The Minister for Finance is indisposed at present and his Parliamentary Secretary will attend here on his behalf for the purpose of dealing with the Finance Bill.
Finance Bill, 1932—(Certified Money Bill)—Committee Stage.
Cathaoirleach
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance will have charge of the Finance Bill to-day and I formally give him leave to attend and be heard during the different Stages of the measure in this House.
Section 1 and 2 agreed to.
SECTION 3.
I move recommendation number 1.
Section 3. To add at the end of the section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(5) Notwithstanding any provision in the Finance Act, 1920, or subsequent Finance Acts, income tax shall not be chargeable on the first one hundred and fifty pounds of the taxable income of a person who is a widow and who has not remarried."
I dealt with this matter on the Second Stage of the Bill and it is not necessary for me to deal with it at any great length now. The object of this amendment is, I think, quite clear. The Minister for Finance stated that one of his reasons—and he emphasised it in his Budget speech— for refusing the exemption limit for single persons was to hit bachelors or to encourage matrimony. I think there is a very good case now for having a somewhat higher exemption limit in the case of widows. I do not think that the small change that I am proposing to make is very much of a change from the point of money, but it would be a reasonable benefit to a large number of widows. It is such a reasonable change that I hope it will get the approval of this House. It will only benefit comparatively poor people. The great difference I see between a single unmarried person and a widow is that in most cases a single unmarried person is in the position, or ought to be in the position, to earn a livelihood. In the case of a widow the income is very often unearned. It simply means the income from the savings of a deceased husband and such persons do not get any benefit from earned income. And with the reduction now to £125 virtually it becomes very hard indeed on the widow.
I am sorry the Minister is not able to accept this recommendation. A certain suggestion by Senator Douglas that the Minister should accept this because he was anxious to encourage matrimony does not seem to be ad rem. How the Minister could encourage matrimony by removing the widow's disability, seeing that she would again incur disability as soon as she married, I cannot see. The suggestion that this exemption is confined to the poor or that it would mainly operate for the poor is not correct because it would be of general application. There is no general case for discriminating in favour of the widow as against the unmarried person. As the Bill stands, a widow with children will benefit and a widow with two children will be in a better position than before.
Only if the children are below a certain age.
We will assume they are for my purposes. If this exemption were given there would be a substantial loss to the revenue. I cannot tell you exactly how much, because it would be a matter for very difficult investigation. There certainly seems no cause for raising the previous limit of £135 to £150 for anybody under these circumstances in a Finance Bill which has called for sacrifices from everybody in the community.
Would the Minister be prepared to consider raising the limit to £135 in that case? That was the previous limit.
I am sorry it would not be possible to make that change in the Budget at the moment. Everything which could be done along the lines suggested by the Senator has been done and no burden has been put on anybody which could possibly be avoided.
Cathaoirleach
Does Senator Douglas propose to press the recommendation?
Under the circumstances, I do not think there is any use in pressing it, but I would not like to be taken as acquiescing in the last three sentences of the Parliamentary Secretary's statement.
Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 3 agreed to.
SECTION 4.
On Section 4, I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary if Section 4 makes any alteration in the present conditions as between a company which pays an annuity in its liability to income tax and a company's liability to income tax and an individual who receives an annuity? Does it make any change in the law or clear up anything?
As a matter of fact, it makes what was the existing practice in the past a definite law now.
That is what I thought.
Sections 4, 5 and 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
(2) This section shall apply to all stocks, shares and securities issued for public subscription after the passing of this Act in respect of which the Minister for Finance certifies that he is satisfied, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that all the following conditions are complied with in relation to such stock, share or security, that is to say:—
Recommendations 2 and 3:
2. Section 7, sub-section (2). To delete in line 27 the word "public". —Senator Douglas.
3. Section 7, sub-section (5). To insert before the sub-section a new sub-section as follows:—
"(5) Where an individual who is resident in Saorstát Eireann and is not resident elsewhere claims and proves to the satisfaction of the Special Commissioners that—
(a) he is carrying on either alone or in partnership with any other person or persons a trade or business wholly or mainly in Saorstát Eireann, and
(b) he is beneficially entitled to or to a share in the profits of such trade or business, and
(c) such trade or business is managed and controlled in Saorstát Eireann, and
(d) new capital has been invested in such trade or business after the passing of this Act and is or has been devoted to the establishment or extension in Saorstát Eireann of one or more industries as defined by this section, and
(e) no part of the capital of such trade or business has subsequent to the passing of this Act been used for the purpose of acquiring (directly or indirectly) an existing business or any share or interest in an existing business or of purchasing investments or of paying off existing loans or debentures.
the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say, such individual shall be entitled to repayment of twenty per cent. of the income tax applicable to any profits received by him in respect of such trade or business in respect of new capital that has been added after the passing of this Act save in so far as relief or repayment in respect of such tax has been or is granted under any other provision of the Income Tax Acts."—Senator Douglas.
There are two recommendations in my name, both of which will be reasonably obvious and they deal with the same principle. It would perhaps save time if I were to argue the two recommendations together.
Cathaoirleach
Undoubtedly it will save time to take them together.
They really involve the same principle. The first recommendation is to delete the word "public". The object apparently of Section 7, if I can understand it at all, is to make it somewhat easier for people who are prepared to invest money in Irish enterprise and Irish industry. But as the section stands it confines it entirely to a public issue. Possibly the Parliamentary Secretary will have more knowledge or a better recollection than I have, but the number of public issues for Irish manufactures in the last 20 years must be exceedingly small and I think the Parliamentary Secretary will agree with me when I point out that in the main the prospects of the increase of Irish industry will be by means of private limited companies or partnerships.
On the Second Stage of this Bill, I pointed out that I did not like the principle of this section because it is penalising persons who had the wisdom, or, if you like, the courage to put money into Irish concerns during the past seven or eight years. But the Government have taken the definite line that they cannot possibly give any concession to people who did that but that they will consider the future. I am not dealing now with that, but I do say that the provision of this section is a farce in its effects so far as industry is concerned. It must be extended. If the Parliamentary Secretary says that he cannot afford to extend it, that if people put money into Irish enterprises during the next year with the financial provision, it is not possible to give them one-fifth, then I will understand the position, but why it should be done for the very few cases in which there is a public issue is a thing that frankly I cannot understand. If this thing is to be a genuine attempt to give concessions of income tax to new money that is put into business it should be applicable in the case of private partnerships or limited companies, or to new capital put into existing businesses. Many of us know quite well that one of the difficulties that many business concerns are suffering from at the moment is that many of our private companies are under-capitalised and money put into these ought to be given the same benefits as money put into public issues.
This recommendation was drafted by myself and it is quite possible that an expert would find certain flaws in it. I do not claim that the wording is correct or that it meets all the cases. I put it down merely for the purpose of having the matter argued before the House. I think the House might very well send a recommendation to the Dáil to the effect that if they are prepared to agree to the principle of concession in income tax in respect of new money invested in Irish industry, the concession should apply to all industries and not to the few cases in which—I can hardly think of any at the moment—there is a public issue of capital.
Will you permit me, a Chathaoirligh, to repair an omission in my previous remarks? I desire to express to the House the regret of the Minister for Finance that circumstances have prevented him from being present to-day. He was very anxious to be present.
Cathaoirleach
I am sure the House regrets the cause of the Minister's absence.
I have every reason to believe that the Minister is now very much better and will shortly he back at work.
I think that Senator Douglas should take over the nationality which is attributed to me and become a Manxman, because he certainly wants a third leg. He has put forward two legs in relation to this matter—one, that the original provision is bad in itself, that it is a farce.
Incomplete.
That it is a farce and that we should extend it. The second leg is that the provision is good and that we should drive it so quick and hard, before we have experience of its operation, that it would probably break down in the process. If we could take it that Senator Douglas welcomes this particular provision, we would be very glad to hear that that is the opinion of the Seanad—that while not agreeing to the particular form in which this is done, the Seanad is expressing, through Senator Douglas's recommendation, the desire that this particular policy should be developed. There are two ways of looking at Finance Bill provision. One is the purely static form of attempting to raise revenue. The other is the dynamic principle, where you attempt to use the method of raising revenue for the purpose of doing something else which is desirable for the purpose of the State. This is the first provision in a Free State Finance Bill which specifically sets out to use the dynamic principle in relation to taxation. We desire, so far as we reasonably can and at such rate as our knowledge of the circumstances will allow, to deflect the ownership and control of industry, of production, of distribution and of exchange in this country into the hands of the nationals of this country and it is with that object that this ex professo incomplete provision is made. We desire to do something and in order to achieve our purpose we do it within a definite and segregated area, knowing quite well that if that were to be regarded as a permanent limitation it would be illogical. But we desire to experiment—if I might use that term respectfully in a matter of finance—with this particular instrument in very narrow circumstances and within an area which we can understand.
As Senator Douglas said, the number of public issues in Ireland in the past has been few. Our policy is to see that a general condition in relation to industry is produced with profit to the country, such that these issues in the future will be more numerous than they were in the past. So far as public companies are concerned, as the Senator knows, they have to satisfy the Minister for Finance, through his headquarters officials, on certain specific requirements. The fact that they are a limited number makes it possible to do this. So soon as you get into private companies, you get into a much larger area geographically and in the number and variety of things that have to be dealt with. The same enquiries which can now be made through the headquarters staff in relation to a limited number of companies would, in all probability, have to be made in respect to the other companies through officials throughout the country and in relation to a form of finance which, as the Senator knows, is of a most Protean character. All sorts and varieties of financial expedients take place in relation to private companies. It would be a matter for very close, difficult and careful technical investigation how a particular provision which the Senator approves in relation to public companies should be applied to private companies. When you get down to private partnerships, the difficulty increases geometrically. What we are anxious to do is to attempt something along this line at once and, in the process of doing it within a simple and segregated ambit, to find the technique which will enable us to go as far as Senator Douglas desires.
I am afraid from what we have been just told that this has more the appearance of a political move than anything else. When the Government were considering this matter, I think they must have asked themselves how they could get the credit of giving such a concession to Irish industries while at the same time giving it in such a small way that it would have very small effect financially. It is evidently agreed that, in the past, no money worth talking about was introduced into Irish industries by public subscription. The Government, therefore, picked out this item for a concession. We are told that they could not go further because it would cost the country too much and give an enormous amount of trouble in investigation. From the remarks we have just heard, there is no hope that this concession will be extended so as to help the substantial investment of money in Irish industries. I do not think it is worth while for the House to labour this point. This is a gesture and nothing more. The influence it will have is infinitesimally small. The provision does not matter financially one way or other, but it will enable the Government to get the credit for having made an experiment of such an extremely small nature that nothing is going to happen.
I should like to intervene for a moment. I approve of giving a concession to any new enterprise on the same principle as, when a house is built, a certain amount of rates is remitted for a certain number of years. I would be in agreement with Senator Douglas that that principle should be extended somewhat further. The Minister says that will cost the Exchequer something. Considering that these enterprises are all fresh, and presumably will employ a great number of people, and will contribute to the revenue, I cannot see eye to eye with the Minister, that the Government are not in a position to afford further concessions to those who embark on genuine enterprises in this country. I must say that there will not be many partnerships, as all these companies promoted are generally, no matter how small, in the form of private companies. I maintain that as the companies do not presently exist, but as they proceed are bound to bring about a great deal of employment, the revenue will lose nothing by giving further concessions to the fresh undertaking in the recommendation.
I welcome this section of the Bill, because it admits the principle that some encouragement should be given to the investors of new capital in enterprises in this country. The principle is admitted and, of course, if it is carried to its logical conclusion it ought to be applied to private companies, and ought to be applied to new capital employed by the private individual in industries as well. As I understand the Parliamentary Secretary, his difficulty is twofold. In the first place this is rather an experiment, and, if the experiment were extended to private companies and to moneys invested by private individuals, it would be too expensive at the moment. That is the first answer. The second answer is that the assessment in the case of a public company is easy, whereas the assessment in the case of private companies, and particularly in regard to private individuals, is particularly difficult, so difficult that it could not be undertaken in the first or perhaps in the second year. I do not think we should press the Parliamentary Secretary too hard. He has made a beginning in releasing public companies. It will not cost the State much. Its effect can be tried out and, if it is successful, perhaps we will press him very hard next year to make concessions in regard to private companies and even in regard to private individuals.
I had a considerable amount of sympathy with the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply. For many years I have been in favour of the principle of reduced income tax for money invested in this country. I make no secret of that. As I said, I had sympathy for the Parliamentary Secretary in his reply, because it was he converted me to the idea many years ago. Listening to his somewhat eloquent, though I think not very convincing speech, he left me with the belief that he is still of the same opinion, and in his heart of hearts knows perfectly well that this section is most unsatisfactory. In fact that it is really an experiment. I object to this experiment and I totally disagree with Senator Comyn that this is really the way to experiment. If there is to be an experiment, experiment with something that will work, but do not experiment with something that you know will not apply at all. There may be public issues, but if there are, they will be something like the Agricultural Credit Corporation. I do not want to prophesy but the likelihood of a public issue for the next twelve months is practically nil. Senator Comyn said that he thought the future of industry would be along the lines of smaller companies. The Senator knows quite well that you cannot make public issues for smaller companies. They will not work. I agree to this extent with the Parliamentary Secretary, that the difficulties in the case of a partnership would be very considerable. I do not agree that the difficulties of making inquiries with regard to ownership are any greater in the case of private limited companies than in the case of public limited companies. I should say that it is easier to make inquiries in the case of private limited companies than in the case of public limited companies, because in private limited companies the directors have control and can restrict the exchange of shares. They can in nearly every case tell the nationality or the residence of the members. A public company cannot restrict transfers, and cannot tell, except it be a large company, without a great deal of difficulty. My object in putting down the recommendation, and I want to be quite frank about it, was because I think this is not an experiment which will achieve anything or, if it does achieve anything, it will be to defeat those of us who think that a concession ought to be made to investments in this country. When I used the word ‘farce' I did not mean to say that it would be a farce to give the concession in income tax to moneys invested here. What I meant to say was that it was in applying it only to public companies. I ask the House to send the recommendation to the Dáil, because I think it is a proper recommendation to make a correct return that will prevent the matter going any further. I will withdraw the second recommendation which deals with partnerships. I ask the House to agree to delete the word "public" in Section 7 (2). I want to conclude by dealing with the question of cost.
