Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 21 Jul 1932

Vol. 15 No. 25

Finance Bill, 1932 (Certified Money Bill)—Second Stage.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The Finance Bill sets out the arrangements the Dáil has made for raising the moneys required to defray the cost of the Central Fund and the Supply Services for the coming year. In considering the expenditure during that period it was thought advisable to segregate the items under two heads. The first deals with what I might describe as the normal expenditure constituting a normal Budget to meet the ordinary expenses of government in a normal year. The second head covers the special provision which the Government felt should be made in the present emergency to relieve distress and to create employment. Under a normal Budget the total amount to be provided would be £27,064,000, which includes, first of all, the estimates as they were framed by our predecessors for supply purposes and, in addition, a sum of £270,000 which will be required to finance the Old Age Pensions Bill, which I understand the House is shortly to consider, and a Military Wounds and Disability Pensions Bill, which the Minister for Defence will introduce in the coming session. On the estimated income it was found that on the basis of the previous taxation we should have a tax revenue of £19,893,000 and a non-tax revenue of £3,417,000, making a total receipt of £23,310,000 as contrasted with an actual receipt for the previous year of £25,496,419. As against this we should have an expenditure under a normal Budget of £27,064,000, leaving us with a substantial deficit.

It is proposed to make good this deficit in the following way:—It is proposed to provide £137,000, which is necessary to meet the payments which will fall due in respect of Property Losses Compensation and to complete the repayment of the Dáil Eireann internal loan, by borrowing. I think no person will contest that, in view of the nature of the expenditure, it is quite legitimate to provide the money in that way. By reductions in salaries, economies in administration and by making a smaller allowance even than usual for over-estimation in the estimates, we felt it would be quite safe to set aside, as against the expenditure, the sum of £679,535, leaving a net sum of £26,247,365 to be provided out of taxation and out of normal non-tax revenue.

As I have already informed the House, the estimated receipts from non-tax and tax revenue for the current year total only £23,310,000. That left us, therefore, on a normal Budget, a deficit of £2,950,250 which had to be provided for out of taxation. In addition to that, the Government also propose on the emergency side of the Budget to raise by special taxes the sum of £1,000,000. It was felt that so far as the balance of £1,500,000 which we were setting aside to meet present distress and to create employment was concerned, of that sum £550,000, representing the normal provision for the Local Loans Fund, could be transferred from the normal Budget and that the remaining £1,000,000 would be raised by borrowing on the security of the Road Fund, as it was mainly intended to spend that upon road construction. The addition of the £1,000,000, which is to be provided for the emergency Budget, to what has to be provided for the normal Budget, makes it imperative to impose this year additional taxation amounting to £3,950,250. It is proposed under the Finance Bill which is now before the House to raise that amount in the following way—Inland Revenue, £1,445,000; customs duties imposed under Part II of the Bill and set out in detail in the First and Second Schedules to the Bill, £910,000; adjustments in respect of the sugar tax, beer tax, tea tax, entertainment tax and minor matters, £595,250; special tax on receipts from sweepstakes, £650,000; collection of hitherto undisclosed arrears of excess profits duty and income tax, £350,000.

In connection with the last item, I think it is advisable to say at this stage that, as the House is probably aware, the Government is offering a special concession to those who have a liability to the State in respect of excess profits duty and income-tax—a liability which they have hitherto concealed but which, in the course of time, would be honoured and from which I do not think they could, in any event, hope to escape. The collection of arrears representing undisclosed liability for excess profits duty and income-tax is troublesome and expensive both to the taxpayer and to the State. We hope to obviate that trouble, inconvenience and expense by inducing taxpayers to come forward and make a voluntary disclosure in that regard. I think it is advisable to repeat what I said in the Dáil in this connection. I shall repeat it in exactly the same form, with one alteration in regard to time, which, from the point of view of the taxpayer, may be important:

The concession will be as follows. Any taxpayer, on intimating to the Revenue Commissioners that he desires to avail himself of the benefit of the announcement which I am now making, will be supplied with a form of undertaking. This form must be completed and sent to the Revenue Commissioners not later than the 30th September, 1932.

That is the alteration to which I wish to direct the attention of the House and of the public generally. In the announcement as originally made, the date mentioned was 15th August, 1932. There has been some delay in getting the Finance Bill through the Dáil. To make allowance for that and for the delay which will ensue before the Bill becomes law in the ordinary course, the Government have felt that it is desirable that an extension of time should be given to taxpayers who intend to take advantage of this concession. Accordingly, we are fixing the last date for making disclosure as 30th September, 1932.

On this form, the taxpayer will undertake to furnish the Revenue Commissioners by 31st December, 1932 (or such later date as they may allow) such accounts and information as they consider necessary to enable them to compute correctly the total amount of all duties underpaid, and, where the Commissioners consider such a course necessary, to have the accounts certified by an accountant approved by them. When the undertaking has been satisfactorily carried out, the Revenue Commissioners will accept in full settlement (subject to a minimum which I will explain in a moment) a sum not exceeding 75 per cent. of the total of all duties (income-tax, super tax or sur tax and excess profits duty) underpaid from 1914 (inclusive) to date. There will be no further penalties and no interest will be charged. Prompt payment will be required, but any case in which the taxpayer's present circumstances are such that he cannot pay the full amount so computed without grave hardship will receive special consideration. The concession will be extended to cases at present under review in the Revenue Department in which the Revenue Commissioners have not yet formally notified to the taxpayer or his agent the amount which they are willing to accept in settlement. The minimum duty payable will be the income tax and surtax or super-tax (if any) for which assessment can be now made (i.e. for six years in addition to the current year) together with any such taxes properly payable in respect of assessments already made.

I have felt it necessary, at this stage, again to direct public attention to the concession we are offering. It is anticipated that that concession will enable us to collect £350,000 over and above the amount of income tax and excess profits duty which would be collected in the ordinary way. If our expectations in that regard be realised, we will be able to close the financial year with a surplus of approximately £62,000.

I should like further information regarding one aspect of the statement made by the Minister. He stated that 30th September, 1932, was the last date for making a voluntary disclosure. Immediately afterwards, he said that the 31st December, 1932, was the date for lodging the accounts. I do not know whether it is intended to extend the time for making a voluntary disclosure to 31st December, 1932, or whether a disclosure made in the last quarter of the year would entitle the person to the exemptions mentioned by the Minister. When the Minister is replying, perhaps he will make that point clear. I think it is the duty of every Senator to contribute to the discussions of this Assembly any special experience or information he may have. I should like to emphasise that it would be very wise for every person who has not disclosed income received in the years from 1914 onwards to make a full disclosure now while there is time. A great many people may think that because they have escaped so long they will escape for all time. I have some experience of the working of the Revenue Department and I can assure Senators—I know, of course, that there is no Senator who has not made a full disclosure—that no matter how secure a man may feel that he will not be discovered, at the present moment in almost every case the net is being slowly drawn around him and there is more information about his affairs than he is aware of. I described the income tax gentleman on one occasion here as "perfectly impartial and perfectly ruthless." If any man thinks that they are not keeping a vigilant and continuous watch on him, that they are not gathering bits of information here and there which ultimately will make a conclusive case, he is greatly mistaken.

I am very glad that special concessions were made in cases of this kind, because some years ago in this country it was considered the patriotic thing to conceal the amount of a man's income. In one of those years it was considered patriotic not to pay any income tax at all. That is a matter which should be taken into consideration now, and I am glad that the Minister has agreed to accept a sum not exceeding 75 per cent. I hope that that 75 per cent, which is here stated to be a maximum, will not be a minimum also, because no matter what profits a man may have made it would be very hard for him at the present time, having regard to the fluctuations in finance, to meet these undisclosed liabilities in full. It would be very hard to meet them to the extent of 75 per cent. I hope that 75 per cent. will be treated as a maximum and that settlements will be made at rates below that sum. In regard to "special consideration." I hope that these words used by the Minister are not idle words. I hope the words "special consideration" will get full meaning, and that a man who comes forward now and makes a disclosure will get special consideration both in regard to the amount exacted from him and in regard to the terms of payment. The last thing I should like to refer to in this matter is the question of indemnity. If a man comes forward, I think the indemnity should be ample and complete, and that it should cover every illegal act that may have been committed by any income taxpayer in the course of the system of concealment to which he was obliged to resort in order to evade payment. The matters in respect of which he will require to be indemnified may involve declarations having the solemnity of an oath made in respect to various matters and made in respect of returns of income. I hope that the indemnity will be full, that once the disclosure is made, the accounts furnished and the balances paid, the whole thing will be at an end.

Senator Comyn is a professional man. I suppose he knows the secrets, naturally, of private incomes or has had an opportunity——

It is not as a professional man I know them. I was trained in Somerset House.

I can only say by way of introduction that if I set my mind to it, I do not think it would be really difficult to conceal one's income from the Revenue Authorities. The difficulty would be not to make them suspicious if one spent it. There would not be much gratification in having an income if you could not spend it. What always makes the Revenue Commissioners suspicious is, say, the spectacle of a man who says he has no income, driving about in a motor car. Incidentally I should like to tell you a story of a Revenue officer who visited a certain town. A friend of mine met him and asked: "What brings you down here?""Why," he said, "I have come down to see if the people are as poor as they say they are." I suppose he went about asking information about everybody's affairs and once that begins of course you are done. Then they begin to make a trial assessment and the game is up.

