions, a tax of this nature ceases to be an effective tax.

My point is that food should be left out. There should be some way of formulating it so that food will be left out. It could be a straight tax of ten per cent. What about the hotels? They are involved in this also.

The dancehall proprietor is the person who is liable for the tax.

The Intercontinental Hotel is an hotel plus a ballroom. It will have to pay ten per cent on the food in the ballroom, and 2½ per cent on the food in the hotel. It would be easier to allow a certain percentage for food.

These details do not arise at this stage.

The Minister can take it that that will be done anyway. Food will be separated from dancing.

In the part of the country I come from, weekly ceili dances are run. In one instance I know of 5/- is charged for a series of dances for a week. The local school band provides the music. It is a ceilí and there is Irish music. What is the position in such a case? Is ceilí dancing to be taxed as distinct from ordinary ballroom dancing?

If the 5/- covers a series of dances, and if the cost of each dance is less than 4/-, as a result the ceilí dances referred to by Deputy O'Hara would not be covered.

If there are over 100 people at the dance, what happens?

It would be caught if there are over 100.

On a point of order, may I inquire if that would be exclusive of the band?

The Deputy may raise that on the Finance Bill.

One would think there was a bomb-scare on today. I am looking for clarification.

Deputies have got clarification, and if they want to raise further points, there are the stages of the Bill on which they can be raised.

Question put and agreed to.
Top
Share