I never raised the question of cost. I am saying that simply to prevent side-tracking.
I do not want to suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary it is, but elsewhere it was suggested that it would cost too much. My belief is that the reduction of revenue which would succeed in bringing in new capital and consequently more industry is the kind of cost we can afford to bear.
The suggestion that this is a political move is not correct except—and I want this to be clear—it is political to say that our policy is to direct financial policy in the direction of transferring, so far as possible, the ownership and control of Irish industries into national hands. The suggestion that the adoption of these particular expedients was political, in order that we should get credit for something that we are not doing, is not correct. An old proverb that I often make use of says: "The best is always the enemy of the good." This is not a gesture. It is simply the seed from which we will find experience which will, I hope, enable us to do over a very much larger area what is being done in this Bill. Various small points of polemics have been raised. They are of no importance. What is important is this, that I can bring back to the Minister the message that the Seanad is breast-high for an increase and a driving forward of the principle which is behind this provision. Every complaint has been made on the ground that it is not strong enough. Senator Douglas has reminded me of some of my past bad history. I have not changed in any way. I am breast-high for the principle of using discrimination in taxation for the development of Irish industry. And to the extent to which that is in the Bill, it is the first provision we have in any Finance Bill which enshrines that principle. I believe that the Minister for Finance—I am perfectly sure from what I know of amendments which on previous occasions he has introduced into Finance Bills—is very strongly of the same mind. I propose to bring back from this House a recommendation to the lower House—I mean physically, I am not speaking either spiritually or mentally—that the principle of discrimination in taxation for that purpose should be developed and brought forward. If the Seanad takes out the word "public" and makes this extend to any company, and if, in fact, the Minister for Finance will advise the Dáil not to accept that recommendation, it will not be on the ground of differing in any way with the strong recommendation which we have received from the Seanad. It will be purely and simply on the ground of administrative difficulty at the present moment.
The Seanad ought to remember that through their tariff barriers this Government has given a great incentive to private enterprise to start companies and that we who are bearing the burden of whatever increased costs may come about by these tariffs ought to be very slow in remitting taxation on people who have under the new Bill a monopoly in the particular articles they are producing or any article that is scheduled here for the purpose of giving them a preference. For that reason I think the Seanad ought to be very slow in extending the principle of discrimination in favour of money invested in Irish industries.
I think that the Parliamentary Secretary is going a little too far when he says that he is going to report that we are prepared without further investigation to back up an arrangement for giving a reduced rate of income tax to Irish industry. If we followed up that principle a great many of us would be very happy but the country could not be carried on. I do not think that the Parliamentary Secretary would be correct in saying that the Seanad went that length. It was an extraordinary thing to put that forward as the first sign of a tremendous change here but I think that the Seanad would hardly like to be represented as being very strongly in favour of taking income tax off all Irish industries, even off the new ones, without giving a great deal more consideration than we have given to this matter at the moment. I only mention that because I do not think it would be fair for the Parliamentary Secretary to tell the Minister for Finance something on which I do not think the House has ever been consulted. It would take far more time for the Seanad to consider such a recommendation than it would to say whether the word "public" should be inserted or not. I for one would deprecate that the opinion should be taken back that on such a huge question as whether Irish companies should have a lower rate of income tax or not the Seanad had come to a conclusion here and now. It is such a huge question that it would require a good deal more consideration than we are able to give it now.
I do not wish to intervene in the debate except to say when the Parliamentary Secretary states that he is prepared to go back and say to the Minister for Finance that the Seanad is breast-high in favour of this principle, that as far as we are concerned we are not in favour of any proposal to reduce income tax in the case of any industry that does not guarantee to give fair conditions of labour. I do not wish to discriminate but I would like to say this, that there is one particular industry which I know of for which capital has come from outside and by comparison the conditions of labour and the wages paid in this particular industry are far superior to those obtaining in a similar industry controlled by Irish capital. I want to say that as far as we are concerned there should be at least a condition that decent conditions of labour would be observed before such concessions are made.
Recommendation No. 2 put and declared carried.
I am afraid, sir, that there is something wrong in the "breast-high" part of it.
Section 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Recommendation No. 3 not moved.
Section 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 9.
Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."
In this section it is stated that the communication of the determination of an appeal by the Special Commissioners may be sent by post to the parties to such an appeal. There is no way apparently to find out whether such a determination has been received or not. Would it not be possible to make it clear that it would be received? It is quite possible that the determination might be sent by post. There are mistakes as we all know in the post and the individual might never get it. I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary has looked into the matter but I have put down this as a query—what proof is there of his ever receiving it?
It is generally considered that proof of posting would be sufficient in that particular case. If there is any difficulty in the matter we will look into it to see what can be done in the matter. There is no intention of a trap.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
I move recommendation No. 4:
New section. Before Section 12 to insert a new section as follows:
12.—Whenever the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and commerce, is satisfied that any articles charged with import duty under this or any other Act are essential raw materials of any manufacture carried on or intended to be carried on in Saorstát Eireann and are not obtainable in Saorstát Eireann and are required to be imported by a manufacturer for use in Saorstát Eireann, the Revenue Commissioners may by licence authorise such manufacturer, subject to compliance with such conditions as they may think fit to impose, to import without payment of this duty the said articles either, as the Revenue Commissioners shall think proper, without limit as to time or quantity, or either of them, or within a specified time, or in a specified quantity.
This is a recommendation which I very much hope will receive consideration by the Minister. If you will look at the schedules you will find that in the case of a number of duties a practically identical provision is made. There were some cases under the Customs Duties (No. 2) Bill in which duties were imposed and in which it is almost impossible to tell what is made dutiable until one learns from experience. There are little things, such as buttons and articles of that kind. I want to extend the principle of giving permission to an Irish manufacturer to import free of duty anything which he cannot buy here and which is dutiable. It is entirely a matter of direction for the Minister. If he is satisfied that the goods cannot be obtained here in Ireland he should have power to give the manufacturer permission to import them free of duty. I put down the recommendation because this power as the Bill stands only applies to such articles as are scheduled, and I desire that the power should apply generally to everything dutiable.
The Minister will accept the amendment subject to some slight verbal alterations. For "raw material" he proposes to substitute "to the process of" The effect of that would be that it might include machinery or something of an emergency character. To the word "obtainable" he proposes to add "likely to be obtainable" and to insert after Saorstát Eireann and before "the Revenue Commissioners" the words "in such process" for the purpose of precision. The actual amendment is in this form.
That quite satisfies me.
I should like to know does the Minister include in that artificial manures, which are really raw materials for the purpose of manufacture of food.
That question arises later down the Paper on a very orderly recommendation put down by the Senator.
Cathaoirleach
I suggest that the recommendation will appear in proper order to-morrow.
I am quite satisfied that there is no fundamental change and that it is purely a matter of drafting.
Cathaoirleach
We will come to it at the end of this stage.
Agreed: That the recommendation, as amended, be accepted.
Agreed that Sections 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 21.
(8) This section does not apply to the following substances, that is to say:—
(a) fresh fruit, or
(b) soup in liquid form, fruit, fish, fish paste, meat, or meat paste in sealed bottles, jars, tins, or cans, or
(c) fresh fish imported before the 12th day of November, 1932, or
(d) natural mineral waters, or
(e) serums, vaccines, or preparations in ampoules, diabetic bread, biscuits, and cereals, or insulin, or
(f) foods which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, are intended primarily for consumption by infants or invalids.
I move recommendation No. 5.
Section 21, sub-section (8). After the word "foods" in line 62, to insert the words "or non-alcoholic drinks."
This is only a small recommendation, but in the Dáil the Minister made certain concessions with regard to invalid foods. Officially, at any rate, I am interested in diabetic biscuits and things of that kind being exempted. I should like to know would "foods" include jam or marmalade? It is certainly a matter of great importance to invalids who have diabetes, because there are certain jams and jellies which are not made here, out of which the sugar has been taken by a special process. They come in in very small quantities and the package tax would mean a very considerable duty on the commodity. It also applies to non-alcoholic drinks, such as lime juice and drinks of that kind, made in England and brought over here. They are treated specially and are specially intended for invalids suffering from diabetes and similar illnesses. I do not know whether this would be held to include non-alcoholic drinks.
Would the Senator specify the particular specimen of non-alcoholic drinks suitable for invalids?
I should be very glad to give a list afterwards. I have been importing them for a considerable time myself.
Not for yourself, I hope.
It is not of very much importance. Obviously, the intention was to meet these cases in the section, and that is the reason I raise the matter.
If there are any non-alcoholic drinks primarily intended for consumption by children or invalids which, in their nature, must be prepared outside the country and packed there immediately in their ultimate containers, we will be glad to accept that suggestion, subject to the Senator giving us such evidence as would enable us to recommend to the Dáil later on to accept the recommendation.
I will do that.
Cathaoirleach
The position is now that I do not know what specifically is before me.
I take it that if I do as suggested it will be put in.
I do not quite understand the import of sub-section (c), referring to "fresh fish imported before the 12th day of November, 1932," in packages. Why before November 12th, and what is to happen after November?
I understand that this is a purely special case; that of a small industry in the possession of ex-Servicemen who after that date will be able to get the fish.
They will be able to get fresh fish after that date?
They will not be without fresh fish for their purposes.
Recommendation agreed to.
Section 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Agreed: "That Sections 22 and 23 stand part of the Bill."
SECTION 24.
(3) On and after the 30th day of May, 1932, entertainments duty shall not be charged or levied on any entertainment as respects which it is proved to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners that the entertainment is promoted by a club duly affiliated to or under the direct control of either the Gaelic Athletic Association or the National Athletic and Cycling Association of Ireland and that the entertainment consists solely of an exhibition of all or any of the following games or sports, that is to say:—
(a) gymnastic displays not involving the use or participation of horses, dogs, or other animals or the use of mechanically propelled vehicles;
(b) any games or sports which are ordinarily played or contested out-of-doors by two or more persons or by two or more groups of persons and do not involve the use or participation of horses, dogs, or other animals or the use of mechanically propelled vehicles.
I move recommendation No. 6:—
Section 24, sub-section (3). To delete in line 23 the word "or" and after the word "Ireland" in line 24 to insert the words "the Irish Rugby Football Union, the Irish Free State Association Football Union, the Irish Hockey Union, the Irish Lawn Tennis Association, the Irish Amateur Swimming Association, the Golfing Union of Ireland, the Irish Ladies' Golfing Union or the Irish Amateur Rowing Union.
I now understand that the phrase "Irish Free State Association Football Union" should read "Football Association of the Irish Free State."
Those who have perused the debate in the Dáil will realise that this subject has been approached from every angle and they will further appreciate that had the whips not been used to make the sports of the Irish people a political question, this section would never have come to us in its present form. As it was, the majority in favour of the section was only five. My recommendation provides that there shall be no tax on entertainments promoted by any club which exists for the purpose of encouraging physical competitions between young people in the open air. Firstly, there is the principle involved. I think it is generally admitted that though many beautiful thoughts and great endeavours have emanated from unsound bodies, sound bodies and a healthy method of living are obviously far more favourable circumstances for the development of a clean mind and a balanced mentality—a thing which we want in this country very much.
I am afraid that it is a regrettable fact that owing to the enforced artificiality of the lives which the majority of civilised human beings have to live, the standard of physique is, to use a war-time phrase, C 3, instead of being A 1, and it should be our aim, I think, in the national interest, to alter that position as much as we can by every means in our power. Much has already been done in the matter of athletic revival in this country, but we are still lagging behind other nations—nations which matter in the world. We still require a great deal more. The National Playing Fields movement has developed since the War on a grand scale in England. Signor Mussolini has introduced the playing idea—and especially that of foreign games with other nations— with the idea of taking the war into the enemy's country and showing by competition that his people are the equals of anybody. He has introduced this spirit into a nation whose idea has, for many years, been a pleasant siesta in a shady corner as the best way of passing their lives. In Germany, everybody has fallen to the urge of physical fitness with an enthusiasm which brings thousands of girls and boys to indulge in games and competitions in the evenings when their work of the day is done; and they are very much better for that.
Meanwhile our organisation is flourishing precariously in certain districts. There is another point of view. Apart from those who participate in games and outdoor sports, there is the benefit to the older people who no longer themselves play. Watching and spending a pleasant afternoon in the open air is a relaxation in many drab and dreary lives which should not be lightly interfered with. Without stressing this aspect of the subject unduly, I may say that for many of the poorer of our people there is no alternative but the profitless talk of the street corner in the town and the cross-roads in the country.
Now as to the practice. Where certain organisations have been exempted from the operation of the tax on national and cultural grounds, all the organisations which form the subject of my recommendation will not only be severely hampered by the imposition, but will, indirectly, be subscribing to the funds which the Minister says are required to exempt the lucky ones. At the outset the Minister apparently, at any rate, had no intention of exempting any sporting activities. I am glad to see the G.A.A. and the National Cycling Club and the N.C. and A.A. were exempted on cultural grounds, notwithstanding that they had a grant of £10,000 for Croke Park and were very well able to carry their burdens. I am glad that they have been relieved of tax, but I think it would have been a fine thing if they had said: "We want this only on condition that a similar concession is extended to all Irishmen who engage in specific sports and games."