I was disappointed that the Minister did not deal with the broader aspect of our financial position because that is really what one rather expects in an annual Budget statement, not a mere recital of figures under the different heads but an examination more or less on general lines of our revenue producing capacity and the burden of taxation. I think I have got a good authority for examining this question from a certain aspect. The President himself—and I have no doubt the Minister for Finance will agree—has said that a certain ratio, 66 to 1, represents the relative tax-paying capacity of this country and Great Britain. It is very intriguing to explore the position on the basis of this 66 to 1. On the basis of this 66 to 1 I find that the British Budget in relation to ours should reach a total of £1,750,000,000. That is, if they were taxed as heavily as we are, they would be paying double the taxation they are paying now. Following that further, I might argue that, with no public debt, we are taxed, in relation to our capacity to pay, to double the extent of the British taxpayer. If you take the yield on the basis of this 66 to 1 our Budget should be only £12,000,000. As it is, it is somewhere in the region of £24,000,000 or £25,000,000, so I think that the proof is irresistible that we are bearing a burden which is double our capacity to pay, and that either we should halve our Budget or in some way increase the revenue yielding assets of the country. It is on that basis that I should like to examine the matter because in essence these broad principles of finance are fairly simple.

You can get into all kinds of metaphysics in regard to currency and high finance, but when you are faced with the fact that you are bearing a burden double that which you are able to bear, there are only two things you can do, either you must increase your yield, you must increase the power of the people to pay or you must reduce your expenditure.

Examine these two aspects of the case for one moment. What is being done now to increase our capacity to pay? There are two ways I suggest, in which that can be done, either by increasing new money or by increasing old money. That is to say, by encouraging industries and making people richer or by encouraging those who are already rich to stay and spend their money and contribute willingly to the services of the State. I would suggest with regard to the increase of new money or new wealth, the whole policy of the Government is in the opposite direction.

One of the essentials of increasing wealth is confidence and security. I think any business man will agree to-day that the particular thing the country lacks on all sides is confidence and security. On every side we see indications that will frighten people who might embark on enterprise, that will tend towards parsimony, and tighten people's purse strings. One of the essentials of confidence is that when people take risks they should reap the reward. What do we find? We find the Minister for Industry and Commerce saying jail is the place for the profiteer. What is a profiteer? I have never seen the word defined. Because a man, who perhaps has had several losses, strikes a venture that is profitable and earns a lot of interest that may recoup him for years of losses in the other direction in the open market, he is called a profiteer and is to be put in jail.

Capital is a most extraordinarily elusive commodity. It does not sit waiting for people to lay their hands upon it; it goes in the night. We may know, even to-day, how extraordinarily timid investors and depositors all through the country are. Long before the Government can act, under this cumbersome machinery, and before they can get it into operation, the harm is done and the money goes. Until you build a brass wall around the country you will never stop the flow of capital. As a further inducement for people in industry and contributing to the welfare of the country and towards its taxation up to their capacity we have the Control of Prices Bill. What man in his senses, faced with a measure of that kind, will go into business? The only people who will go into business, in such circumstances, are people who will be sheltered behind tariff walls. Every business man knows that. They do not tell the Government. That is not their business; but note how this works. The whole mentality of such people going into trade behind tariff walls is insincere. They are only trying to feather their nests at the expense of the consumers.

Take another aspect—that concerned more with administration. Look, to-day, at the clogging of business that is taking place. I could give the Minister an instance, and could, if necessary, supply the names. I was in a certain bookseller's establishment the other day, and I asked for a certain book, and they said: "We have had two consignments of books at the Custom House"—this occurred about ten days ago—"since the 12th May." That is quite a common thing. If the Minister will ask his officials they will tell him that they are concerned with 10,000 queries addressed to the Revenue Commissioners upon the question of tariff interpretation. It is very hard to get that sort of thing vocal. People get disgusted; they get resentful; they get disgruntled. You do not get mass meetings in those cases such as people organise who do not want to pay their debts. It means simply and solely that you are damping down the wells of enterprise. People in business in this country are suffering, and people will not come to this country and do business in this country where that kind of rule prevails. I am not at all blaming the officials: it is their masters, the members of the Government, who are to blame. That is the mentality that pleases them—a sort of patriotic economic system, a mixture of Karl Marx and a lot of other doctrinaires under whose guidance we are told we will have a progressive State. All you do is to bring into operation a whole lot of Government regulations, annoying everybody, clogging up everything, and damping down all enterprise. What we want is enterprise and initiative, and that will only operate in a free State where there is security.

I want to make one other remark about the progress of the country during recent years. It is the fashion of the present Government to deride the late Government, and say all these terrible disasters were aggravated and intensified by the policy of the last Government, and that they themselves are the saviours who are bringing peace and plenty to the country. Fortunately we have had issued lately a summary of the census of production and the percentages of two successive periods. I have the document in my hand, and, although I am not at all a supporter on many of the aspects of the economic policy of the late Government, especially their tariff policy, I do think this document, speaking in general terms, does justify them in claiming that their record was, on the whole, sound. Generally in these census of production the figures show an increase in the net output, and an increase in the number of employed, and in all aspects an increase in the figures of what I would call the vital statistics of industry. Of course the weakness is that there are no figures for agriculture. One would want to know whether industrial prosperity has happened at the expense of agriculture, which apparently does not seem to lend itself to statistical review.

There are thirty-five industries reported on. In the case of net output, there has been in the three years, in terms of money—and I do not think the price level after a certain point was with them—an increase of £2,000,000 in net output. There has been an increase of 5,000 in the number of wage earners employed and an increase in the salaries earned from £11,000,000 to £11,500,000, and an increase, in the few years, in the net output per person. I still believe that that was largely earned at the expense of agriculture but I should be very much surprised if the next census of production will show as creditable a record of progress as that of the period I have mentioned. So I do not think it is fair to say that the late Government, after all, did nothing but bring the country further down by its economic policy. That may be all right on the hustings but I do not think it should be said in a deliberative body like this unless it can be borne out by facts.

What is the position with regard to old money? What encouragement is there for people to come and spend money here? For that is probably one of the readiest methods of increasing our taxable capacity. If you had a Rockefeller in every county you would not have much trouble about balancing your Budget but I am afraid things are very much the other way. I have means of knowing and every day I hear of people getting more and more restive, and less inclined to contribute and to spend their money freely in residences and in development of the country. The Minister knows the places have been offered for sale. That means retrenchment and the loss of employment. I have come across several cases in other directions where negotiations for purchase of what are called "residences" have recently broken down, owing to the alarm caused by the new economic policy. Even looking in the direction of bearing the burden ourselves, which, of course, is fantastic, and to economy to which the Minister in his statement referred, I would like to ask what has been done? When is this cut coming into operation? What does he anticipate he will get by this cut? Will he get the amount for which he has budgetted? I shall deal with other questions on the Committee Stage.

I will conclude by asking the Minister seriously to consider whether his new economic policy, which, in some mysterious and magical way, is going to bring plenty and abundance to the suffering people, can be sustained. How is it going to be done? Where is the money going to come from? On all sides we see insecurity. We actually see industries being nationalised, flour-milling for instance. I have no doubt the flour people may get a very good deal, but we do not know what will happen next. This is creating a position of alarm, a breaking away from old traditions which, with all their faults, maintained our civilisation, and something more, and which has never been proved in other directions. I would ask the Labour Party if they can show us anywhere from which plenty is going to come by sweeping away the old order or where it succeeded. If there is something to prove let it be proved. Is it even good business to break down and to frighten the old order for the prospect of some abstraction which never in history made good? That is the line the Government has embarked on. I think it is a dangerous one. In other directions there is, I think, a feeling of alarm. I know that the Government balanced the Budget, but surely they are unwise to part with old methods for a glorious gesture that it is going to make everyone rich, whereas, at the moment, it is making everyone scared.

So much water has passed under the bridges since the Minister made his speech when introducing the Budget, and most of us have become so accustomed even in that short time to the difficulties and inconveniences of the Budget, that it makes it difficult at this stage to offer as useful criticism as one might have offered at an earlier stage if we had the Bill. There is a feeling of unreality in discussing the Finance Bill here to-day, because we know that a considerable portion of it will probably have disappeared before we get an opportunity of making recommendations in Committee. I suppose the right course for the House is to assume that things are as they were, and to make recommendations which we think will meet the position. The Minister seems to think the Seanad a good place to emphasise the great concession he has made by the provision in the Bill to show kindliness and affection for people who have been breaking the law for a considerable period. I totally disagree with Senator Comyn and with the attitude taken by the Government in this matter. I recognise their difficulties in getting in arrears but, on the other hand, I think there is no moral ground for saying to the man who has paid his income tax regularly since 1914 "What we will do for you is to increase your tax to 5/- in the £; increase your super-tax, and put on corporation profits tax," and then saying to the man who has not paid "We will let you down easily in arrears, and will only charge you something like 75 per cent." That almost makes one wish that one had not paid. Whatever administrative justification there is for such attitude, there is no moral justification.

There is another provision in the Finance Bill that I think is on a par with the provision for letting off easily people who did not do their duty, and that is the suggestion that a special concession will be made to those who will now invest some money in Irish industries. Those of us who put whatever money we had into Irish industries in the past, and who were willing to do so during a difficult period, when there was very considerable risk, we are to pay the full rate. I think that is wrong.

Absolutely wrong.

I think that is a wrong way to approach the question. I am not speaking from the Party point of view at all. I am speaking from the point of view of the State, and on behalf of people who, during the last 20 years, were willing to risk their money in Irish industries which gave employment here, the people who are now to be penalised as against new investors. There is an attitude underlying these Government proposals that I think will not bear proper investigation. I would like to point out that the Minister to-day omitted to give us the same explanation about the special concessions that he gave in the Dáil. I am speaking from memory, but I have a pretty clear recollection of the fact that he prefaced his remarks in the Dáil by the reminder that anyone who failed to pay income tax was robbing his fellow citizens, and, to his mind, was not meeting his State obligations. That is perfectly true, because, if a man fails to meet his proper tax obligations, it means that other people who are honest will have to pay them.