For the Tailltean Games very large sums were given by the Government. That, too, I thoroughly agree with, but so long as this section stands, in its present form, this grant is made at the expense of Irishmen who have not been exempt. I do not want to go into this in too much detail. The Dáil covered almost every conceivable aspect of the question, in the course of the debate that took place dealing with it, but I think some idea of the actual position of the Rugby and rowing clubs may be of advantage to the House and give them some real idea of what they are up against.
In the Twenty-Six Counties there over 100 Rugby clubs not counting 43 schools and there are approximately 7,000 members. Not a single official gets a penny piece in salary except the Leinster Rugby Union secretary. All the money made out of the games goes back into the game. Twenty-eight, out of the 100 clubs, showed a loss on their running, last season, and towards making good this the only way by which money comes to these clubs is by organised dances, which are now to be taxed under this particular section. Their overdraft represented £17,699 and since 1926 they expended over £42,000, and it is calculated that they expend large sums in upkeep and in the employment of labour. It is hardly necessary to say that with all this these clubs give a large amount of employment. They anticipated to spend another £10,000 in the next ten years and at the same time the Leinster branch expended £2,300 at Donnybrook, giving a great amount of employment for local people. If it is necessary to impose these taxes the Rugby Union will be able to pay, but it is the football clubs in the Free State that will lose. The Rugby Union state that in their opinion it will not be possible for some of the clubs to carry on with this additional expenditure. I know this myself because in the winter of the last few years I have gone round a good deal and acted as a referee. It is through people with motor cars carrying players from one place to another that the game is able to be kept up in parts of the country. The players are good Irishmen and I think it would be a great pity that any club should be allowed to go down. Finally the Rugby Union points out that Rugby football brings considerable crowds of people to Ireland. They have maintained their position and kudos in the game remarkably well, as well as, if not better, in the last six years, than England, France, Scotland or Wales. Not only has kudos, but large material profit also been secured by the country through the influence of Rugby. During the week of an international match in Dublin the hotels are full. On the day of the match the restaurants are full and crowded taxis reap a harvest. Men are also employed upon the grounds and a great amount of money is put into circulation.
One other point. The House should remember that an exemption is being given to park coursing after exemption for games and sports was refused. The exemption was based on the fact that this was a commercial proposition for the country. Now here I submit to the House that we have not only a commercial aspect but a physical aspect as well to consider, and if an exemption is justifiable on the one hand it is certainly justifiable on the other.
Now in regard to rowing clubs the position is this: There are 44 rowing clubs and eight school clubs in this country. Their membership is smaller and their overdraft bigger proportionately and their expenses greater than those of the football clubs. Approximately the number of members is 3,000, and, of course, you have their followers as well. Let there be no mistake about it, rowing is no more a rich man's sport than any other. On the occasion of the Second Reading of this Bill I mentioned the case of Emmet's Club. It is a workingman's club of 22 members, who pay in 6d. per week. They are one of the finest crews in Ireland or that ever I have seen in this country. They share their annual regatta at Galway with 6 other clubs. If the day turns out to be wet they do not get much, but they struggle along for the sake of the sport with the help of their friends. You may say I am making a special case of the Emmets. I am not. There are half a dozen clubs on the same lines that I could quote. I believe their recent balance sheet showed a loss of £16, and some other of these clubs show a great deal more, and it is this sort of people I am afraid will go under owing to the new taxation.
The Minister in reply to a long debate in the Dáil made a very short speech. First of all he said this is not, a tax on players. Of course it is a tax on players. The spectators will be fewer, the dances will be less profitable and the funds of the struggling clubs will be smaller. They cannot carry on with the same efficiency. It seems to me quite obvious. Take a man who had 6d. a week to spend. He will shortly have only 2¼d. instead of 6d. to spend, so that he will now have to wait four weeks before he can go to a football match. Metropolitan football clubs will carry on, but there will be many small country organisations which must go under.
As to the rowing clubs, with their very heavy expenses in carrying their boats from one place to another by lorry, and in replacing these boats, if they do survive, they will have to confine themselves to the small local regattas and there will be an absence of that rivalry which makes for keenness and competition. The impossibility of keeping Irish rowing at its present high level and the utter impossibility of increasing the number of clubs should be sufficient argument for doing away with any restrictions on the activities of these clubs.
The Minister's second point in his short speech was that he could only find the £25,000, which he says this will bring in, at the expense of some other vote such as forestry. Why not at the expense of forestry, which was to cost £66,000? It would be better to delay that form of national activity and to grow instead healthy boys and girls who will be an immediate national asset rather than trees which will take a very considerable time to come to maturity. I make this appeal to the House on behalf of what I call our young playing people who are more likely to grow up as citizens healthy in mind and body if their individuality is not interfered with and if they are encouraged, in every possible way, to a choice of diverse recreations, and I ask the House to approach this matter entirely from a non-party point of view. I believe if they do that they will have only one opinion on the subject. I beg to move the recommendation.
I beg to support the recommendation. I think that this, touching, as it does, the health of the nation, is the most important thing that has come before us in the medley of many matters that this House has debated. Before going into the facts, I think I might say a word or two about the principles of athletics in any nation. Behind the whole thing is the question of manhood, and if a nation fails in its manhood it would be better if it failed geographically and faded off the map. That is the ultimate fate of an unmanly race. An example of the advantage of athletics can be taken from the Finnish athlete, Nurmi, who, opposing himself to world records, ran round the track with a wrist-watch on his wrist so that he might not break them too deeply. When Finland got into the lime-light through one of its athletes, people pricked up their ears and made inquiries about Finland and found that the nation which produces Nurmi has the lowest death-rate amongst its infants in the world, so that international notoriety can help social rivalry as well as by competition in the athletic arena.
As the McGillycuddy said, this is not really a party matter and therefore I do not wish to give rise, by any asperity of criticism, to Party feelings, but I do think that what suggested itself to the Government was the preservation of national culture—to preserve those games which were indigenously Irish. But it seems that their information historically was not very correct, because the only game you will find mentioned in Irish epics is hurling and that was not a very defined game. Then there is another game which gave origin to the oldest sea chanty in the world, and that was rowing. When Sir Tristram of Lyonesse was bringing over Iseulte of Ireland from her homestead at Chapelizod, which is called after her, we are told of the rowers that—
"They rowed hard and sung thereto With ‘Heavelo and Rumbleoo.'"
There were oarsmen in Erin when King Mark ruled Tintagel. And there in the "Youthful Exploits of Finn" (no; not "Flinn") the men of Leinster are mentioned for their swimming, so you have hurling and rowing definitely mentioned historically—but where is Gaelic football? Gaelic football ought to be doubly taxed because it is a bastard of Soccer and Rugby and it is not paying a tax at all. In the old days I suppose the first historical mention was Scottish football, which was an inter-village competition something like the origin of polo. There was an unlimited side, as there was in Gaelic, and it was understood that if there was any dispute during the match—and this would certainly appeal to some of our combatively-minded friends—you challenged your adversary and wrestled it out with him afterwards. The game was first played and you wrestled it out afterwards and I think that was a very fine provision. There is no such thing as national Irish football. The loss of definition and a certain amount of freedom makes this game of Gaelic partake of the character both of Association football and Rugby. I am not saying that Gaelic should be taxed, but surely its ingredients should be released from taxation? It is a strange thing that in a nation where the type is not at any particular physical level you will get a greater supply of athletics than you will if they are more or less graded to a kind of regulation physical fitness. That must account for the fact that our nation, which has far too great a population of physically unfit and unsuitably housed people, has given birth to some of the most outstanding athletes in the world. Until quite recently, the three-quarter mile record set up by Tommy Conneff of Kildare was unbeaten. It was only beaten a few weeks ago. In pugilism, even the Jews take Irish names for their association of success.
In other forms of athletics, we have a very great reputation, without, unfortunately, having the same satisfactory low return for our child mortality as Finland shows, but we turn again to history. Nobody was allowed to govern in Ireland under the law of Tanistry unless he was physically fit. This gave rise to kings blinding claimants to the throne. I will not for a moment suggest that the laws of Tanistry should apply to our present Governors but they may be descended from the unseeing enemies of kings, for it shows an absence of foresight to penalise what every other country is nurturing with its every available power. Germany, when forbidden by France any longer to indulge in military exercises, became a nation of gymnasts and athletes. Its child-wandering companies walked the length and breadth of Germany. They were housed at at each village at a few miles' space by the Mayors and sent on to the next until the great country of Germany was more federalised and joined up by the interchange of the friendly visits of its youth than it was under the Kaiser. There is an example of a country finding itself and finding its soul again through athletics. I know that it would be very impracticable to make a chest measurement the test of authenticity of a Government edict. If the people were to refuse to obey any order issued by an Executive with an average chest measurement of less than thirty inches where would respect for Law be? And what chance would we have in "another round with England?" No; the value of athletics is in the mens sana which we expect in a healthy body. I would be quite content to be governed by any rowing Eight, or a good Fifteen. They might be trusted at all times to “play the game.” The physique of Germany is what the nation's hope is based on.
Manhood is the basic rock on which a nation is founded and on which its existence ultimately depends. The principal expression of manhood internationally, and even inside our own boundaries, is through the medium of national athletic prowess. Professionalism is more encouraged than excluded by the taxing of little amateur clubs. Let us take rowing in Berlin. There are about six hundred Eights on the River Spree. In France they are taking to athletic pursuits. The military authorities have made inter-regimental Rugby compulsory to such an extent that the teams cannot be included in the Rugby Union on account of the fierceness of their competition. Regiments take their status by athletics just the same as, at the University, colleges do from the position of their Eights on the river.
I do not know how much this tax is supposed to yield—I heard it would be in the neighbourhood of £25,000. I can see no justification whatever for the statement that if we do not get this £25,000 we cannot extend forestry. Where is the connection? Surely a man is better than a tree? I know that in this country only one and a half per cent. of the land is forested, and I realise that forestry is important, but I fail to see any essential connection between forestry and a tax on athletics. We are told that if we cannot have this money forestry will suffer. I do not want to call our Government a Government of taxi-men, but I do know that there have been more taxes and duties imposed by this Government than by the late Government. I suppose it is a case of national evolution. We are all familiar with Nelson's famous message: "England expects every man to do his duty." In Ireland's case it would be: "De Valera expects every man to pay his duty."
I think there is no need to hit in such drastic fashion at a nation's health while it is at present unrelieved in the all-important matter of housing. Many years have passed and this very essential matter in the life of a nation, housing, has not been adequately attended to. If the housing problem has not been solved that is not necessarily the fault of the Government; it is due to a great extent to the failure to stop people silting into the tenements when the older holders go out of them. Mussolini found it necessary to stop the silting of people into Italian cities. It is essential in this country to stop the silting of people into the types of houses that have long become unfit for human habitation. If we took a census of the tenement dwellers we could form a fair idea of how to relieve their population. It is a hardship that ought immediately to be relieved.
The Free State is the last country in the world that should discourage athletic progress, which contributes so much to national physique. We are sending men to Los Angeles. I am not so sure that amazing advantages are to be gained from successes at the Olympic Games there. Whether our flag goes up or not is not so very important. To my mind, if we can encourage our people to utilise the open air as much as possible, that is important, with the housing problem unsolved. If one looks around the streets of Dublin on a Sunday he will see hundreds of able-bodied fellows idling there simply because they have no outside interest; they will not go beyond the city boundary, and now they will not be encouraged to take the air. It is a very sad thing to observe this, which is the sort of thing that increases the incidence of disease and helps to put people back on the rates or whatever form of relief is devoted to the health of the people.
There is another aspect of athletics to which reference might be made. Before one competes in strenuous exercise, such as may be met with in competitions of various sorts, one usually has to be examined by a doctor. In very many countries by this means there is established a record of the physical characteristics of almost everybody. That is a very important thing to have, because you can get there statistics of great value. These examinations tend to arrest disease at its very outset and enable the authorities to forbid activities that are unsuited to the individual. Athletics in that sense would be very useful in helping the public health authorities. I need scarcely urge these views. Surely the Government that wishes to identify itself with traditional pursuits in this country should realise the importance of our national athletics and should realise that the tax should really fall on what is a foreign game? The only foreign game that I know of at the moment is drilling. In the old days the people used to have pikes on the top of rake handles and possibly that resulted in the establishment of a little native industry. Drilling at the moment is not in that respect helpful to native industries, their antithesis, rather, and drilling is not taxed. Rugby football is taxed merely because of the people who associate themselves with the game or perhaps it is because the ball is not round.
I maintain that national games are essential for the health of the community and they should be encouraged in every possible way. Most of the people you meet in, say, Liverpool with defective teeth and drooping carriage are Irish. We want to have here men of good physique and we will not have them if we impose taxes such as are proposed. I do not want our Government to imitate any other Government. I would like them, however, to take a gentle hint. It is not for nothing that nations that have to control tens of millions of people—we have to control less than three millions—cordially encourage athletics. Other nations cordially encourage public health amongst their people and they do this by establishing harmless athletic competitions. The result is that their people are broadminded and healthy, not whispering and underhanded. I think it is the English who invented the word "sport"; you will find that most athletic terms are English yet. We ought not to allow this country to place any limit to the spirit of sport.
I hope the Government will realise how unjustifiable a tax on sport is. Instead of taxing our games they should do everything they possibly can to encourage and develop the national sporting spirit of Ireland. Let them do everything in their power to uphold the cultural and traditional spirit that pervaded our country in the past and that tended to raise Irishmen to a high level. No man will deny that one of the most desirable things in any country is a fine physique. I will ask the Government that calls itself Fianna Fáil to read the laws of the old Fianna. They will find there that they had a series of regulated athletic tests. The old Fianna were keener on athletics and physical fitness than on taxation. For those reasons I would urge the Government to look after the physical status of our people more carefully. Let them pay more attention to this, which is the potential wealth of the country, its manhood, and not impose restrictions which may have a very far-reaching effect on the development of the country's energy, which is its power of doing work and earning.