I am sure the Minister will be gratified to know that I listened carefully to his Budget speech, although I confess that I have not read it since, so that he will forgive me if I misquote it from memory. I think the Minister based his decision to reduce the exemption rate for single persons on the ground that he wanted to penalise bachelors and to encourage matrimony. With the Government to that extent I find myself in agreement. But I would like seriously to ask the Minister if he would be prepared to carry it to its logical conclusion, and to leave the old rate or a preferential rate of exemption in the case of widows. I am not joking about this, I am putting forward a serious proposal that I ask the Minister carefully to consider. I know of a number of cases of widows who have been seriously hit by this provision, especially when it is coupled with the fact that instead of paying half rate on the first £225, it must be paid on the first £100.

Whatever may be said for the single man or the single woman, the position of the widows in these cases is different. They have in most cases been living jointly on the income of their husbands and it is very often not possible, and only possible with the greatest difficulty, to get employment. The income which in most cases they have is income derived from the savings of the husband, and that is generally a very small income. I think, therefore, that the provision that puts the widow on exactly a par with the single person is not just, and I propose to put down a recommendation which will alter the exemption rate in the case of the widow. There may be difficulties and it may be said that you cannot distinguish the case of a widow, but I do say there is just a case for my argument.

I referred previously to the provision by which investments in certain circumstances in public issues will only pay income tax at the rate of 4/- instead of 5/-. It seems to me that that provision in this Bill will require a lot of clarification. Frankly, I think that the provision does not seem to be workable. These provisions are of very little value because they only apply to public issues. We know perfectly well that the money that will be put in will not be made by means of the public issues, but we find in this provision that one-fifth allowances will only be applicable where the control of the industry is in Irish hands. I am not quarrelling with such a provision. What I want to point out to the Minister is this, that if, for the sake of argument, a company is formed here for the production of an Irish manufacture and a public issue is made, the investor will not know whether the control will be in Irish hands or not until the issue will have been subscribed. For the sake of argument, if a man puts his money into it in the belief that he is going to get the benefit of the 4/- rate instead of the 5/- rate of income tax he may find himself in the position when the money is subscribed that he will not get the benefit of the lower rate of income tax, and it would be impossible to make that clear beforehand. Again, the result of the issue may be that it will be under Irish control, but through death or otherwise some of the shares may be transferred and a certain proportion of the capital may go to a different person, and then the position may arise that after a year or so the company may cease to be under Irish control. The man then who puts in his money in the belief that the firm is going to be under Irish control will not get the benefit of the lower income tax. He will get no benefit at all. The Bill will have to be altered very much if the persons for whom it is intended are to get the benefit of this provision.

I should like the Minister when replying—he may have explained it already in the Dáil but I did not hear him—to explain the reasons why he has made differentiation between the rent from business premises and the rent from other premises. It seems to me that, if a man is willing to invest his money, it is better that he should invest in business premises which are often so much needed and which are such an asset to the country—premises where employment will be given. Instead of that the proposal is to penalise people who may have put their money into business premises. This is a provision which requires justification. I do not understand why such a provision was put in the Bill except that it was a case of the Minister looking around to see on what he could put a special tax.

I know of one case in particular myself where the only property left to a widow on the death of her husband was the rent from some business premises. The result was that she immediately had her income tax raised from £3 or £4 to £35 a year. In the matter of this kind casualties are perhaps inevitable but this is a distinct hardship. No one can justify a drastic thing of this kind in which in one day the amount of the income tax is multiplied many times over. In this case the amount is raised to the amount of the rent and no exemption is given. Such a provision is bound to create many cases of hardship and I should like to hear what the Minister has to say on the matter. I know that there are many arguments that may be used: that it is only just that if a man has a certain income from rent he should pay at the same rate as anybody else. If the Government were starting that from now I would not quarrel with them, but the fact remains that this money at some time previously was put into building premises in the belief that the old provisions would hold and now these people find themselves suddenly faced with having to pay a vastly increased income tax.

And sometimes on a rent that they do not receive.

I do not quite know how that could be, that you pay on what you do not receive, but I know if this provision is to stand many people will find themselves in an extraordinary position. Sir John Keane referred to the difficulties in the customs. My own view is that the chaos which admittedly has arisen in the last four or five months in the customs is the inevitable result of the wholesale putting on of duties of all kinds. I doubt very much, if we had the cleverest Minister for Finance in the world—and I am now making no reflection on the present Minister—that chaos would not exist if you put on duties at the same rate as they are being put on by the present Government. I am not going to ascribe the blame to any particular individual. But the chaos is there and it does not seem to be coming to an end. In some businesses, my own included, there has been an improvement. That is due to the fact that the Revenue Commissioners have now reached some kind of an idea as to what is dutiable under the Bill and under the Orders. In the earlier stages they really were unable to tell what was included under the different schedules, with the result that importers had the greatest possible difficulty.

Sir John Keane referred particularly to the matter of books. I should like to ask the Minister if he would be good enough to ask the Revenue Commissioners to look into the matter of books because I have heard a considerable number of complaints of the delay in clearing books from the customs offices. I know that the library people from whom I borrow my books have been complaining for a considerable time of the delay in the delivery at the Custom House. I have been told by them that the books that have been on order for weeks have not been delivered. To-day I was speaking to the officials of the library and they told me that that difficulty is continuing. One of the reasons is that under this provision the Revenue Commissioners have placed upon them the duty of deciding such things as what is a novel. I am not surprised therefore at the difficulties that are arising in the definitions of what is and what is not fiction. I was told a few days ago that a book called In Search of Wales has been decided by the officials to be fiction, and that it was placed in the list of educational books. I have a strong suspicion that it may be fiction, but, at any rate, the difficulties of a library in taking a list of titles, and making distinctions, are very great, and I suggest that a very considerable amount of latitude will have to be given. However, be that as it may, books are being held up and it is exceedingly difficult to obtain them.

Another matter with which I disagree is the decision to tax cheap gramophone records. Some members of my family are very much interested in gramophone records, particularly foreign records, which they have obtained from various countries, and when they found from the newspapers that the Minister for Finance was under the impression that "You are the Cream in my Coffee" or something similar was the only thing which could be obtained on a cheap record, my son promptly said: "If you meet Mr. MacEntee, tell him to buy foreign records and not keep to the English ones." I have not had the opportunity of passing that advice on to the Minister privately, but possibly he will see that there is something in it. The result has been that my family have been working very hard and they have produced to me—I will not attempt to inflict them on the Seanad—an amazing list of really first-class music on the cheaper records. I admit that a considerable number are foreign, but they can also be obtained on British records, and if the Minister would like to improve his education, judging by his speech in the Dáil, I would be very glad to show him the list afterwards. I know that he will be particularly interested to find that while one has to pay 2/6 for a record of "The Soldier's Song," one can obtain. "The Protestant Boys" and "No Surrender" for 1/6. That, I know, will interest the Minister, but, at the same time, I do suggest to him that it would have been very well indeed to have left the cheap record, at any rate, out of this duty. It is not for a protective purpose or to bring about an industry. It is simply designed as a revenue tax—at least, I understand that is the position he takes. The gramophone is not now a toy. It is a serious instrument and is used by the poorer people, and I think it is a very good sign of the times that really good music can be obtained on records of this class in this country, and I think it is a mistake not to make some concession in the way of allowing the cheaper records in free. It is not a question of industry, but simply a question of tax.

With regard to another matter, a tax has been put on photographic apparatus in this Budget. I am interested only as an amateur and I am not likely to buy any cameras at present. I am not particularly interested immediately but what I am interested in is that the previous Government took over from Britain the tax of 33? per cent.—I think I am correct in the figure—on photographic apparatus. That was removed by the previous Minister for Finance on the ground that it cost more to collect than was received for it or that it cost almost as much—I forget the exact words—but, if that be related in any way to the truth, one wonders how 10 per cent. is going to pay for itself? There may be a snag somewhere in that, but it is not quite obvious to me.

With regard to the long list of protective duties in the Schedule, I will not weary the House by going into these in detail, at any rate on this stage of the Bill, but I want to put to the Minister very seriously the difficulty that traders are in and have been in for some little time. I will make the case probably much clearer if I state frankly my own difficulty. In my firm, we have always bought Irish goods, as far as was possible, and we have carried that policy for a very considerable time. There are, however, considerable quantities of goods which are not obtainable in this country and we are in the habit of buying considerable quantities from the Continent, principally because the goods were cheaper, and partly because we were anxious to spread our purchases over as large an area as possible. We continued that policy until the present Government came into office. They forced us to stop buying from the Continent and forced us to buy from Britain. The goods we had coming in from the Continent were suddenly increased in price from 15 to 45 per cent. with the result that we had to pay that and lose; we had to sell at less than cost the goods we purchased from the Continent. We were forced because of the large preference given. Now it looks as though we are going to have the reverse policy and I want to know seriously, if I go back and buy goods from the Continent, and if a settlement is reached in the course of a month or so, or perhaps sooner, which I very much hope, am I again going to be penalised by the fact that I buy goods from the Continent or am I to continue buying from England and pay the higher rate?

It is a serious position and so long as traders are in that position how can you expect us to trade at all or adopt any kind of policy which is going to widen out the market with countries other than Britain? We are blamed because we are depending on Britain but I say clearly and definitely that it is not my policy. I am forced to it by the action taken and the duties put on by the Government. Are we now going to have a reversal in certain cases with the result that we will not know where we are? I do think that, if a change is made, the Minister should consider whether some sort of guarantee should not be given that, if orders are placed, these orders will be allowed in at whatever rates may be in force when the orders are placed. If you are going to have this kind of change, people will not take a risk, and, frankly, they cannot afford to take a risk.