I do not think I would have intervened in this debate were it not for the statements made by my friends Senator The McGillycuddy of the Reeks and Senator Gogarty. Their speeches call for some comment.
Running through these speeches there is the suggestion that we are becoming a nation of C3 men. I wish most emphatically to contradict any such suggestion as that. In my opinion the physique and character of the race are increasing year by year; and I say that although I come from a school where we had 35 pupils, three of whom became champion athletes of the world. That was in a school in the County Clare. We are not becoming a race of C3 men. Our physique is improved considerably and I think the health of the children is better now than it has been in former times. As showing what the physique of our race is, I should like to tell the Seanad that I brought a stranger into the Dáil some fortnight or three weeks ago.
He was a stranger and you took him in.
When he had been in the Dáil his comment was that the Deputies, in physique and in openness of countenance, were the most remarkable collection of men he ever saw.
He should have come to the Seanad.
I hope when there is a difference of opinion between the two Houses that that will be put down to our credit. We are not jealous of them. I am not very much disposed to argue the question further. I suppose the money has to be got. This is a tax not on the players but on the patrons and I suppose the patrons of the games who are excluded from exemption are better off than the patrons of the G.A.A. and the N.A. and C. Association——
Why?
What about the Emmet Rowing Club in Galway and such rowing clubs?
I think this is a tax on the people and I do not want to press my views very much. The Minister will be able to give you a full explanation as to why he has not extended these exemptions. I am sure that if he could extend the exemptions he would do so. Speaking for myself, I am sorry that the exemptions could not be extended. I should like to see athletics entirely exempted from taxation.
I will support this recommendation for this reason, that I think it is wrong to introduce politics into sport. I am not a supporter of foreign games. In my young days I played hurling and Gaelic football. I do not go very often to these games but I do say that this tax is going to hit the whole industrial population of the towns. I say that sport in the City of Dublin has done a considerable amount for the betterment and habits of the people. In my young days when I was an apprentice, it was customary when men left their work on Saturdays to go to a public house and stay there until they had more drink than they could hold. It is a well known fact that in recent years a very large percentage of the male industrial population of Dublin spend their Saturday afternoons and their Sundays in healthy enjoyment in the open air looking at football being played. It is not true, as Senator Comyn says, that the patrons of Soccer and Rugby can better afford to pay the tax than the patrons of Gaelic football and hurling. They are the very same people. The whole male population of Dublin, on Saturdays and Sundays, spend their hours in the open looking at manly sports. You are going to tax those people because the clubs cannot carry on without increasing the entrance money. I am not a Soccer follower and I do not go to look at Soccer matches but I again repeat that the biggest percentage of the industrial population of Dublin spend their Saturdays and Sundays looking at these matches. I do not think this tax is a fair one. I look upon it as introducing politics into sport, because by making exemptions in the one case that is what you are doing.
I am not at all quarrelling with the G.A.A. and not saying that the G.A.A. games should not be exempted. I say none of these games should be taxed. There is no sport I like better than Gaelic and hurling but I say it is unfair and unjust to tax people when they go to a Soccer or Rugby match and not tax them when they go to hurling and football. They are the same people. I think the Government would be well advised to withdraw this tax and find some other means of making up the money. I know after the Minister has made up his Budget it is very difficult for him to withdraw any particular tax.
There is another institution that has not been mentioned and that is the Irish Amateur Boxing Association. Everbody admits that the I.A.B.A. have done something for sport and we are all pretty proud of the manner in which our young men have acquitted themselves. I think the I.A.B.A. should be included in the exemption. It is not fair that this tax should be imposed on them. Some other means could be found for raising the money in question.
The question is whether we can afford to make the exemption. I presume the object of this tax is to get in as much money as we can get. Then came the question of trying to give an exemption to some particularly Irish games and then these two or three particular associations were put down. If somebody would show that we could do without taxing any of these games— and I think it would be very desirable and reasonable not to have a tax on any games—some of us would be pleased. I am not particularly fond of these games myself. I played Rugby in my time. That is a long time ago but it will be noticed that Senator Gogarty was talking about distinctions that have arisen, but I played these games when there were no rules. The rules only began in my time. I had been playing a long time before the Rugby Union was founded and the rules put in. These games have not more traditions behind them than the Gaelic ones, in fact much less, because the G.A.A. is older than either Rugby or Association. I would be in favour of these games being exempted if the money could be got otherwise.
I think the speech made by Senator Farren has put the case simply and briefly and I entirely agree with it. There is one thing clear and that is that there is nobody in any Party in the House who believes that this is a proper tax. In this House we are not tied, as in the other House, by Party ties. On previous occasions when another Government was in power there were Senators here who supported them on general grounds, but very often they voted against the Government in their recommendations. It is quite obvious from the speeches of Senators Moore and Comyn that they do not believe it is desirable that this tax should be imposed. Evidently they believe that the Government has made a mistake and that it would be a good thing for them to correct it. I should like to ask the House to be unanimous in this recommendation and I ask the Government to reconsider the position.
I wish to join in the appeal to have taxation on sport abolished altogether. I belong to a school like Colonel Moore. I remember in my youth there were no rules at all in these sports. The ball was kicked from one end of the village to the other, and it was looked upon as the right of every young person to join in the sport or in any sports he pleased. With regard to the question of having a tax on one particular branch of sport as against others, I have always held that no tax should be imposed on sports of any description. Young people should be allowed to amuse themselves in the best possible manner and without excuse for quarrelling with one another. I could cite a case from my own family. One of my sons, an all-Ireland champion in Gaelic football, was disqualified because he played Rugby for Belvedere College. The result of that was that a large number of young people joined together and played Rugby instead of Gaelic as an offset to what they considered as a slight. For that reason, amongst others, I would urge the Government not to make this distinction. Even if they be hard-set for money, they should try to avoid the taxation of sport. If the Government were catering for their own popularity, they would avoid the taxation of sport because, by encouraging sport, they would make friends amongst the young people of Ireland. The young people resent distinctions being drawn between one class of sport and another. Sport should not be taxed or brought into the political arena at all.
This is one of the cases in which, as the last Senator who spoke said, if the Government were to consult their own desires, their own political party interests, their own popularity or anything of that kind, their decision would not have been to put on this tax. That is perfectly clear. If they were to consult their own wish, they would take it off. But to say that it is a thoroughly unpopular tax is different from saying that it is not a proper tax. The position, quite briefly, is that the £25,000 which is to be got from this source—an undesirable source—will either have to be got from somewhere else or something which has been arranged to be done— a desirable thing—with that £25,000, will have to be left undone. That is the exact problem you are putting up to the Minister for Finance. If you make this recommendation, you recommend that this £25,000 shall be, in this current year, found from some other source or that £25,000 worth of work which the Government thinks ought to be done should be left undone.
May I interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary on this question of the £25,000? The amount is not really £25,000. There has to be deduction made in respect of dances and other entertainments. If the Parliamentary Secretary will refer to the Official Report of the debate in the Dáil, he will see that the sum involved is a good deal less than £25,000.
If we take off what we are going to get from dances, then the sum remaining will have to be found from some other source or work to that value which was to be done will have to be left undone. I want the House simply to face that fact. The recommendation may go. We are all anxious to do this, but when the recommendation comes to the Minister for Finance he will have to ask himself whether there is any other source from which he can get the £25,000 or whether there is any work which he wants to do which he is prepared to leave undone. If he can answer either of those questions in the affirmative, then he will be able to accept your recommendation; but if not, he will not.
Might I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that, as a solution of this problem, he should recommend to the Minister for Finance that taxation of sport be specifically eliminated from next year's Budget?
The point made by the Parliamentary Secretary is that the financial position is so delicate that it would be upset by the elimination of this £25,000. This morning, we read of a tax on sugar to which no reference was made in the Budget. Last week, we passed an Emergency Duties Bill and, as result of that, the financial position is changing from day to day. This question involves £25,000 or thereabouts. A small tax on sugar will bring in about £400,000. The argument of the Parliamentary Secretary is rather absurd in present conditions.
If the Parliamentary Secretary is perfectly sincere in what he says and if he represents correctly the attitude of the Government as regards taxation on sport, might I ask him what about this surplus of £64,000 for which the Minister for Finance budgetted? Surely some of that surplus should be available to meet this £25,000? Then I might, perhaps, ask about these economies about which we heard so much. If economies are to be effected, why should not some of the money saved go towards the deficiency which would be caused by the remission of this tax?
Senator Wilson stated that a tax of a farthing per lb. had been put on sugar. That is not so. There was an additional duty put on British sugar. That does not necessarily entail, and should not entail, any addition whatever to the cost of imported sugar.
That is not an answer to my contention. You have power to alter the duties. As a matter of fact, you put a tariff on potatoes. I do not say that that was wrong. You also put a tariff of 5/- on coal.
Senator Wilson did state that we put an additional tax of a farthing per lb. on sugar. Now, he refers to potatoes. It may interest the House to know that it was on Senator Wilson's recommendation to me that potatoes were dealt with.
So far as the £64,000 is concerned, that is an estimated figure under the Finance Bill as introduced. It does not take into account any of the concessions made during the progress of the Bill.
Is not the £25,000 an estimated figure, too?
That £64,000 is an estimated balance from which there has to be taken, net, every concession made on the Budget. Whether that £64,000 exists at the moment or not, I do not pretend to know. It is certainly a diminishing figure. The suggestion has been made that we should say that we would take off this tax next year. It would be impossible for me to give that assurance. What I am unhesitatingly prepared to say is, that if, by any means, we can find a taxation system which will bring in the revenue which is necessary for the necessities of the State without taxing sport, we will be keenly anxious to do so and keenly grateful to those who will make specific suggestions of alternative things which are not taxed now and which they are prepared to recommend should be taxed.
I should like to ask, with the permission of the House, that the name of the Irish Amateur Boxing Association be included in the recommendation.
Cathaoirleach
I do not think I could do that unless the House so desires.
Permission granted.
Recommendation, as amended, put and declared carried.
SECTION 29.
(1) The excise duties chargeable under Section 13 of the Finance Act, 1920, on the mechanically propelled vehicles mentioned in the Fourth Schedule to this Act shall, as on and from the 1st day of July, 1932, be charged, levied, and paid at the rates specified in the said Fourth Schedule in lieu of the rates specified in the Fifth Schedule to the Finance Act, 1929 (No. 32 of 1929).
(2) On and from the 1st day of July, 1932, sub-sections (3) and (5) of Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1926, shall have effect as if the rates of duty specified in the Fourth Schedule to this Act were rates specified in the Third Schedule to that Act.
(3) In the case of a licence taken out under Section 13 of the Finance Act, 1920, in respect of a mechanically propelled vehicle of a class mentioned in the Fourth Schedule to this Act which is in force on the 30th day of June, 1932, but does not expire until after that day, or is taken out before the passing of this Act for a period commencing on or after the 1st day of July, 1932, the amount by which the duty paid under the said Section 13 in respect of such vehicle on the taking out of such licence exceeds the duty chargeable having regard to the provisions of this section in respect of such vehicle for the period for which such licence was taken out shall be repaid to such person.
(4) The purposes for which regulations may be made under Section 12 of the Roads Act, 1920, shall extend to and include the following purposes, that is to say:—
(a) prescribing the method of calculating for the purposes of this section and the Fourth Schedule to this Act the seating capacity of all or any of the classes of mechanically propelled vehicles mentioned in the said Fourth Schedule, and
(b) making provision for the repayment of any duty liable under this section to be repaid, and
(c) making provision for all or any matters arising by reason of the fact that the alterations effected by this section in the rates of duty take effect during the currency of a licensing year.
I move Recommendation 7: To delete the section. The object of the recommendation is to secure that the duty on buses will remain the same as it was last year. I am not speaking on behalf of the railway employees or the railway shareholders, but on behalf of the business and the farming communities. In my area the condition of the railways is getting worse and worse, and every week trains are being withdrawn on the branch lines. The fear is that within twelve months there will be no trains at all on these branch lines. I never heard of any demand being made for the reduction of the duty on buses. The reduction is a very drastic one, 33? per cent., and it was made without any demand, while there has been an increase in the price of tea and in a number of other articles. The bus owners, as far as I am aware, are prepared to pay the old duty. In fact a number of buses that are being discontinued would be quite pleased if allowed to carry on on the old conditions. In face of that I think it is unreasonable to make any reduction in the duty. At an early stage of this Bill the Parliamentary Secretary stated that every class was called upon to make sacrifices. That does not seem to be the case with the bus owners. The proposal in the section is an unreasonable one. We should all do our best to keep the railways going because, if the railways have to close down industry, agriculture, and the future of the small towns are at an end. The Government should curtail the bus competition instead of trying to enlarge it. The Parliamentary Secretary, when referring to sports that are being taxed, said that it was impossible to get money to relieve taxation except from Rugby football and other games. Here is a way in which the money could be got, by taxing the buses at the same rate as last year, which would be quite reasonable. Any case that could be made with regard to the buses would be for increasing the taxation. Surely £25,000 could be got in that way? I ask the House unanimously to recommend the Dáil not to reduce the taxation on buses.
I second. The giving of this relief to the buses means that the railways will be hit harder, and that the time will come when the railways must be taken over and run by the State. I am against State control of the railways. I think if the railways get a chance they will carry on, but I think that the giving of concessions to buses is the wrong way to help the railways.
Everybody in the country was amazed at the reduction in the duty on buses, especially on the part of a Party which proclaimed itself pro-railway before the election. The only hint I got about it was the statement in the public Press which Senators must have seen, that this was a present to the bus owners in return for having given the use of their buses to carry Fianna Fáil voters at the election. It seems extraordinary that that should have been done but there must be something behind it.