When this Bill was in Committee or Report Stage in the Dáil, the Government introduced into the Schedule a very needful provision. It is rather long and it showed that they discovered that a good many of their duties required consideration. The substance of it is that they put in a general provision providing that, if the Minister for Finance was satisfied that the goods on which he had placed duty were not made in this country, and if they were required for the making of other goods in this country, a licence could be given for their importation by a manufacturer. That was a very much needed provision, but it is only applied to certain things in the Schedule and it does not apply at all to the Customs Duties (No. 2) Bill which we have just passed. I did my best to draw the attention of the Government to this difficulty and I made a proposal that they might have power to modify the duties, but that was held to be a horrible suggestion and it could not be considered for one moment. I now suggest to them that in this Bill they should make this provision giving them power to grant a licence to manufacturer applicable to any duty, whether it be in this Bill or in the Bill we passed yesterday or in the Customs Duties (No. 2) Bill and not confine it simply to certain goods here. The two Bills—the Customs Duties (No. 2) Bill and this Bill—to some extent cut across each other. I do not propose to refer to them because I dealt at considerable length with the difficult position with regard to motor cars, except to this extent, that, next week, I am hoping that the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, who is not here now, will be in a position to make a further statement supplementary to the statement he made on the Customs Duties (No. 2) Bill.

By that time, we will have come very near to the 7th August up to which the concession was made, and if he is not able to give us a further assurance, I would again press him to say whether he cannot extend that date. I said on the Committee Stage of the Customs Duties (No. 2) Bill that the recommendations I was endeavouring to move then—all of which were, as I suppose I expected, rejected by the Government—were recommendations that would come within the general policy of the Government with regard to tariffs.

Now it appears that I failed entirely to understand the general policy of the Government with regard to tariffs, and I am more than ever bewildered as a result of the reply of the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs. Senator Foran asked him about putting a duty on salad, by which, I presume, he meant lettuce. The Minister, in reply, said that it was not the policy of the Government to put any tax on goods of which there was not an adequate supply in this country. That was good enough for Senator Foran, but when I came along and proposed that there should be a lower duty on certain goods which I was able to demonstrate were, in some cases, not made in the country at all, and, in other cases, of which there was no large supply, I was told that I was cutting across the fundamental policy of the Government. Can you blame me if I find it difficult to know exactly what is the fundamental policy with regard to this? I intend, even though it be futile, to make some suggestions by way of recommendation on these schedules. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs and Minister for Industry and Commerce— he is both now—stated that it was not their policy to tax goods of which there was no adequate supply and my attempts will be based on the assumptiton that that is their policy and not the other. On that basis I intend to put down some recommendations. I do not suppose they will meet with very much consideration, but it is the duty of Senators to do their best to make recommendations for what they are worth, and there is always the chance that some of them may be considered.

If you look at this Bill you will see the difficulty in which I find myself in understanding the policy of the Government. I moved for certain exemptions in the case of low-priced women's shoes made entirely of leather. I was told that that was contrary to the fundamental policy of the Government. Now when you come to this Bill there is a special section for exemption of certain boots and shoes and we find that shoes of a low price, if not made all of leather, may come in at a low rate of duty, but, if by any chance, they happen to be low-priced shoes, about which I argued before, and made all of leather, which would be a much healthier article for the poor to wear, it is against the fundamental policy of the Government to allow them in at a low rate. I think that requires some explanation. I am quite prepared, if necessary, to bring samples to any of the Ministers to show that decent all-leather shoes can be obtained suitable for women and girls, and that it is really a hardship to charge a high rate of duty on them until they can be made here. There is no immediate, or nearly immediate, prospect of these low-priced shoes being made here. They are made in certain districts in England and certain places on the Continent, but only in districts where the factories cater specifically for large quantities. I think it is ridiculous to say that if the shoes are not all leather they may come in at the old rate, but, if they are all leather they must pay the high rate. If I were to do it, I would reverse it, but the powers-that-be seem to think the other is the right method. All I can say is that I disagree, and I doubt very much if the matter was thoroughly investigated.

During the election, the policy of the Fianna Fáil Party was enunciated very definitely, and these forty-four pages of that policy, which Senator Douglas does not understand, are bringing into operation what had been promised at the election. I cannot understand the mentality of any trader in this country who complains of the Fianna Fáil policy, because every article in every shop in every village, town and city has been increased in value by the Fianna Fáil policy. Everything has been taxed. The traders who, of course, are so honest in their dealings, say that they have to replace articles and they immediately raise the price in accordance with the tariff. That was a fine stroke of business for all the traders in the country and why should they be grumbling? A merchant with £5,000 worth of stock found it worth £6,000 or £7,000 after the Budget. He will have that profit and be able to pay the 5/- income tax without being a penny the worse off. It is the public who will have to pay it.

I should like to ask the Senator where a trader is going to make any real profit except the public are in a position to pay for the goods?

I will answer that this way: I went to buy two gallons of paint the other day which was in stock for years and they charged me 3/6 a gallon more for it. The manager of the firm, when I drew attention to it, said that when a tariff of 3/- per barrel was put on oats we charged 4/6 extra for it, and he added, "We are doing the same." I want to say something on this Finance Bill as it applies to the farming industry. A few years ago when we were trying to get relief from rates the income of this State was stated by certain officials to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of £170,000,000 per annum. Since that there has been a decrease in prices month by month. As many Senators know, the price of butter fell last year by about 33 per cent. At the present time the cattle we export are subject to a tax of 20 per cent. I should like to know what comparison there is between the income of the farmer two or three years ago and to-day—if he has any income to-day. When you examine that position and place beside it the expenditure proposed in this Budget by this Government, which was supposed to be so careful in the management of the finances of the country, of £27,000,000, one wonders how this State is going to exist. How are we going to pay our way? We have tariffs now on everything. I do not object; I have never objected to any policy designed to resuscitate some of the outstanding manufactures suitable to this country, but I certainly cannot understand any policy which has the effect of tariffing everything the farmer requires, and which is not able to give him anything as a quid pro quo. Take even the manure which is necessary to fructify the land. Under the new policy, cattle are taboo. We are going to have increased tillage in this country. We are going to have less cattle, because the new economy for farming is more tillage than grass. That means less farmyard manure. In spite of that fact, they are tariffing artificial manures, which will have to be used instead of the farmyard manure which we had in abundance under the present system. A great lot has been said this week about this 20 per cent. tariff on cattle. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs says he is a Republican, absolutely. Therefore, if at the next election the country gives a majority to the Fianna Fáil Party, we are going to have a Republic, and automatically all English tariffs apply to the Free State. What is the good of talking about the 20 per cent. tariff? That is only in advance of what we will have in the future. That is exactly how the position stands.

I agree that the onus is on the Ministry to find work. I agree also that work would be found if their policy of making this country self-supporting were carried out. I am sure we could grow all the wheat necessary to feed the people of this country, and that, of course, would give a certain amount of employment. I am sure the people would relish their own flour. In the past they lived on their own foodstuffs, and they can do it now. The policy of intense cultivation has been tried here before. Before the famine this country supported something like five to seven millions of people.

Nine millions.

Strange to say, after the Union the population of this country increased rapidly, and in the famine year the population was in the neighbourhood of nine millions. By reason of the intense cultivation of the land, families lived on small holdings and they had a low standard of living. Judging by the accounts that I have read, the principal food consisted of potatoes with salt and an occasional herring. Do we wish to get back to that state of affairs? Do we wish to have families planted on every small plot? We can do it, because it has been done before. Furthermore, if there happens to be a failure of the potato crop we will not starve this time, because we can import foodstuffs; we can import Indian meal. There was a large placard issued during the election pointing out that 800,000 acres of land remained to be broken. There was a picture of two horses and a plough on the placard. Senator O'Farrell's comment on that placard was that the only thing he could observe looking on were two gulls. At all events, the public have supported that policy, and the public will, of course, bear the brunt.

Everything belonging to the farmer is taxed and everything he has to sell is falling in price. The Government have already imposed an export tax of 4d. per lb. on butter. That is now definitely taken away by reason of the 20 per cent. barrier. We heard the statement made here about a lady selling eggs in the North. She was charged 20 per cent. on their value before they were accepted at the railway stations for transit. Take the case of every little town and village in the country where shopkeepers are owed £10 here and £10 there. The farmer brings his bullock or heifer to the fair, but he cannot get a reasonable price and he will not sell. That farmer is not able to pay the shopkeeper and business all round is at a standstill. There were only 900 cattle in the Dublin market to-day as against 4,000 beasts last year. This state of affairs will go on for a while, but in about one or two months the accumulated stocks of cattle will be put on the market and they will be sold, not at a loss of 20 per cent. but at a loss of fully fifty per cent. I am not blaming the Government for that; that might happen in the case of cattle and other things without political disturbances. Nevertheless, the fact is that the present position is extremely serious.

How are we to continue carrying on an administration which is costing in the neighbourhood of £27,000,000 a year? The Minister may tell us that the Estimates he has presented are the Estimates of his predecessors. The Estimates of his predecessors were not so large. The £550,000 which is connected with the Local Loans Fund is, according to the Minister, being taken off taxation. That money used to be lent at an economic rate to farmers and many other people. I think the Minister could have avoided taking that in taxation. It is a big sum. It might only be necessary to raise the income tax by 6d. or 1/- in order to save that amount. The Minister is lucky to get £650,000 from the Sweepstakes. I hope he gets the £350,000 arrears of old income tax. By what he calls retrenchment the Minister hopes to make a saving of £679,000. I do not know whether the Minister means a reduction in personnel or in the salaries of officials. We would like an explanation in that respect and we would also like to know how much will be saved under the heading of overestimation. Anyway, we expect to get in round figures £680,000 out of an expenditure of £27,000,000.

The important aspect, to my mind, is the capacity of the people to pay. It is from that point of view our Estimates must be examined. There is no use in saying that we should carry on as we are when the fact is that the people cannot meet the demands that are being made on them. There is no hope for this country unless and until the axe is used. Not alone should £680,000 be saved, but there should be a savings of millions in our expenditure. I will go so far as to say that there should be some Governmental Departments scrapped. There are too many of them. Speaking as a practical farmer, I will say that the farmers of this country could carry on just as well without the Department of Agriculture. That may appear to be an extraordinary statement, but I believe that we could carry on quite as well without the Department. There are too many officials. I will give the Seanad an example. Yesterday morning I had men drawing in hay. An official came up to me, and, referring to a portion of my farm, he said, "The place is full of thistles." I said, "There is a man down there cutting the thistles." The official said, "If he does not hurry up he will not have them cut in time." I said to him, "Are you running this farm or am I?" He then told me that I had only four days in which to comply with the regulations and he asked me what I intended to do. He suggested that I should send over other men to help cut the thistles. The fact of the matter is that a neighbour of mine has not cut any thistles for at least ten years. The bulk of my land is tilled; there might be 50 or 60 acres set aside for the purpose of fattening cattle. I make a point of cutting the thistles every year. This official told me that the work was badly done and again I had to ask him was he running the farm or was I. I told him that he had no locus standi, that I should have at least fourteen days' notice and I had several days yet to run. Why should that official employ a motor car in order to come down and tell me that my thistles should be cut?

That is the sort of thing of which I complain. Another official will come along to tell you how to use certain manures. Still another will tell you what you ought to do with your land and you will be asked if you have this, that or the other. On top of all that comes the income tax man and, between them all, the Irish farmer is persecuted almost out of existence. Under this latest piece of legislation I expect we will all be ordered to till our land and we will be asked to report how many acres we have under wheat or potatoes. I have a good crop of potatoes this year. I must say that there is a regular glut of potatoes all over the country. I hope the Government will put a tariff on potatoes, and allow no more to be imported until we sell ours first. At the moment we cannot sell them because there are too many potatoes.

One wonders how the people are going to live. It is really a puzzle to know how to make a living out of farming. Some years I am successful, and in other years I am not. I am perfectly willing to let any official from the Department come down and explain to me in practical fashion how I can make a profit on my land. I am prepared to allow an official to run it and I will take the dividends. If I get 1,2, or 3 per cent. it will be sufficient. People might think that I am exaggerating in this matter, but I am not. One way out of our present difficulty is to reduce the number of officials. I have nothing against the officials, because they have to do what they are told to do. The fact of the matter is that we have a very cumbersome administrative machine the personnel of which will have to be reduced, especially since the farmer has reached the position that he has no income and he cannot be made to pay when he has not got the money.

If the House is really to do its duty on this Bill it will have to form itself into some sort of a small Tariff Commission. Of course, that is impossible, and, in the circumstances, I think the best thing for the ordinary individual who cannot rise to the heights of reasoning and eloquence of Senator Sir John Keane and Senator Wilson is to comment upon the particular aspects of this Bill with the details of which he is acquainted. There are two or three items to which I should like to refer. One is the increase of income tax and super tax. The second has relation to the tax on outdoor games and sports, and the third to the absence of tax on certain classes of imported timbers. As regards the first, a large number of persons deriving income from investments expend the whole of that income here and live here practically the whole of their time. World depression has so reduced their income that, like the farmer, they are barely able to make both ends meet. The contemplated increase in income tax and super tax rates must mean a reduction in the standard of their administration. In some cases employers have actually reduced their staffs. In other cases, employers have called their men together and explained the situation which will arise in the course of the year. Rather than cast the whole of the burden on a couple of men and their families, they asked their employees to share the reduction necessary to keep things going until better times came. In no case have I heard that the men have failed to appreciate the necessity for the request. In nearly every case they have agreed to the necessary reduction. It seems to be unfortunate that employers who were cutting their cloth carefully in this way should recently have been threatened with confiscation as a penalty for their efforts.

There is no use saying that we are still better off than the people of England are. The situation is altogether different. In England, there are large numbers of big income tax payers, people with margins which we have not got in this country. They can go on spending while we, here, are barely able to make ends meet with the help of the bankers. The people here to whom I refer have been economising for several years. Yet they are now mulcted in 1/6 corporation tax in respect of their investments, 5/- income tax and super tax at the rate appropriate to their moderate income. It is hardly fair to expect them to carry on in these circumstances as they were carrying on before and, at the same time, to have a margin available for investment in industries which are to come into existence under the Control of Manufactures Bill. This increase of income tax must react, to a certain extent at any rate, on the standard of living of people employed by income tax payers. It will also react on the numbers employed and on the administration of property. I do not use the word "property" in the landlord sense. I mean any small or big house, any small or big farm and even a labourer's house or cottage. These dwellings will not be kept in the same state of repair as they were and the country will suffer some reduction of efficiency.

The next point I want to deal with is the tax on outdoor games and sports. The value of these games and sports as a means of engaging the minds and exercising the bodies of our young people is so generally admitted that Governments in other countries are spending public funds to encourage sports and games and to provide playing fields. The aim is to afford facilities to young people for making themselves physically fit and for remaining in the open air. That is particularly the case in England and in Germany. Anybody who takes up the National Geographical Magazine will see a very interesting article on this matter. Surely it is a very retrograde step in the building up of the Irish nation to put any restriction on development in this direction? I should infinitely prefer to see the Government affording assistance to these games. I do not refer so much to the Tailteann Games and to General O'Duffy's very fine scheme for the development of athletics as to the initial necessities as regards playing fields in country districts and proper organisation to keep the boys at play in their spare time rather than having them hanging around the corners and indulging in conversation in which they should not be indulging.

I regret that, due to a narrow outlook or political expediency, the people who decide these matters were forced to discriminate between Gaelic and other forms of sport on the ground that Gaelic pastimes constitute a form of national culture. Why should we put a bar on the individuality of our young people—one of the greatest gifts of the Irish nation? Why should they be herded in a certain direction and made to play certain games? Gaelic football is a game that is well able to stand by itself. It will survive without Government assistance, given at the expense of Irish boys who prefer to play some other game. Games are not permanently established on a sound basis by artificial means of this kind. That narrow outlook is not general throughout the country. To my knowledge, many small country clubs, playing different games, lend one another their playing fields. They cannot afford to maintain two fields, and so they play on alternate days in the same field. It is very hard to justify the imposition of the tax on a Rugby game played on Saturday and the remission of the tax the following day on a Gaelic game. I do not understand the discrimination at all.

A member of the other House said that rowing brings out the best qualities of Irishmen. I would be inclined to go even further than that and to pay it a greater tribute. The membership of these clubs is very small, and the maintenance of the clubs is very expensive compared with that of football and other clubs. A boat is required for every eight men, and it is very expensive, particularly for working men, to take part in this form of sport. In some cases they pay in 6d. per week, and they depend entirely on the annual dance for the maintenance of their equipment and the replacement of their boats when they get out of order. The cost of transferring boats from one centre to another is also a considerable burden. That prevented many southern clubs from travelling to the Tailteann regatta. Most of the clubs in the South are living on charity and the guilelessness of their bankers. This tax will make their position worse, and I am afraid that the bankers will be less willing to come to their assistance. On top of all this, there is a tax on imported boats. I think some of the clubs have got round that and have succeeded in getting in their boats at a lower rate by some means which I do not understand. People may say that this is a justifiable tax and that it will mean a new industry. The average number of boats imported is about 12 per year, and I am advised by people who know, that an economic industry requiring specialised workers cannot be maintained on an output of 12 boats per annum.

I think the Minister should remember that the time may come when, like all of us, he may have to ask the ferryman for a lift. It will be no use in saying then "I balanced the Free State Budget in 1932." The old man will probably say, "You balanced that Budget at the expense of my occupation," and he will either leave him on the bank or he will take him half way over the stream and let him sink there. In the light of this warning, I hope the Minister will even now consider a more equitable and national method of dealing with outdoor sports. By that I mean sports and games which require physical exertion on the part of mankind.

There is one last point to which I should like to refer, and that is the question of timber. Here, I am sure, the Minister will meet me with open arms. I regret that for some reason he has excluded from the duty on imported timber, scaffolding poles, telephone poles and telegraph poles, all of which can be found in very considerable quantities in this country. The Forestry Department will tell him the amount of that class of stuff which is available in this country. I suggest that the production of this timber should go a very long way towards giving employment. If anything were done to encourage people to grow timber in this country it would prevent money going out of the country unnecessarily. At the present time there is no incentive whatever to anybody to plant for any purpose other than the adornment of the country. I do not think that even in the next few years there will be many people induced to do that. I hope to deal with this matter in a more detailed way when it comes up for discussion on the recommendation which I propose to put down to the Bill on the Committee Stage. In the meantime I hope the Department may give the Minister some information on the matter.

I shall not detain the House more than a minute or two. I just wish to record my dislike, my great dislike, of the clause in this Bill in which it is proposed to offer concessions to dishonesty—because it is nothing more or less than that—to offer concessions to those people who have sent in dishonest returns of their incomes for several years. They are now being invited to do so by the Government under a premium, as I understand it, in the shape of a reduction of 25 per cent. in the amount to which they are finally assessed. That is nothing more or less than a premium on dishonesty. If the Minister can do so I should like if he could tell us what amount—naturally it must be only a small amount—is still outstanding in this regard. I really do think if the amount is not a very large one, although I do not say it is a small one, it might be well to delete this concession.