I desire to support the recommendation, not from the political point of view, but because I think the railways have been very badly treated, and because a great number of those dependent on the railways are being reduced almost to starvation. It is well known that a large number of institutions and poor people have money invested in the railways. They have got no return on their shares and they have no security that they will ever get any revenue from the railways under present conditions. I know several poor people who have been forced to go into service, simply because the shares they had in the railway give no return. This Government as well as the last Government have given very large grants for the making of roads, in order that they would be a credit to our country, but they have allowed the buses to use the public thoroughfares until they have almost destroyed them. A large amount of money is going to be borrowed on the strength of motor taxation, to which motor owners contribute so that proper road accommodation may be provided. Now the buses can come along and destroy roads upon which large sums of public money have been spent every year, and they will not have to contribute an amount equivalent to the damage they do. This is not a political question. This Government and the last Government were faced with it. In justice the public demand that something should be done for the railways. In the interests of the trade of the country I appeal to the Government to do something for the railways, because if they go down the agricultural industry will be seriously affected. Many public institutions and convents have their money sunk in the railways, which at one time were regarded as gilt-edged securities. I think it was not fair to reduce the taxation on the buses, as they were getting very good value in the free use of the public thoroughfares, on which public money was expended, while the railway companies maintain their own permanent way and employ a large number of hands.
As has been stated by other speakers, railway stations are being closed all over the country. On the Great Northern Railway every day you hear of people being dismissed and railway stations being closed. Where will all that lead us? It certainly will not lead us in the right direction, not to the welfare of the country, and I hope that something will be done to make matters easier for the railways.
In its present form, I certainly could not allow this recommendation to pass without opposing it. In so far as the buses run parallel with railway lines, I would be prepared to support the recommendation, but in so far as they serve villages and market towns I think there is a great deal to be said for opposing the recommendation and reducing the taxation on buses even to a point still further than it has been reduced under the present Bill. I intend, at all events, to vote against the recommendation in its present form. I think it would be intolerable to take away bus services that have been created for some twelve or fifteen years and which serve local market towns. They have taken over passenger services, and have taken the place of old hackney cars and many old services of that kind. I do not wish to oppose the interests of the railways. In fact I am as sympathetic and have reason to be as sympathetic to railway interests as anybody in this House, but in its present form I intend to oppose the recommendation.
Cathaoirleach
It is not proposed to take existing bus services off the road.
This recommendation would apply to all bus services.
Cathaoirleach
Only as regards the consideration given to them for the last month or two. It would not apply to anything they enjoyed for the last ten years.
Everybody seemed to approach this particular problem from the point of view that a bus service is a nefarious service or something abominable in itself, something inimical to the State, something whose sole function is the negative function of doing damage. Everybody knows that that statement is not true, that it is an outrage on facts. The bus service is not a nefarious service. It is not an enemy of the transport system of the State. It has been a very good servant of the transport system and any defects in it are due to lack of regulation and not to anything in itself. This system maintains many hundreds of people in employment and it carried in the last twelve months 58¾ million people, while the total traffic of the railways was 24,000,000. This system has created a traffic of 58¾ millions of people. It has carried them more conveniently to places to which they wanted to go at costs of transport less than those which were previously available, with a promptness, regularity and variety which had not previously existed. These are the facts.
They got their highways ready-made.
Unless it can be shown, and I am asking anybody to show it, that that system is making a lot of money, the obvious implication is that any extra cost put on these buses will have to be put on the 58¾ million people. Remember this is not a tax on buses but a tax on 58¾ million people who are transported by the buses. It was because of this fact, because these people were faced with a difficulty in carrying on, because a great many of them were not in a position to meet the 1st April instalment of the seating tax, that this thing was done. Senator Miss Browne said it was an extraordinary fact that this should be done because the buses carried Fianna Fáil supporters to the polls.
I did not say that.
Wait a moment. What I say is extraordinary is that a Senator should use this place for the purpose of circulating a story the truth of which she does not know——
It was circulated in the public Press.
——that she should recirculate and give her official sanction to a statement for which no person can produce any evidence whatever—a statement which is untrue. This tax was introduced because this service, that was carrying with that variety of efficiency over a very large area 58¾ million people, was finding it difficult to carry on, and for no other reason. It was introduced as a temporary measure until the Transport Act passed this year could come into operation, an Act under which every single bus company in this country will have to go to the Minister for a licence, and will not get a licence unless in relation to every particular bus service that is put forward it can be shown that none of the things which in general are charged against bus services can in fact be charged against that particular bus service, that its organisation shall be complete, that its fares shall be regular, that its services shall be regular, that its equipment, its wages and conditions of employment shall be of a proper character. It is a temporary measure to meet an actual existing financial emergency, brought in to cover up the gap between the existing conditions and the conditions which would come into existence when the Act of last year came into operation. These are the facts.
There seems another very foolish idea and that is that we should benefit the railway traffic by attacking the bus traffic. The suggestion is that every possible disability under which the railway system now groans, and should not groan, should be put on the bus service. That is not the way to relieve the railways and the things that are now burdening them. I can give you a perfectly remarkable specific case. The railways have not broken down merely upon these short-term travelling facilities, the excellently efficient short-term travelling facilities that have been given by the buses. They have broken down over the whole range of transport and more particularly they have broken down on the transference of their first-class passengers to motor cars and not to buses on the road. The railways are suffering from all sorts of disabilities. Here is a very simple and specific case. A builder's provider in Cork the other day was asked to send, to Kanturk I think, somewhere about 15 tons of building material. He could send it by lorries heterogeneously and deliver it on the site——
Cathaoirleach
I think the Parliamentary Secretary is going outside the recommendation.
All I desire to say is that adding to the imposts on buses is not the method of helping the railways. It is by taking imposts off the railways. It is by giving them more facilities, giving them a better opportunity to pay where they now cannot pay under a mere segregation of traffic into categories and the rest of it. As I say, this is a temporary measure to enable people to carry on until there can be a better opportunity of formulating a co-ordinated scheme of rail and road transport linked up, I hope, with ship transport for the whole country. It is a temporary expedient and I know of no other way of carrying them on. Because we think it is necessary that they should in this emergency get this particular relief, we are opposed to the recommendation.
The Parliamentary Secretary made a rather general statement on the transport question. In my opinion, he evaded the points really made by those who spoke previous to him. In his general statement regarding the bus services he referred to the fact that they provide travelling facilities in localities not served by the railways. We agree that they should be maintained in such localities, but there is no question at all of added imposts on the bus services. No one has suggested, good, bad or indifferent, that additional taxation should be put on the buses. We protest that, at a time like this when sacrifices are being asked from the general body of the population of this country, the taxation on the buses should be lightened. Why is that? The Minister did not address himself to that at all, and I wish he would address himself to it. The Minister said that if we wanted to benefit the railways we should not attack the bus services. We are not attacking them, but we say that if the bus service was not near extinction, and if the bus service was growing, as it is, and if a better service was being provided, and a better service is being provided, and if better buses were put on the road, and they are being put on the road, and if there is a general growth and an expansion of the service, why does the Minister think that that service is near extinction and that he must come to its aid? I cannot understand what case the Minister has made for the lightening of the taxation on buses when there is no need for it. They were doing exceedingly well, and I fail to see the case for lightening the impost on buses when it is on everyone else.
I want, in a very slight way, to disagree with my friend and comrade, Senator O'Hanlon, because he said there was no impost put on the buses. We know that 8d. a gallon was put on petrol—4d. not so long ago and a special 4d. later on, which was put on as an emergency tax. I ask the Minister for Finance, as it was an emergency tax, that now he should take it away, because it operates to kill the industry. It is a terrible thing to say that an article costing about 3d. or 4d. a gallon is taxed to the extent of 200 per cent. by the State. That particular service is for the benefit of the community at large, not alone for passenger transport but for the transport of farm produce and of other commodities of the country. If you approach this matter from the point of view of taxation, I think it is not too much to ask that the charge for seating accommodation should be revised. Why put the tax on the petrol? Take the tax off the petrol and you will do better, but since you are not doing that, there is no reason at all why this matter should not be revised.
I entirely agree with Senator Wilson with regard to the argument about the taxes on buses. He has pointed out what seems to have been overlooked by most of the Senators who spoke previously; that is, that the extra petrol tax had already gone on. Another point has been overlooked entirely by all in the House, and that is, that the railway companies themselves are very vitally affected by this remission of the tax. I think that the Great Northern Railway Company and the subsidiary of the Great Southern Railways Company —the Irish Omnibus Company—are benefited by this reduction in the tax, and that the proceeds will find its way into the exchequer of the Railway Companies, which are the controlling interests in the bus services at the moment. The big organisations for bus traffic throughout this country are controlled, in one case by the Irish Omnibus Company which is controlled by and is a subsidiary of the Great Southern Railways Company, and in the other by the buses in the service of the Great Northern Railway Company.
The fact of the matter is that prior to the introduction of this seating tax there was scarcely a bus company in the Free State solvent, outside of the two large companies, and they showed in their balance sheets a very heavy and distinct loss in the road transport services that were afforded. The real thing in this is that control of road transport was not dealt with five years ago and that until the last Bill was put before this House, road transport was left at the mercy of all sorts of small people. I have no objection to small people trading. On the contrary, I think they should be encouraged. But these small traders were induced, by high-power salesmanship by chassis and motor-bus builders on the other side, to start in in the bus business on the hire purchase system whereby a man with a few pounds saved up could be provided with a bus. The result was that we had all kinds of buses on the roads, uncontrolled services, and in uneconomic competition with each other. The situation will not be so in a few months. The new Transport Bill and the Licensing Provisions in vogue will prevent that. All the plea has been for the railway companies, and no organisations in the country have benefited more by the remission of this tax.
I should like to ask whether this remission of tax will be applicable to all the buses throughout the Saorstát?
Absolutely.
It applies to the ordinary road buses and to all those owned by the railways?
Certainly, yes.
Senator O'Hanlon has not been quite fair to the Minister. It seems to me that the Minister fully explained that this was a temporary measure. I am very sorry that the advocates of the just claims of the railways have compromised their case by indulging in this discussion. It is absolutely essential for this country that the railways should be maintained. Very far-reaching measures must be introduced for the purpose of preserving railway traffic in the interest of the farming community and in the interests of the country as a whole. Senator Guinness, of course, has pointed out, or has elicited the information, that this exemption of tax applies to all buses plying on the roads. The railway companies did not ask for any exemption. The smaller people did ask for an exemption. Why did the railway companies not ask for an exemption? The reason is that they wanted to extinguish the smaller companies and have a monopoly of the bus traffic as well as of the railway traffic. I am very much in favour of the railways and I would be very much in favour of helping them through their difficulties, but certainly I would not join in a wrangle of this kind which can do no good whatever to the railway companies and will certainly lower the good case which they have for public consideration.
It helps my case very much when it was explained that the bus service for many years has been an extraordinarily good service and that last year it carried fifty-eight and three-quarter millions people. I agree with that, but there is no reason that they should not do as well this year as they did last year. My recommendation would make no change in the bus service, but would leave it as it is.
[The Leas-Chathaoirleach took the Chair.]
And lead to the smaller buses being extinguished.
There is no reason to believe that they will be extinguished. They worked well last year and carried fifty-eight and three-quarter million passengers. There is no reason why they should not do the same this year. The railway buses are also getting the same benefit, and soon, I suppose, we will find that the railways will cease to run. I am altogether against that. If you push the railway traffic on to the roads, instead of on to the railway, then in five years you will have no railways. How are the farmers to carry on their business in such circumstances? I am not urging this from the point of view of the railways, or of the employees of the railways, with whom I have very great sympathy; but I say that if you push the traffic on to the road that is what will happen, and that is the policy of the Government under this Bill. There is no reason to think that if there is no change in the tax on the buses that the same services will not be put on the road. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs told us that a number of these services did not pay last year. Of course, it is quite obvious they could not.
Between here and Naas I know of two buses running at exactly the same hour. The same thing between here and Monaghan. One following the other, carrying passengers forty miles for one shilling. They could not pay. The same thing occurs between Cork and Bandon. One bus belonged to the railway company and another belonged to a small man. They were carrying passengers at uneconomic fares. They could not make money while that war was on. Now that is stopped under the Traffic Bill. If you put on a proper service there is no reason why it should not pay. Buses are necessary in numbers of places where there is no railway connection, and if properly regulated they could be of very great help to the railway. But I claim that the Government should not do anything to interfere with the railway service, and this reduction of bus taxation is a clear attack upon the railway service. It is an effort to make railways cease running trains. On many branch lines half the trains have been taken off at present. In another six months the rest of these trains will be taken off, and if a railway is allowed to be idle for six months it will never be opened again. What is going to happen then? Cattle cannot be carried to and from fairs in buses. Extraordinary movements like the Eucharistic Congress cannot be dealt with properly by bus services. The policy of the Government should be to keep the railways open and I think this recommendation against the reduction of the bus taxes is a sane and sound recommendation.
We have had a mere series of declarations that there is no need for this. I repeat it is a temporary expedient, in itself, upon facts stated. On documents produced and on the actual facts of the position it is a temporary expedient carried out for an interval until another procedure is adopted which would prevent evil effects in so far as they are evil coming into being. The Minister had the facts and what he did was on the definite statement that he had from members of the companies as to their conditions when the seating tax was raised from 30/- to £5 and the tax on petrol was raised from nothing to 8d. These were the facts and the Minister hopes to be in a position after August to produce a co-ordinating system and he will not have destroyed certain bus services, which because of their weakness financially are not necessarily unnecessary. You find bus services in great difficulty carrying on the best services and doing the biggest amount of service. There is density of traffic but the specific service rendered is also high. These are purely and simply the actual facts. It is an emergency measure to cover the position until the co-ordinating system is placed before us.