There is another point upon which I should like some information from the Minister. He referred in the early portion of his statement to a sum of money that was being asked in the Bill for the repayment, as I understood it, of Dáil Eireann loans. Can he tell us what amount is still outstanding in respect of these particular loans? I have always understood that there was a loan issued in America. Can the Minister tell us whether the money for which he is now budgetting covers any of that loan and if so how much? Some time ago I believe an investigation was made as to the holders of the loan in order that they might be paid. I never heard what was the result of that investigation. I think it would be interesting to everybody to know what amount of so-called Dáil Eireann bonds are still outstanding and which cash is required to redeem and if any of it represents loans previously raised in America.

The fact that this Budget increases taxation is not in itself a condemnation of the Budget. It is not so much a question of the amount of taxation raised as of the manner in which it is spent. The craze for economy both in regard to individuals and the community can be carried to outrageous lengths. I think it was carried to excess in Great Britain and in other countries during the past four or five years. The cry went up from Press, platform and pulpit that everybody would have to economise, overlooking the fact that you cannot economise in certain directions without creating less trade, less employment and less wealth production in some direction or another. Mr. McKenna, the chairman of the Midland Bank, during the period of crisis in Great Britain last August said that the good patriot was the man who had money to spend and spent it. I think that could apply to a Budget as well as to anything. The aspect of this Budget that most appeals to me, very naturally, is that part which provides for an improvement in the social services —provision in regard to old age pensions, in regard to housing and provision of work for the unemployed. The more attention we pay to that side of national finance I think the more likely we are to prevent a very quick development of the crisis which threatens a great part of Europe and America. The weakness of the United States Government in its present terrible crisis is its absolute absence of social services. They were too proud to have unemployment insurance but now there is nothing about the humiliation of millions of able-bodied men having to stand up in bread lines waiting for what charity may dole out to them.

The main aspect of this Budget is its intensification of tariffs as a means of producing prosperity and developing industry. Tariffs are necessary undoubtedly in view of the fact that every country has tariffs now and is simply raising its tariff wall higher and higher. But tariffs without some definite plan of construction and development are not going to produce prosperity at all. They simply help to cover inefficiency, to create monopolies, and to raise prices. A large number of the tariffs that have been imposed will inevitably raise prices in many directions and for that reason I believe the Prices Control Bill should have been proceeded with during this session, notwithstanding the objections raised to it by Senator Sir John Keane. I know there are administrative difficulties but the very fact that the Act existed would be in itself a check on profiteering. I think when we look to tariffs alone as a means of creating prosperity we ought to have a glance at Australia. Australia had a period of crisis some eighteen months ago and proceeded as one of the means of improving conditions to raise its tariff walls higher than they were. The Government imposed special duties and a number of absolute prohibitions. When the last Budget was introduced they began retracting and retreating from that policy. We find there were reductions in customs duties in respect of 69 items; four in respect of excise duties. In respect of special duties nineteen items were repealed while in relation to prohibition and freightage duties, out of a total of 78, 43 items were revoked. Included in the reductions were reductions in imported leaf tobacco and a number of other items. They found that raising tariff walls higher did not prove effective but rather the reverse. One can always go a bit too far in that direction.

Now there are a few strange developments in regard to our Budget. One was the taking off of the tariff on sugar, and the putting it on to tea. I frankly cannot see what help that was to the poor. I entirely disagree with the Minister that tea is a luxury. It is an absolute necessity—the only beverage a great many of the poor have. In fact they have bread and tea three times a day and very often the bread is without butter. The relief of a tax of a half penny on the lb. on sugar does not at all square matters with them, because the very poor only use sugar for the purpose of sweetening their tea. They make no puddings and sweet cakes or things of that kind. The Minister put 4d. a lb. on an absolute necessity of the people, and took a halfpenny off another which is, I suggest, certainly not going to balance the account.

I entirely agree with Senator The McGillycuddy in regard to the tax on outdoor sports. I regard that as an unnecessary and reactionary proposal altogether. We have too little sport, too little development of the physique of youth, and too little facilities for them to devote their spare time to sport. We would have far less mischief if we had more facilities for sport, and a better race physically, mentally and culturally. I cannot see the object of it at all. The amount of revenue derived from it will be counterbalanced, several times over, by the depreciation of the physique and morale of the young men and women of the nation. Already football matches are going out of action altogether, in anticipation of it. It is a mean tax. The same remarks apply, probably with even greater force, with regard to the book tax. That certainly is a reactionary tax and one that we find it impossible to justify. When the Minister was glancing about, for ways of raising revenue, it is a pity he did not consider putting a tax upon long speeches. If he had done so he would I think, on the whole, have derived a substantial amount of revenue. I would suggest that there should be a limit up to thirty minutes free, given to married men, and twenty minutes to single men, and a super-tax, beginning to operate if the speaker exceeded an hour. If we did not get revenue from this tax it would at least contribute to the intelligence and conciseness of our discussion. Also there would be economy in the cost of printing. It would be a national economy and the amount saved in printing would be rather considerable.

There was one remission of taxation made by the Minister that I have, rather reluctantly, to take exception to. I refer to the reduction of taxes on buses of 33? per cent., not because I begrudged the bus owners the relief they got but buses are only one section of our inland transport. I believe nothing should be done in regard to them, seeing that already it is contended they have an unfair advantage as against the railways, until such time as the whole question of transport is considered in a comprehensive way. Now the Minister pretended, at the time he made this remission when every section of the community was asked to bear additional burdens, that if he did not make this remission about 1,000 men would be unemployed in a short time. I do not know where he got that information but I must say if he believed it his leg was very badly pulled. Strange to say the road passenger services in this country is one of the very few institutions that have made steady and rather rapid progress in recent years. The bus services, within the Free State in 1931, carried nearly nine million more passengers than they carried in 1930 and over twelve and a half million more passengers than they carried in 1929. If you take receipts last year they were over £940,000 more than in 1930 and £1,330,000 more than in 1929. They actually increased the number of their employees. The maximum number of companies and proprietors in existence in 1930 was 153; in 1931 that number had increased to 161; that certainly was not a sign of decay or impending bankruptcy.

Then take the Great Southern Railways. They carried last year 678,000 less passengers than in 1930 and 1,900,000 less than in 1929. They took in £127,000 less money for passenger receipts in 1931 than in 1930, and £222,000 less than in 1929. So you have here, in the one case, an obvious advance on the part of the road transport services, and a very obvious and deplorable decay on the part of the railway services. Yet the Minister saw fit to give his first and only relief to the road services, while leaving the railways to find their own salvation.

The railway men are going to pay for all this. We are asked to accept on behalf of the railway men a reduction of 20 per cent. in existing rates of pay. The Minister stated that 1,000 men would be dismissed if this concession were not granted to the bus companies. The total bus employees in the Free State in the slack season is 2,500 and the maximum number employed is only 2,500 in the peak period.

The railway companies did not say that they were going to dismiss any of their employees, and they are the biggest bus owners in the country, apart from the Dublin United Tramways Company. Where were the thousand dismissals to come from? The railway companies refused to join the other companies in asking for the remission, because they believed in developing the railways instead of being driven by force of circumstances to the roads. Nevertheless, the remission has affected them, inasmuch as it is now made cheaper for them to run buses than railways, and they are coming along to the Minister for Industry and Commerce with a shower of applications to allow them to close down branch railway lines and to run road services instead.

The Minister referred to the taxation of petrol. The buses are not bearing that tax. It is borne by the oil companies. The price of petrol only increased by ½d. a gallon and it is cheaper than it was two years ago. The bus companies have made profits during the first six months of the present year. Without the concession contained in the Finance Bill they have made profits that they never made before. When a tax is being imposed or remitted it is the duty of the Minister for Finance to have regard to all the equities of the position and, in view of the promises made to railwaymen by Ministers during the election, a tremendous amount of disappointment and consternation has been caused by this development. I do not say that the amount involved is important. It is the mentality, the view-point disclosed, and the encouragement given by the Minister to an organisation already heavily subsidised by having free highways and huge State grants for the making of roads that they are concerned about.

I will read for the House a cutting from a newspaper dealing with a case that appeared in the Dublin District Court recently.

Dealing with a number of charges of driving buses at an excessive speed, Mr. Little, D.J., in the Dublin District Court, said that in a case that came before him on Tuesday evidence was given that three boys, of about 17 years of age, were employed as cleaners by a Dublin bus company. They had to be out in the garage at 4 o'clock in the morning and they were paid 7/- a week.

"Of course they stole something from the garage," commented the Justice. "That was only to be expected."

He wondered, however, how the railway company could possibly compete with that sort of thing. There was no common wage, age or skill limit, and the whole business was "carried on in a ramshackle way."

The railway was becoming bankrupt, other people were becoming bankrupt, and soon they all would be bankrupt. When that happened they probably would turn around and say: "Something has got to be done."

That statement was made, not by a propagandist but by the District Justice, and it throws some light on the condition of affairs—I will not say all—of the road transport companies, and the type of employers that the Bill proposed to finance. I suggest to the Minister that as some quid pro quo for the injury done to railway interests, and to 16,000 railwaymen, that part of the grant to be given for the relief of unemployment for road-making should be given to the railway companies in order that they might give work to their unemployed men in doing maintenance work on railways which are already falling into decay. The men could be as well employed in that way at maintenance work as on the roads. Too much money has already been spent on the roads, and no one seems to be able to devise another way to relieve unemployment. I offer that suggestion, which I think would be an act of justice towards railwaymen now unemployed, and as an encouragement to the Companies until such time as the Minister can introduce legislation in the autumn, to enable them to keep men employed who otherwise would be thrown out during the next few weeks.