The Parliamentary Secretary has talked about this as a temporary measure. I fail to find anything to show that it is a temporary measure. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will refer me to some clause which makes it a temporary measure. Senator O'Rourke has complained of the permanent reduction of the taxation upon buses. I also fail to see why the State should come in, and give a financial backing to a business such as that of the buses. The buses have got their roads for nothing. Everybody can see what a tremendous capital charge the roads are to the railways. They have to keep up the whole of their roads and it cost enormous capital to make them. The buses can come in, and use the roads, and the people have to pay for them. They have to stand a certain amount of taxation certainly, but why should the State come in to take taxation off an industry which, so far as the ordinary citizen can observe, is in a flourishing condition? We have had a good deal of experience of some of these small buses. Some of them are called pirate buses and some of them are very dangerous. We have evidence of the danger of these buses with uneducated and untrained drivers. I am not quite sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is right in saying that the new regulations will probably relieve the community of a great deal of that danger. At any rate we got these regulations now on paper but because we made these regulations to put traffic under proper conditions why should the State take off from that industry, which is in extraordinary good condition, this burden? As a rule other industries have to comply with State regulations at considerable cost. I never heard of anybody coming to the relief of our burden of cost in complying with State regulations.
There is no doubt that the buses of the railway companies have received a certain amount of relief, but it was definitely stated that the railway companies have not made any request of that kind. One must take it that when the railways did not ask for it they did not want it. We might leave the railways out in regard to that matter. It is undoubtedly unfair that the State should interfere in favour of a particular business. If it were a case of extending some State aid to the railways then one might say the State was holding the balance evenly, but there is no suggestion that any aid is going to be given to the railways. In fact the taxation in the last few weeks is a very serious blow against the railways. Now here is this remission of taxation being given to the buses and nothing at all for the railways. We are told that it is a temporary measure but we have no evidence whatever of its being a temporary measure. So far as I am concerned I shall support the recommendation moved by Senator O'Rourke.
A recommendation to put back the tax to the old rate, from next week or the week afterwards, as the Transport Act is coming into operation I could understand would be a temporary measure that would give relief until there is proper regulation. But if the buses are to be in the position in which the Minister put them, it means that there will not be the same amount of competition and in that case each can put up its own charges. If it were argued that exemption should be made in the heaviest Budget which we have ever had in this country, on the ground that industries were of importance to the public and were not doing well, I could produce quite a number of cases, and I am perfectly certain that if members of the House were to go to the Minister, they could produce quite a number of other cases which are not doing well and which will feel very much the hardship of increased taxation, but that is no reason why there should be exemption. What I could understand is that it should be temporary until the Transport Act came into effect, but now that they are getting the benefit of remission and the abolition of competition I think it should go back to the old rate.
There is a direct precedent for this, within the knowledge of the House, which has considered other Finance Bills, on a case stated as to the actual position of the horse racing industry in this country. In consideration of that case stated, it was relieved of entertainment tax and is still relieved of entertainment tax. As, and when, the provisions of the Transport Act come into effect, where the Minister has had an opportunity of dealing with the particular licences and of fitting every one of these things into a new scheme of co-ordinated transport, there would be a case for withdrawing this temporary relief which, now, on the facts stated, is necessary.
The Parliamentary Secretary talked a lot about horse racing. They are in entirely different positions.
Cathaoirleach
I do not think I would follow the example of the Parliamentary Secretary. He is new to the House.
. Horse racing and buses are two different things and I would like to reply——
Cathaoirleach
I do not think I should refer to horse racing, if I were you, Senator.
Then, I will insist on the recommendation before the House.
May I ask what the remission to the buses is going to cost?
Cathaoirleach
That is a pertinent question.
Somewhere about £30,000, I think.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 16.
Tá.
- Bagwell, John.
- Barniville, Dr. Henry L.
- Bellingham, Sir Edward.
- Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
- Browne, Miss Kathleen.
- Costello, Mrs.
- Counihan, John C.
- Crosbie, George.
- Desart, The Countess of.
- Douglas, James G.
- Fanning, Michael.
- Gogarty, Dr. O. St. J.
- Guinness, Henry S.
- Hickie, Major-General Sir William.
- Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew.
- Keane, Sir John.
- Kennedy, Cornelius.
- McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
- Moran, James.
- O'Connor, Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, M.F.
- O'Rourke, Brian.
- Staines, Michael.
- Toal, Thomas.
- Vincent, A.R.
Níl.
- Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
- Comyn, K.C., Michael.
- Connolly, Joseph.
- Dillon, James.
- Linehan, Thomas.
- MacEllin, Seán E.
- MacKean, James.
- Moore, Colonel.
- O'Doherty, Joseph.
- O'Neill, L.
- Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
- Quirke, William.
- Robinson, David L.
- Robinson, Séumas.
- Ryan, Séumas.
- Wilson, Richard.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators O'Rourke and Toal; Níl: Senators O'Doherty and Robinson.
Recommendation declared carried.
Sections 29, 30 and 31 agreed to.
SECTION 32.
(1) The duty imposed by Section 11 of the Finance Act, 1928 (No. 11 of 1928), as amended by subsequent enactments shall be charged, levied and paid on the following articles at the rate of an amount equal to fifteen per cent. of the value of the article in lieu of the rate mentioned in the said Section 11, that is to say:—
On every motor car chassis which is imported for sale by a trader in motor cars on or after the 6th day of May, 1932, and before the 7th day of August, 1932, and is so imported as part of a complete motor car....
I beg to move Recommendation 8:—
Section 32, sub-section (1), To delete in line 41 the word "August" and to substitute therefor the word "November."
I do not want to take up the time of the House by repeating what I said on another occasion with regard to the tax on motor car bodies. As Senators are probably aware, the concession was made for a period which ends on August 7th. Under the concession chassis were allowed in at a lower rate. It was a set-off against the higher rate until some steps could be made for the manufacture of bodies here. Members of the motor trade are very much perturbed because it is getting near August 7th and they see no sign of the bodies being made.
If this concession is not extended a considerable number of persons will lose employment because no further cars can be imported except at a rate which will virtually be prohibitive, for a considerable time at any rate. The reason I put this recommendation down was not for the purpose of arguing this matter again, because I argued the point on a former occasion, but rather to see whether the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is in a position to make any further statement as to the prospect of having bodies manufactured by August 7th. My recommendation seeks to extend the date from August 7th to November 7th.
I went into this matter rather fully at the time we discussed the Finance (Customs Duties) (No. 2) Bill. As I explained at that time, we did not feel that until the actual date was reached there was going to be any really definite progress as regards the coming together of the motor distributors and the coach-builders. I explained at that time that neither the attitude of the motor distributors nor the attitude of the body builders was as satisfactory as we could have wished. We realised that if we moved this date both bodies would continue in an indefinite state, waiting for something to happen. For that reason we refused to adjust the date already fixed. A very considerable concession was given to the motor importers by adjusting the tariff on the chassis as a set-off against the increased tariff that was being put on the bodies. August 7th is rapidly approaching and, although very little has been done in the way of arranging for building bodies by most of the motor concessionaires in the Free State, at least one very large concern is proceeding to get ready to have all its motor bodybuilding done here.
If we postpone the date in any way, if we extend the concession to a further date, the plans of such a concern would be set at nought and there would immediately be a very undesirable reaction. There would be uncertainty and the feeling that perhaps in November we would put back the date further and ultimately wipe it out altogether and revert to the original tariff. Most people will realise that in commercial life, and particularly in manufacturing work, that would be a hopeless position. We are reasonably satisfied that immediately it is recognised we do not intend to interfere, body building arrangements will be made by various concessionaires at present bringing completed vehicles into the country. We feel that in all the circumstances our original point of view must be adhered to. We must make it perfectly definite and clear that we are out for building these bodies in this country and we are satisfied that work can be done here. We admit there has been a lack of co-operation between the motor dealers on the one side and the motor body-builders on the other. Whatever may be said from the point of view of the motor dealers, there is a great deal to be said on behalf of the coach-builders.
It has to be remembered that these people in the motor body building trade were reduced practically to bankruptcy because of the long delay in imposing a tariff on bodies. When protection was afforded them, it found most of them in an almost insolvent state; they were not ready immediately to jump into production. These difficulties have been real and have given the Department an amount of worry and trouble. Every effort has been made to get both parties working together agreeably. It is only a question of the motor dealers co-operating with them in the sense of giving them a chance, providing them with a sample body, showing them what they want and being reasonable in their demands at the launching of what is a new branch of a very old industry in this country.
We feel that in all the circumstances we could not accept this recommendation. We feel that it would torpedo our whole position as regards the tariff imposed for the provision of employment in a very desirable industry. We must resist this proposal. I explained formerly and privately to Senator Douglas the position and, in view of what I have said about the industry, it is really necessary for us to resist this recommendation. I will ask the Senator to consider the advisability of getting the permission of the House to withdraw the recommendation. I am satisfied that the motor importers are really hoping against hope that they will wear us down on this thing and, by adjustments of the date, may eventually get the protection that has been afforded wiped out altogether.
Could the Minister give us any indication as to the preparation which any firms are making for the building of bodies—could he give us a general idea?
Senator The McGillycuddy of the Reeks has put up rather a difficult proposition to me. I am not in a position to give the particulars. Some of the information I have at my disposal has been given to me in a confidential trade way. One large concern is already well under way with the preparations for the making of the bodies for their own cars. It will probably be obvious to all concerned as to what firm I refer to. As to the other importers that I do not know about, I also know that they are prepared to start but they are hoping it will not be necessary. Obviously it would not be in the best interests of those concerns or of the trade generally for me to indicate the information I refer to. I do know that they are hoping against hope that it will not be necessary for them to start and I do not expect that they will get under way until the date named in the Bill is arrived at. When they realise that there is no hope of giving way on this issue you may rest assured that they will get on with the work.
I do not want to press this recommendation. My doing so would serve no useful purpose. I should like to make clear, as briefly as I can, where the greatest difference is between the policy of the Minister or the Government and my views on this matter. Their view is that you fix the date, and you allow no cars in and you hope that some coach-builders will make cars or that some of the larger motor firms will come in and manufacture cars, while those to whom the Minister refers are hoping that they will not have to. That could not possibly apply to the local coach-builders. If it did there would be no case for the duty at all. My view was that the suggestion I made in the previous Bill was a right one—that is, take power to fix the date and then say that if pressure was to be brought they could bring it on both sides and not on one side only. But that will not achieve their purposes. They can not do it now on this. If it were left to the Minister to fix the date it would be far more equitable and it would have led to a perfectly frank examination of the whole position. I still think when a number of men have been out of employment and when the firms who are lucky enough to have cars in stock will have sold them, and if the Government will do what should have been done at the beginning, they will call a conference and go into the whole question. Then the real facts will be faced. I do not think that the facts as between the motor people and body-builders have been faced at all. They said they would not begin until they would get the orders. That was the attitude of one side. That is a pretty hopeless position. I do not think it would be in the best interests of this country to let yourself be depending on one country for anything and especially to be depending on one firm for anything. I ask leave to withdraw the recommendation.
I think I might emphasise that this date was fixed as a concession to the motor dealers. If one assumes that they were negotiating with the Minister it is to be assumed that they were satisfied with the date as fixed. When that date was fixed it was generally conceded that he had gone as far as he could in giving that concession. That is the only point I want to make. It seems to me at all events when he fixed it at the 7th August that it was an agreed date between all the parties concerned. The trades have been met. By that I do not mean that they have been brought together. Both sides have been called into consultation separately. That has happened on quite a number of occasions even since I became acting Minister for Industry and Commerce. If we give way on this there is no end to the giving away that will be asked for.
That is for the Minister himself, but I do not think he is correct in stating that the date was agreed to. When the trade is faced with the duty, that in many cases puts them out of business and then they find that they can go on for another three months—you can call it an agreed date if you like, but it does not mean that it was a welcome date or that it was an approved date.
Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.
Sections 32 to 41 agreed to.
SECTION 42.
Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1901, as amended by Section 7 of the Finance Act, 1902, shall apply to a contract to make any article, erect any structure, or execute any work and supply all or any of the materials required to form or be incorporated in such article, structure, or work, and, for the purposes of such application, references in the said Section 10 to delivery of goods shall be construed as including the formation or incorporation of materials into or in such article, structure or work.
Amendment 9:—Section 42. After the word "shall" in line 5 to insert the words and figures "as from the 12th day of May, 1932."—(Senator Douglas.)
This recommendation is accepted.
The object of it is to provide that the concession which was made in the Dáil with regard to the liability of builders and contractors for an increased price due to tariffs should not be placed on the builders and contractors themselves. As the Bill was already in the Dáil it would leave them liable from the date on which the resolution came on until it actually became law.
Recommendation agreed to.
Section 42 agreed to.
Sections 43 to 52 agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
Reference No. 7:—Second column. Blanketing and blankets, whether white or coloured, for whatever purpose intended, and also rugs other than rugs intended to be used as floor coverings.
I move recommendation No. 10:—
In First Schedule, Ref. No. 7, second column, to insert the words "but excluding blankets or rugs made wholly of cotton."
Might I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if he takes the view that a cotton blanket or a cotton rug is not a blanket or rug? If he does, I will withdraw this.
All I can tell you is that cotton blankets are not excluded from the tax.
That is not my question. That is an excellent evasion. What I want to know is whether a cotton blanket is taxed as a blanket or as bedding?
That is a different question. For the purpose of the tax a cotton blanket which was not regarded as a blanket is now regarded as a blanket, and it is to be under the blanket tax because a tax in that particular case is 30 per cent., and as bedding it is 37½ per cent.
The position, then, is that the meaning of the English language has changed since this Government came into office.
We have no objection to that.
That is an interesting fact which in this case is quite satisfactory. I understood the Minister for Finance to state, in reply to Deputy Dillon, that cotton blankets would not be subject to tax; so it would appear that the English language has been given a meaning that I do not approve of. By means of this recommendation or by means of a later recommendation, I want to provide that cotton blankets should not be taxed. I recognise that, with the present Government in office and with the general support they get from the Labour Party, my efforts to exempt goods used by the very poor, which goods are not manufactured in this country, are the most hopeless efforts that I could make. I have tried to do this on quite a number of occasions and I have failed hopelessly. I suppose I shall also fail on this occasion. Excellent goods used by the poor, in the shape of cotton blankets, are almost entirely made on the Continent. The English cotton blanket is not used to the same extent here. It is more like a sheet than the continental blanket and the market for it is much smaller. But quite a good cotton blanket comes from the Continent. There is no likelihood, that I know of, of its being made here, and it is not being made at present. I understood that the Minister stated that these cotton blankets would be exempted. I think they ought to be exempted, particularly from the higher duty which applies. The British preference which was applicable, and which is still applicable under this Bill, did not apply to these goods because they did not come, in the main, from Britain. I think this is a proper case for exemption. I put this recommendation down twice because I did not know which was intended. I knew that before this Government came into office these blankets were not dutiable, although there was a duty on blankets. I know they are dutiable now and that the Revenue Commissioners, anxious as always to do their best for the people, have put them under the lowest, duty possible—a decision with which I agree. I should like to press this recommendation.
The view of the Government which was, I think, expressed in the Dáil is that these blankets can be substituted by blankets manufactured in this country——
At anything like the same price?
Very close to the same price, eventually. For that reason, the recommendation is opposed.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary be good enough to tell me where I can get them?
That would be an advertisement.
Privately?
It might also be prophecy, in which I do not indulge. I hope, however, that these goods will be available to the Senator as a result of the refusal of the Dáil to accept this recommendation, if it comes forward.
From that, I take it that cotton blankets at from 1/3 to 1/6 each will be available at some future date. If that be so, I withdraw the recommendation. I put it forward because these blankets are not available here at present and I had no reason to believe that they would be available at anything like the present cheap prices. In none of the recommendations which I put down to this or the previous Bill did I intend to exclude any article which there was a reasonable prospect of having made here. If there is a reasonable prospect of these goods being made here, I shall withdraw the recommendation.
I accept what the Senator has said. All the recommendations put forward to the House have been treated in that spirit. They have not been treated as antagonistic recommendations. We treated all recommendations as attempts of the Seanad to co-operate with the Dáil. It is our belief that we will be able to find, as a result of this policy, a substitute for these goods. If we did not believe that, we would not resist the recommendation.
A substitute?
Yes.
Not the making of them?
No.
Surely, if they are made of wool, they will be better than if they are made of cotton?
There is not the slightest doubt of that—no more doubt than that if you have £1,000 you are better off than if you have £3.
Are we to understand that there is a movement on foot to have cotton blankets made in the Saorstát?
I know of no such movement.
What the Parliamentary Secretary suggests then is a substitute for the cotton blanket at the same price?
A commensurate price.
Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.
I should like to deal with reference No. 16, which deals with trade catalogues imported in bulk. I would not raise the matter in this way were it not that there is a motion down to take all the stages of this Bill this evening. If I had the opportunity, I would put down a recommendation for the Report Stage. I expected, from a promise given in the Dáil, that the Government would have put down a recommendation. I shall give you an example of how this tax will hit traders and distributors in the Free State. I have in mind a large firm whose head office is in Manchester and who have a branch office in Dublin. They do a very big trade here. Under this Bill, they are entitled to send out their trade catalogues, wall-paper pattern books and literature of that type singly to customers in the Free State by posting in Manchester. If they send them here in bulk for posting here, they have to pay a duty of 33? per cent. I agree that all the printing possible ought to be done in this country but, in this case, we are really hitting our own people. Trade catalogues, in many cases, are turned out in very large quantities and distributed by the manufacturer to traders throughout the world. In that way, the cost is much reduced and printers here cannot compete. Take the case of wall-paper pattern books. These pattern books must be sent by the manufacturers. We do not make wall-paper here. They must come in from England, and when they come in in bulk they should not be taxed unless they are subject to tax singly. The wholesale trader here will be placed at a great disadvantage if you allow his competitor in England, or outside the Free State, to send in his catalogues singly free when he has to pay duty.
In the Dáil, Mr. Dockrell raised this question and he was ably supported by Mr. Briscoe. I quote Mr. Dockrell's remarks from the Official Report:
I want to raise a point on amendment 24, item 16, with regard to trade catalogues. I do not think that the position with regard to trade catalogues is sufficiently appreciated. If you impose a duty on catalogues imported in bulk, you are going to place the wholesale traders in a very unfair position in regard to their rivals who do their business from across the water. In my opinion, all catalogues ought to be allowed in free or all catalogues ought to be subject to duty. I understand that the Minister is considering the matter and, if he merely mentions that, I shall be satisfied.
Mr. MacEntee: Would not that mean re-summoning the Dáil to consider the recommendation?
Later on the Minister said:—
If we have to come back we will consider Deputy Dockrell's suggestion.
It is because the Minister said that I thought there would be a Government recommendation to deal with this matter. In the course of the debate Deputy Briscoe said:—
Might I ask the Minister to consider it from this point of view? There seems to be an anomaly, in this way, that a local wholesaler who would import his pattern books in bulk would have to pay the duty on them, whereas a wholesaler or factory outside the Saorstát can distribute pattern books singly to local people here free of duty, which would give an advantage over the Saorstát trader. I have discussed this point with Deputy Dockrell and I have made inquiries since and I find that there are wholesale distributors of wallpapers in the City of Dublin alone. I would ask the Minister to meet the situation one way or the other. These people are not asking to have the duty taken off or put on, but they are asking that they should be put at no disadvantage as compared with outsiders. I think that is the point that Deputy Dockrell has in mind.
Mr. Dockrell: That is my point.
After the promise I thought the Government would have brought in a recommendation. If they wish I will bring in one on the Report Stage or perhaps one could be accepted verbally now.
The difficulty is that even with the best will in the world we could not accept the recommendation. To do so would mean having another resolution in the Dáil. Apart from the mere acceptance of the recommendation, I am advised there is a technical difficulty and that a special new Resolution would be required in the Dáil. We propose to meet the Senator's case on the Report Stage to the extent of accepting the recommendation put down by Senator Séamus Robinson, which will include catalogues of wall-paper which, it is recognised, could not be very easily printed in this country.
Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.
I move Recommendation 11:
First Schedule. Ref. No. 18. Second column. To delete the words "sleepers, scaffolding poles, telegraph and telephone poles."
I have discussed this question with the Minister for Finance, who is not present, and also with the Forestry Department, and I understand that the recommendation would make it extremely difficult to administer the section at present. The Forestry Department has examined the question in great detail. Under the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw the recommendation.
Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.
I move Recommendation 12:—
To delete Ref. No. 21 including relevant references in columns 2, 3 and 4.
This recommendation deals with the tariff of 20 per cent. placed on superphosphates, ground mineral phosphates and compound manures. I contend that as these articles are really raw materials for the farmer, this proposal has been introduced with the idea of having more tillage. If so, the reason for cheap artificial manures is all the greater, because there will be reduced stocks of cattle manure. In that case it seems folly to put a tariff on anything which will have the effect of keeping the supplies of manure low. I cannot understand why manufacturers here could not hold their own, because up to the present they have been supplying a considerable quantity of the needs of the country. Owing to the change that took place when Britain went off the gold standard, manufacturers here were helped. Both the foreign, the British and the Irish manufacturer buy rock phosphates in Algeria, North Africa. The £ is now only worth 15/- as compared with the Belgian currency, but when you come to the finished article, which is probably 100 per cent. above the cost of the raw material, the local manufacturer has the advantage. As compared with last year, his position is better now, and it should not have been necessary to remove the competition which kept prices here low. There were difficulties with the local manufacturers five or six years ago, and if farmers had been unable to import manures from Belgium they would have been in a serious position. We found that in the area around Derry manures were being sold at from 5/- to 6/- per ton cheaper than here, and the only explanation was that the rates of pay in the Derry factory were cheaper than in Dublin. The men in Derry were getting £2 2s. a week and in Dublin £4. We started to get stuff over from Belgium and brought prices to the pre-war level. That is the position that should be maintained by the Government. Owing to currency changes, local manufacturers have got a chance, and I think legislation should not have been introduced taxing the raw materials of the farmer.
[The Cathaoirleach resumed the Chair.]
I do not know what view the Minister will take of this recommendation. It will be observed that in the column "Percentage Rate of Preferential Duty" we have the word "free." That is, the finished product supplied by Imperial Chemicals comes in free, and there is a 20 per cent. rate as against Belgian and French relative to the English manufacturer. That rate of 20 per cent. represents really 40 per cent. on the manufacture, because the cost of material, speaking generally in respect to superphosphates, ground mineral phosphates and compound manures, on the average, represents about half the price. Therefore, I would say that here a preferential rate is given to Imperial chemicals of 40 per cent. over the Belgians. I do not know what view the Minister will take, but I am certain that he has good reason for this tax.
I desire to support the recommendation. Taking into consideration that from the point of view of farmers all tariffs are bad——
Not all.
I believe all tariffs are bad and are an impediment to trade. I believe this tax is particularly bad, suicidal, because it is not only bad for the State but an impediment to agricultural production and food production. Owing to the disabilities that farmers have laboured under for a number of years, because of the tariffs imposed by the late Government, and those imposed recently by the present Government, the lands of the country are in a starved condition. No argument could be produced to justify this tax.
With the general argument against tariffs we are not at the moment concerned. The position is that we use, roughly, a couple of hundred thousand tons of these manures and about 140,000 tons of home manufactured manures were used very satisfactorily and very successfully last year. There are roughly about 1,000 people employed in the industry. We desire that these 1,000 people be continued and be secured in that employment and that the employing liability of the industry be developed. The factories which are at present operating are not fully employed. That means to say that a total overhead is divided into two-thirds of the total consumption. We think that with the total in respect of overheads divided into the full consumption, the actual cost of production most certainly will be less and the price at which the product is sold to the public most certainly need not be more and possibly might be less.
The suggestion made by Senator Wilson, which is a very sound suggestion, is that in the past if they had not some means of competitive regulation they would have been exploited. We have to deal with human nature even in the case of the manufacture of manures. The Government are fully cognisant of the fact that, where they have introduced fifty or sixty new tariffs and where they have to deal with emergency legislation of the kind with which we are now dealing, in addition to the ordinary provisions to keep human nature in restraint other expedients will be required. All I can say is that the resources of civilisation in this respect are not exhausted, and they will not be regarded as exhausted until all that are available have been used to prevent anyone misusing the opportunity, such an opportunity as they would have of misusing this particular tax if there were not special means to see that they did not do it. We believe that, having regard to the fact that they are going to get their output at a given overhead, means that they will be able to produce stuff at a fair price and it is up to us to see that they do it.
The Parliamentary Secretary has told us that the Government is anxious to support home industries in this matter. He also told us that the home industry is not fully occupied. As I understand it, the tax described here is not alone on compound manures that are made in this country but also on the raw materials used in the manufacture of the manures.
No.
Are we not taxing the raw material?
There is no tax on the raw material.
That gets over my difficulty. I thought there was, from what Senator Wilson mentioned.
The Parliamentary Secretary, it seems to me, spoke with his tongue in his cheek when he talked about the resources of civilisation not being exhausted. We have got years and years' experience of tariffed countries where the same sort of specious talk has been used. Imagine the resources of civilisation in the hands of a Government with all the rigidity of regulations attached to them! Why, the trades unions and the manufacturers will make rings round you every time and you will be left cold. They will have started long before you, and in the meantime who suffers but the consumer? In such circumstances we hear the same old "tripe," if I may be allowed to use an expression which may not be quite Parliamentary, that has been uttered in other countries where this policy has been tried out and where the consumer is groaning under the torment of the burdens placed upon him by such tariffs. Then we hear talk about 1,000 employees. What about the hundreds of thousands of employees who are going to be hit by the limitation of a free market in an essential raw material? It makes me really sad, in fact almost weep, for this country when in this twentieth century a Minister could have the audacity to stand up and speak here as the Parliamentary Secretary has just spoken and expect us to believe a word of it.
In regard to the statement made by Senator Guinness, he seem to be under some misunderstanding because of what I had previously stated. I spoke of rock phosphate, which is a raw material; but rock phosphate when it is ground or when it is operated on with sulphuric acid will become dutiable. Rock phosphate, when sold as ground phosphate, is used for various purposes, for grass, etc.
The Parliamentary Secretary never answered the point in connection with the benefits derivable by the manufacturers in this country from the depreciated currency on which we are now operating. He did not apply that factor to the 140,000 tons of these particular manures which we were able to sell against the foreigners. If the Parliamentary Secretary rambled out to the Spring Show he would see the particular snag there is for farmers in this tax. He would have seen there a diagram prepared by one of the Government Departments showing how many hundred-weights of artificial manure are used per acre by the farmer in Holland, the farmer in Belgium and the farmer in France and lastly he would see the huntsman who is supposed to represent the Irishman who only uses two cwts. per acre. That is propaganda prepared by a Government which is operating a policy to prevent us using artificial manures at all. It seems to me that the Government Departments are antagonistic one to another. If the benefits to the farmer can only be increased by the application of these manures to a greater extent, I do not see why this tariff should have been imposed nor do I see why for the sake of benefiting 1,000 men as against 1,000,000 men on the other side, we will have to pay whatever concessions these 1,000 men will get.