A great deal of uneasiness has been caused throughout the country by the statement that land would be confiscated that the Minister for Finance made in the Dáil when dealing with taxation. I want a definite answer from the Minister as to what was his exact meaning. Is the land referred to owned by farmers who prefer to graze it, and who find that more profitable, to be confiscated, because they refuse to carry out an uneconomic tillage scheme—the fantastic one proposed by the Government? Many people would find it utterly impossible to carry out certain schemes that have been suggested by the Government. They have not been actually tried but they have been suggested. Many people have approached me to know what the statement meant. There is great uneasiness in the country about it. I want to know exactly what the Minister meant. I have already protested against various other taxes and I join with Senator Wilson in making another protest now. I could not inflict the list on the Seanad by making a detailed examination of the one hundred and one things which will press very heavily on the already harassed farmer. Many of the taxes are grossly unjust.

I should like to say a word about games. I think it is not the thing to tax one game more than another. I refer to what are called "foreign games." I do not know exactly what that means, but it is another instance of the inferiority complex displayed by the present Government in every action they take. They cannot realise that we are a normal people, living as other people do. We must always parade our nationality for fear someone might say we were not national. That kind of thing is proof of our inferiority complex. I think a Rugby match won by Ireland at Lansdowne Road, about which half the world hears, brings infinitely more honour to Ireland than any other kind of game. Of course it does. There should be no tax on any kind of game. I do not mean to say that our national games should not be played. By all means, let everyone who wishes play them. Some of them, like hurling, are exceedingly fine games, and it is a great pleasure to look at them. I think it is wrong to tax games. The whole idea underlying the proposal is proof of the inferiority complex which we have inherited from what I suppose some people would call slavery. We cannot get over that. Senator O'Farrell referred to economy. There is great need for economy, but the campaign was carried much too far. What I might call the hue and cry for economy made by certain people was responsible, to a large extent, for the defeat of the late Government. A great deal of that cry was absolutely false. I am not saying that there was not need for economy, but I say that the promises to bring about economy in all directions, and to reduce taxation in every direction, was responsible for the election of the present Government. As everyone knows, these promises were flagrantly broken. On the other stages of the Bill I will call attention to things which press on the farmers whom I represent in this House. The most important thing that I want from the Minister is a definite statement from him about confiscation, to know exactly what class of land it will affect, if it ever comes to that. That matter has caused more comment than any other irresponsible statement the Minister has made.

It seems to me that so far as the general principles underlying the Bill were attacked at all they were attacked principally I think by Senator Sir John Keane on the grounds first of all that the magnitude of the burden which we were imposing was altogether incommensurate with the capacity of our people to bear it. That raises at once the question as to whether all Governmental expenditure is wasteful expenditure or whether some of it can be justified on the grounds that whereas certain individuals may suffer, the community on the whole will gain. It raises further the distinction between two classes of Governmental expenditure, first that which economists generally refer to as exhaustive expenditure, and the other which is generally described as transfer expenditure.

Now in regard to the Estimates upon which our Budget is based, the one signal outstanding feature about them is that comparatively little is way of armaments. We do not maintain a Navy, our Army is very small, and our Civic Guards are comparatively inexpensive. The great bulk of our expenditure is represented by social services; by educational services and by Departments which it is necessary to maintain for the development of our agriculture and the extension of our trade. Outside of these I think there is no unnecessary service, beyond one or two minor items of expenditure, for instance, the provisions which we have to make for the establishment of the Governor-General. Outside of that particular item—notwithstanding what Senator Wilson said in regard to the particular Department of Agriculture— I do not know if there is any service for the abolition of which there is a general demand in the country. I am perfectly certain that if the Government were seriously to consider the suggestion put forward by Senator Wilson to abolish the Department of Agriculture that we would have a whirlwind speech from the Senator denouncing the Government for considering such a retrograde step and we would be told that not only thistles would not be cut in his fields next year, but that no single farmer would destroy a single example of Scotland's national emblem. I think that it will be generally conceded, therefore, that so far as the normal services of the country are concerned there is not one which would willingly be done without by any large section of the community.

These services are all of them examples of transfer expenditure. The money to defray the cost of them is collected from individuals in the community and the benefits of the services are transferred to the individuals from whom the money is collected. I know that during the last régime, during the administration of our predecessors, that many people in the Oireachtas and in the country who criticise that expenditure when it is undertaken by the present Government, were very vocal and emphatic in recounting to the people the benefits which they derived from the expenditure. I remember the preceding Minister for Agriculture on at least one occasion received the thanks I think of an association of persons interested in the cattle breeding industry in this country. I remember many other encomiums which were passed on him. I remember that only recently in the Dáil in regard not to him but to his successor—that a Bill to preserve the dairying industry and to maintain the creameries which at a great cost to the community as a whole had been purchased from external proprietors, that no single members representing the farming community in this country, representing that section which we are told has to bear the whole cost of the Government, went into the Lobby against that Bill. The remarkable thing about it was that even pledge-bound members of the Opposition in the Dáil helped to swell the Government majority for that measure. All that shows that so far as that Department collects money from the people, that the people appreciate the services which it is rendering and that they are not anxious to curtail or to restrict in any way their contribution to the cost of that Department.

In the same way when the Old Age Pension Bill which the Seanad is about to consider was before the Dáil, none of the Opposition, representative I presume of every section in the community, and not merely the Opposition but also the Independent members, ventured to vote against it. I think that the conclusion that we must come to from those facts is that so far as governmental expenditure is merely transfer expenditure within the community, that the community as a whole not merely acquiesces in it but takes a more positive attitude and is anxious that the policy of the Government in regard to it should be continued. The community is driven to that conclusion because they see from examples around them in their everyday life that this internal expenditure of the Government is justified by results.

The position, I grant, is different in regard to what I may describe as exhaustive expenditure, when the Government takes money from the community and spends that money in excessive armaments—I do not wish to be taken as adopting the position that there is not a certain minimum expenditure that must be undertaken in order that the community may be in a position to defend itself against external aggression and to maintain law and order within its own confines. But when it spends money on armaments and when it takes money out of ordinary sources of production in the community and makes payment outside the community in return for which it gets no service and no accommodation, then the expenditure of that sort is wasteful, is uneconomic and cannot be justified. In that connection the present Government in presenting to the Dáil Estimates which were prepared by our predecessors is in a somewhat anomalous position, because included in that £27,064,000, to which I referred in my opening statement, is £1,175,000 representing the payment which shall be made to Great Britain to recoup her for some part of the money which she spent on R.I.C. pensions. There is an additional £600,000 in respect of the Local Loans Fund, and there is a number of smaller items which bring the total to something over £2,000,000, which do represent a drain upon the country's resources in so far as they are payments in respect of which we get no real return. The position in that regard is this, that we, while not admitting that those payments nor the payments made to Great Britain in respect of the land annuities are justified, nevertheless, the Government had to take cognisance of the fact that the Government that preceded us in office had entered into certain commitments and had kept those commitments hidden from the people for a considerable period of time and that our responsibility in regard to them may be somewhat uncertain. We were, however, anxious to do nothing which might in any way affect the credit of this country. We were told, when we took office, that our reputation in the money markets of the world stood high, that we were regarded as a most credit-worthy nation, that there had been handed down to us this reputation, and that we must safeguard it. We have done everything we could to enhance that reputation, and the first thing which enhanced that reputation substantially was the Budget upon which this Finance Bill has been based, because, for the first time, our real position was made clear to the people of our own country, and to the world, and, for the first time in ten years, a Budget which was balanced beyond question was submitted to the people.

A good deal has been said here today about the additional burden which we have imposed on the people. There was no alternative course to that which the Government adopted in this regard. We had an expenditure, on the one hand, which was irreducible, if we were to have regard to the commitments which our predecessors declared we were bound to honour, and, on the other, we had estimates of revenue which were very much below, and unavoidably below, because of the conditions which existed elsewhere, what they had been in the previous year. We had only two things to choose from, because the Government, from the very first, ruled out any question of reducing the old age pensions or, as I have said already, in any way interfering with the social services. The members of the Government had during the past ten years at least one privilege, and that was, that they moved around with and associated with the common people. They knew how widespread poverty and want and unemployment were; they realised the temper of the people and how close many of them were to desperation, and, as the Government had often been told, that the one thing which was needed, in order that this country might prosper, the one thing which was needed in order that employment might be provided and that our agriculture and our industry might develop, was stable and peaceful conditions in this country. The Government was not going to aggravate people already on the verge of desperation by reducing, in any way, what had been provided in order to ameliorate and make bearable life in the slums of Dublin, life in the villages where all industry was stagnant, and life in the countryside where the farm labourers have not had continuous employment during the past ten years.

Because of that, therefore, it had only two alternatives. So far as meeting the deficit on the Budget was concerned, it had either to tax or it had to borrow. The result of borrowing, of concealed borrowing, in order to meet what should be met out of the ordinary annual revenue of the Government, from year to year over the past ten years, was that in this year, out of the proceeds of taxation, there had to be set aside something like £2,434,000 to meet interest and sinking fund on the National Debt. That was the result of the accumulated borrowings of the past ten years.

That arose from the fact that, during the past ten years, very largely, other Ministers for Finance had not the courage to face the people and to make it clear to them that if they wanted certain services they had to pay for them. It was felt that it was impossible that this condition of affairs should continue any longer. It had already become clear to those who were informed in these matters in this country, that the Free State Budget had not been balanced. I know that the question was raised as to whether the Budget had been balanced or not. I knew that it might be necessary for the Government, in view of the constructive programme it had outlined, to go to the country and to try to borrow money from the country, and that, if we were driven to do that and we had, first of all, brought in a Budget which was not balanced, the Opposition would immediately have pointed out that fact and would have decried us up and down the country for not doing what was our manifest duty in this regard and paying our debts as they accrued out of our income and that, when that atmosphere had been created, and when the necessity for raising money for constructive purposes had to be faced, we should find that we would not have been able to borrow the money on terms which would have enabled us to carry our schemes through.