Senator Wilson forgot to tell us the facts upon which that particular diagram was prepared, or that it was prepared on what were the facts before we had done this thing. In other words the suggestion is that we should go back to the conditions on which that diagram was created.
You are making it worse.
It was perfect apparently before we started. I ask you to say that that argument means nothing whatever. There are other conditions, I suggest to the Senator, which will decide whether two or twenty-five cwts. per acre are going to be used. We are anxious to remove many of the conditions, and I think this tariff will effectively remove a good many of the conditions, which are keeping down the consumption of superphosphates to two cwts. per acre in this country.
As to the bright contribution of Senator Sir John Keane—the rigidity of regulation of Governments—if there was anything that I heard that had a suggestion of what people were really objecting to at the present moment, it was the absolute absence of any possibility of rigidity of regulation under the present Government in the amazing powers given to it the other day by the Dáil. There is no rigidity. If there is any fault, it is that our Governmental regulations are not too rigid.
As far as the question of the jejeune and innocent people who think that tariffs and things of that kind will not operate to produce in this country the effects that they have produced in other countries, all I can say is that I personally am not conceited enough to imagine that, if the whole world disagrees with me, I am right. It is a fact, I know, that Senator Sir John Keane has no use whatever for all this tariff sort of nonsense. We know all about that. A lot of wise and sensible people in their own country, I am sure, would not be accused of audacity if they did not agree with Senator Sir John Keane. We will allow them, without his permission, to continue to regulate their affairs in their own way and we will be prepared to accept from the instruction and wisdom and experience of the world a certain amount of lesson, subject always, of course, to the permission of Senator Sir John Keane. I am not, by any means, one of those who believe that Governments can do everything, as they said, except make a man a woman or a woman a man. They can lay themselves out to do things but they may break down on them. There are a whole lot of things which Governments take on; regulations which they lay down, which a man over a telephone, a grip of a hand in a club, a half-word in the street, will destroy. I know it. Anyone who has had the experience of talking upon his own business over the telephone, or sitting in the room of any responsible business man and hearing him talk upon the telephone to the people supposed to be his opponents in business, will know quite well that it passes apparently the possibilities of Government to set out a series of regulations which, being rigid, will be enabled to deal with those nice, quiet manipulations which go on behind the scenes. I recognise the difficulties, and it is because some of us happened to know from experience the difficulties, that we have taken into our possession certain powers which are not rigid and which can be varied as emergency and circumstances may arise to deal with some of these particular methods. Whether or not we do succeed in preventing profiteering to any extent, I do not know. We intend to try.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 14.
Tá.
- Bagwell, John.
- Bellingham, Sir Edward.
- Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
- Browne, Miss Kathleen.
- Costello, Mrs.
- Counihan, John C.
- Crosbie, George.
- Desart, The Countess of.
- Dillon, James.
- Douglas, James G.
- Fanning, Michael.
- Guinness, Henry S.
- Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew.
- Keane, Sir John.
- Kennedy, Cornelius.
- McGillycuddy of the Reeks, The.
- Moran, James.
- O'Connor, Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, M.F.
- O'Rourke, Brian.
- Staines, Michael.
- Vincent, A.R.
- Wilson, Richard.
Níl.
- Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
- Comyn, K.C., Michael.
- Connolly, Joseph.
- Cummins, William.
- Farren, Thomas.
- Linehan, Thomas.
- MacKean, James.
- Moore, Colonel.
- O'Doherty, Joseph.
- Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
- Quirke, William.
- Robinson, David L.
- Robinson, Séumas.
- Ryan, Séumas.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Staines and Wilson; Níl: Senators O'Doherty and S. Robinson.
Recommendation declared carried.
I move Recommendation No. 13:
First Schedule. Ref. No. 25. Second column. To insert the words "and excluding blankets or rugs made wholly of cotton, alhambra and honeycomb quilts and printed bedspreads made of cotton or silk or a mixture of cotton and silk."
This looks like another hopeless effort on my part. The Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to say that he regarded all the recommendations by the Seanad as being quite serious efforts to improve the Bill. I quite assure him that that is the case, but what I meant to convey in my prevoius speech was that my recommendations were not only serious recommendations endeavouring to improve the position but that I had confined myself entirely to trying to exempt goods not made in this country and which were used by the very poor. It is not possible, of course, to prove that everything you want to exempt is only used by the poor. The recommendations I have put down have been with a view to trying to exempt, from heavy duty, articles used by the very poor and which are not manufactured here. These recommendations include blankets and rugs because I understand blankets and rugs are not blankets and rugs under a previous concession and I would like the words inserted "excluding blankets and rugs made wholly of cotton, alhambra and honeycomb quilts and printed bedspreads."
Cathaoirleach
I suppose the House agrees to that change in the recommendation?
I did not know whether it was the intention of the Minister to put a tax on honeycomb quilts and alhambra quilts which are still popular with the poorer classes, who use them in considerable quantities. I think it is likely the Parliamentary Secretary might be able to find a substitute for quilts. We are supposed to have a substitute for cotton blankets. I could think of a lot of substitutes. People might use copies of The Irish Press for blankets to keep them warm, or if they choose, copies of other papers. If they did not like print they could have bedspreads in the shape of brown paper, but the fact, as far as I know, is that honeycomb quilts and alhambra quilts, which are cheap and not manufactured here, are used a good deal by the poor. When I saw a list of the duties I did not think of these and when I heard of these I thought it was a mistake made, and that it was not the intention to tax them. If you look at the list you will find some kindred things like Turkish towels and things of that kind not manufactured here—towels manufactured here are taxed—are exempt and so I do not see why quilts not manufactured here should not be exempt.
Would the Senator explain the meaning of "alhambra?" I only know the word as meaning a place of amusement.
Senator Keane has a most unfair advantage over me. I thought it was a palace. All I can say is that I did not bring samples with me to show to Senators, but anyone in the trade will know that alhambra and honeycomb quilts are a distinct make that will be easy to recognise.
I have spent my life trying to be nice to people. Where the Seanad has been so easy-going we have tried to co-operate in the spirit in which they are in in order to encourage them in that mood in the future. We have got to exclude blankets and rugs made wholly or in part of cotton, but not printed bedspreads made of that stuff that can be imported as raw material. That would be in line with the previous recommendation of the Senator. We are willing to accept this. These are raw materials of the bedspreads and, in so far as it is raw material of bedspreads we are not going to outrage the case the Senator has already put by excluding it from taxation. But alhambra and honeycomb quilts we are prepared to accept.
Cathaoirleach
Do I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary is accepting the insertion of the words "alhambra and honeycomb quilts and printed bedspreads made of cotton, silk, or a mixture of cotton and silk"?
No, what we accept is the insertion of the words "alhambra and honeycomb quilts" but not the insertion of the other words.
To find the present Government in a mood of compromise is so pleasant and so much to be admired and approved of that I can do nothing but agree to the suggestion made by the Parliamentary Secretary, but, at the same time, I would point out to him that, while he thinks it is possible to obtain cloth for the purpose of making a printed bedspread, if he were to consult some of his lady friends, he would find that they would refuse to buy one unless it was made in a particular design with a border all round and in one piece. It is not possible to obtain that here. However, I admit quite frankly that poor people buy the quilts more than they buy the bedspreads and I think there is something to be said for accepting the concession although I think that, if he goes carefully into the other matter, he will find that there is really no case for putting 30 per cent. on bedspreads, but I admit quite frankly that it is a big concession and a larger one possibly than he thinks.
Recommendation, as amended, agreed to.
I move Recommendation 14:—
First Schedule. Ref. No. 35. Fifth column. To insert the words "Whenever the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, is satisfied that any articles chargeable with this duty are not obtainable in Saorstát Eireann and are required to be imported for use in Saorstát Eireann by a club affiliated to the Irish Amateur Rowing Union, the Revenue Commissioners may by licence authorise such club, subject to compliance with such conditions as they may think fit to impose, to import without payment of this duty the said articles."
The idea of it is to make it possible for rowing clubs to import racing boats free of duty. What are called "fine eights" are boats which are 65 feet long approximately, and, when I tell the House that they weigh approximately 120 lbs., the House will realise that it is an extremely special industry. They cost somewhere about £120 and over and above that, if they are imported, the cost of insurance and carriage amounts to £25 or £35, according to where the boat is going. That is an extremely heavy strain on the rowing clubs and it must be remembered that they cannot row without a boat. The average number of boats imported varies from four to twelve and I think it is obvious that no firm could undertake to produce an article of this kind on an economic basis for an output of that size. They could never attempt it.
As a matter of fact, the club in Athlone where boat building is really busy, and the Dublin Clubs, import their boats. They tried to get them made in Ireland but gave it up for various reasons. The English boat builders who specialise in this trade are in touch with all the developments and when you realise that some 120 boats took part in one race on the Thames this year, you will realise that they have the opportunity of experimenting with all sorts of crafts, and obviously they can produce a very much better article than we could even if we tried. The total amount of revenue derived from this is very small, but the tax will bear extremely heavily on any club that has to import these boats. As the recommendation is really the corollary of number 6, I hope the Minister will accept it. If he does not accept it, boys who play other games, football and so on, where the equipment is practically nil, will have a very considerable advantage. What is more, when our boys go to row in Northern Ireland, they will be at a disadvantage as compared with the clubs there who can import their boats.
This again is one of the cases with which we all have sympathy and would be glad to do something. The making of these boats, it is admitted, is a very high piece of craftmanship, and it is recognised that it is craftmanship founded on the experience of just the little difference that makes all the difference in the product. For that reason, we are not in a position to say that merely by putting pressure on existing organisations, they would be able to turn out these things, which, like other things, have the factor of a work of art about them. For that reason, I have some difficulty in resisting a recommendation of this kind, where it is specifically in respect of the finer boats, but this is a much larger proposition. "Any articles chargeable with the duty which are not obtainable"—that is a very much larger proposition. In the first place, before I could recommend it to the Minister for Finance, it would have to be modified to say exactly what it means and that is, boats. The second case is by licence. The whole thing is not very big. The suggestion is that there are only twelve boats and it might be better if it simply meant the elimination of the thing completely for the time being.
I would be prepared to recommend to the Minister for Finance that he should accept that recommendation, but I am asking in return that, in matters of this kind, where we know that there are difficulties in relation to craftmanship or otherwise, the mere fact that there is a temporary difficulty should make us more eager to do everything humanly possible to see that that particular lack should not continue to exist in the future. If I am going to ask the Minister for Finance to withdraw this, I certainly will not be asking him to withdraw it in the sense of a permanent thing. I am going to ask him to withdraw it in relation to a craftsmanship which does not exist at the present moment, and, in respect of which it is our desire that he should take whatever means are in his power to see that it does exist in the future. If this recommendation were withdrawn now and put in on Report Stage in a new and final form, it would be better.
Do I understand the Minister's objection to be to the words "any article"?
Yes.
Senator The McGillycuddy could attend to that and could try to define the articles.
That is so. He could define the articles as boats.
The real point in the whole of this is the oars. There is only one man in the whole of England who makes oars, a man called Ayling. Nobody in Great Britain will row with any oar except one made by Ayling. That is what Senator The McGillycuddy has in mind.
If the Parliamentary Secretary would meet me by excluding "fine eights" and their component parts and accessories, I would be satisfied.
I will accept that.
If we took the Report Stage to-morrow, it would only occupy a few minutes and possibly the Parliamentary Secretary could get this recommendation into the shape in which it could go into the Bill.
Cathaoirleach
That would be better.
Recommendation withdrawn.
First Schedule agreed to.
As regards the Second Schedule, I suppose there would not be much purpose served, but, nevertheless, I wish to protest against this newspaper tax. I will give a little experience to show the irritability of the whole thing. It is within my knowledge that a certain person was desirous of sending some old illustrated papers to this country. They would be of decided educational value to the poor. Here we had a bunch of "Spheres" charged something like 3/- on delivery. That is a small point, but it is one of the 101 pin-pricks involved in this whole policy of isolation. These things mount up and aggravate the poor. The Parliamentary Secretary may smile. I sometimes wonder when he smiles whether he is in touch with the poor, plain people of the country who at every point are assailed and exasperated beyond measure by the pin-pricks involved in this tariff policy. A parcel of old papers costs either 1/- or 6d. A postman instead of being a joy is a perfect anxiety. I wish to protest against this tax as one of the many small things that penerate into almost every poor home. All this makes the whole tariff policy a thing which destroys the amenities of life and reduces the whole of existence down to a mere dull, drab mediocrity.
Senator Sir John Keane, in the last speech he made, wept. He was sad to see the things that were done and that were said by me. Evidently my capacity to smile, even under those circumstances, is making him worse. He now wonders if I am in touch with the poor.
I wonder if you are.
He wonders if the little sixpences and threepences and twopences put on them are things that I know anything about. I do. I live amongst them; I come of them, and I know it is not the sixpences or things of that kind that have done it. I know that it is the people who use the poor in this way and who talk like that do it, after turning their backs and closing their eyes, not upon the sixpences but upon the millions; after turning their backs upon all the things that have caused poverty in this country, that have caused the few people in the country to be poor. All they are concerned with are the little tin-pot sixpences and so on. They are not concerned with the millions of pounds taken in ground rents, other rents and all sorts of things of that kind. They are not concerned with all the inequalities which have been built up, which they have been satisfied with and on which some of them have battened. They want to know whether we, who resent those evils, are in touch with the poor in resenting the sixpences and the twopences. Well, we are.
The policy of Christianity !
Second and Third Schedules agreed to.
On the Fourth Schedule, Recommendation 15—To delete the Schedule—is consequential on Section 29.
Recommendation agreed to.
Fifth Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported, with recommendations. Fourth Stage fixed for Thursday, 28th July.