Because we took the long view in these matters and because we were not afraid to do what, I repeat, was our manifest duty, we decided that for the first time in the last ten years the people of the Free State would be presented with a Budget which, in its details, would be unchallengeable and which everybody, when they examined it, would have to admit was an honest presentation of our position and we decided to impose the taxation which we have imposed. If it is heavy, and if we are asking the people to contribute, out of their private resources, considerable sums to defray the cost of Government, I would like to come back again to what I said at the outset that, in so far as twenty-five million pounds worth of the expenditure, at least, is concerned, there is no Party in the Dáil or Seanad has had the hardihood to get up and say which particular one of these services will be done without. It is an old saying, and it is a homely one and a true one, that "you cannot have your cake and eat it, too." If we want old age pensions and the Government wants old age pensions; if we want money to be spent on education and the Government wants money to be spent on education; if we want money to be spent to develop agriculture and the Government wants money to be spent to develop agriculture; and if we want money to develop trade and commerce in this country, we have to pay for it.

But, if you do not want these things, then I suggest that those who do not want them, and who feel we ought not to pay for them, ought to get up and tell us which one of them they do not want, because there is no other way in which expenditure in this State can be reduced so far as £25,000,000 of our total Budget of £27,000,000 is concerned. There is £2,000,000 paid out of the Central Fund and out of supply services which we could do without, and that is the money which we are paying to Great Britain in respect of the R.I.C. pensions and in respect of local loans. If we were able to retain even that £2,000,000 in this country, it would be a substantial advantage to this country. In addition to that, there is the £3,000,000 which we transfer to Great Britain in respect of the land annuities, and which we hold is not due. There is £5,000,000, almost 20 per cent. of our total Budget, every penny piece of which is as I said exhaustive expenditure; money which we pay over to Great Britain; money which is withdrawn from productive processes in this country; money which, if it were allowed to remain here, would fructify in increased trade, would enable our farmers to find their way into the markets of the world, would subsidise our agricultural produce in any market in Europe, and would considerably increase the purchasing power of every one of our people.

How much comes back?

It does not matter what comes back. The fact is that it goes out in respect of services which have not been rendered to us.

Tell us exactly——

Cathaoirleach

I cannot allow interruptions. Senators can get all the information they want on the Committee Stage later on.

I am not even unwilling to deal with that. The point I want to emphasise is that, though a comparatively small proportion of it may come back to our own people, a large part of it never comes back at all. And even that which comes back has been paid away by this Government for services which were not rendered to this people, and if it is paid even to citizens in our own State, for services rendered to another State, then that other State ought to bear the full cost of them. But, in so far as the bulk of the money is concerned, it is paid away never to come back.

I would like to repeat again that we get nothing for it. We do not even get a ton of coal; we do not even get a copy of the Daily Mail, or a pound of tea or sugar for the greater part of the £5,000,000 which leaves this country every year. If there is any sincerity or any force in the contention that we are over-taxed, and if those who make that criticism of the present Government are sincere, and are anxious to see taxation reduced, I suggest that one sure way in which such a reduction of taxation could be procured is for every public person who is anxious in this regard to line up behind the present Government and assist us in the fight we are making to retain here in Ireland the moneys which we hold are rightfully the property of the Irish people.

I do not know whether at this stage it would be advisable for me to deal in detail with a number of Committee points which have been raised. I think that, on the whole, it might facilitate matters if I were to reserve what I have to say in that regard until the Bill comes to be dealt with here in Committee, because quite a number of points have been raised, and the time which would be required to deal with them is so long that I think I might possibly not be able to finish this evening. There is one other point to which I think I should refer, and that is the criticism made by Senator Sir John Keane against the manner in which it is proposed to raise a large part of the additional taxation. I think Senator Sir John Keane is possibly one of the most confirmed free trade theorists we have in the House. There was a good deal to be said for free trade as a theory when there was a free trade world. But, when everybody is becoming protectionist, and everybody is endeavouring to shut your goods out of their market, and to flood your market with their products, the time must come when you have got to take steps even to erect a wall around yourself. I think that the real ground upon which Senator Sir John Keane challenged our protective duties was that people will not do business where such regulations are in force. I presume by that he meant regulations which are unavoidable if tariffs are put in force. I think that what is common knowledge to all of us must prove to Senator Sir John Keane that that is not likely to be the case even here. We have a comparatively small export trade. Great Britain, however, has a very large export trade, and the greater part of that export trade—at least something like 95 per cent of it —is carried on with highly protected countries; with countries where even more drastic regulations in regard to importation of goods are in force than here. There has not been, I think, in the actual volume of that trade, as distinct from the value of it, for the past ten years any very serious shrinkage. The British have been able to get through in many cases these tariff walls, at any rate with the minimum amount of inconvenience, have been able to comply with the regulations which existed all the world over in every place where British industry or British trade has had any ramifications.

Again, I think Senator Sir John Keane was somewhat inconsistent in his attack upon that aspect of the Budget. In his justification of, or rather in his endeavour to defend the late Government against attacks to the effect that they were largely responsible for the present state of depression in this country, he told us that, so far as manufactured products were concerned, under the system of selective tariffs the value of the output had increased by £2,000,000 and the number of people employed in industry had increased by 5,000. And because we are going to give a wider application to a principle which has been productive of such good results—admittedly, on Senator Sir John Keane's own statement, productive of such good results—he states that the Government are so clogging up industry that nobody will do business with this country. I cannot reconcile Senator Sir John Keane's position when he is defending the last Government with the position he takes up when he is attacking this Government. I think that even though he did enter the reservation——

—that the good results secured by the last Government were secured at the expense of agriculture, he will, at least, admit that, if our agricultural statistics show that possibly too large a proportion of our people are dependent upon agriculture for their livelihood, that the balance as between those engaged in agricultural pursuits in this country and those engaged in industrial pursuits is very ill-adjusted, that there is no country in the world, with the possible exception of France, where the proportions of those engaged in industry and in agriculture are almost equal and that in this country, out of the total population only 25 per cent. are engaged in industrial pursuits, that we have such a lop-sided economy that something must be done, if we are to maintain a growing population, to absorb that increasing population in industry and to re-adjust the balance here as between industry and agriculture so that at least it will not be any worse than it is in France and will not be any worse than it is in Denmark.

It is because we recognise the necessity for this and, possibly, for a complete reversal of the economic policy which has operated here during the past 80 years—operated at a time when those who were responsible for the conduct of affairs in this country visualised us as a purely agricultural community living in the closest political association with an industrial community and never contemplated that we should have a national existence as a separate entity—that we are taking a certain line of action. When we find such a position handed down to us, and when we find that our people are determined that they shall exist as a national entity, we must make the necessary changes in policy which will give us, at any rate, a well-balanced economy. It is with that aim that the Government have gone out to reverse the policy of the last 80 years. They have gone out to provide for our people some other means of livelihood than the farm or the emigration ship. The Government have gone out to develop our home market and home industry on these lines, that so long as our people are idle, so long as they cannot find a livelihood at home, nothing that can be made in this country and nothing that can be grown in this country should be imported.

It is a plain, commonsense policy. It is a policy which every prudent person in ordinary every-day life adopts. If a man has nothing else to do and he wants to repair a wireless set or hang a gate on its hinges, he is not going to send out for his neighbour to repair the wireless set or to put the gate right. If his son or his handyman has nothing to do, he is going to get one or the other to do the job for him rather than put himself under the obligation of asking his neighbour to do it as an act of grace or else pay him as a matter of business. We are precisely in the same position. We are wearing boots and clothes which could be made at home by our own people. We have here the people who could make them, and those people are idle, and, possibly, are maintained by the community. There is no idle man in this country living on his own fat; he has to be provided for out of the substance of those who are working. It is because we feel that the people who are idle will be greater wealth producers if they are employed, will be better citizens if they are employed, that we are prepared, even at an apparent increase in expense to the community as a whole, to adopt the fiscal measures which will enable those people who have enterprise and faith in this country to start new industries and absorb our unemployed.

That, at any rate, is one of the principles which underlie the decision to find a large part of the money which is necessary to balance the Budget out of protective tariffs. While many of the tariffs may be criticised in detail, and, while some of them will undoubtedly involve some of us in a certain amount of inconvenience for a time, when the preliminary period has passed, when matters have settled down and when the necessary machinery of the Revenue Commissioners is operating smoothly, the situation will assume a different aspect.

I would like to say, in regard to the statements that there have been delays in clearing goods and that sort of thing, that from personal experience I am confirmed in the opinion that, so far as there has been delay in getting goods through the Customs, it has been due to the fact that the proprietors of the goods or the consignees have not presented the goods for clearance. I am perfectly certain if the books to which Senator Sir John Keane and Senator Douglas referred had been presented to the Customs Office for clearance they would have been cleared immediately and the booksellers would have had them. I know that possibly there was some uncertainty at one time as to the duty which might be levied upon these books, but if the booksellers really required them urgently they always had the option to pay the duty and to reclaim it if it were found that the books were not dutiable. Apparently these books were not urgently required and they were allowed to remain in the goods shed or wherever they were stored and were not presented for clearance with or without duty. If they were presented they would have been cleared, and those who would have paid the duty could subsequently put in a claim for repayment if the books were found to be not dutiable.

Question—"That the Bill be now read a Second Time"—put and agreed to. Committee Stage fixed for Wednesday, 27th July.
Top
Share