Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 28 Jul 1932

Vol. 15 No. 28

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

Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."

Sir John Keane

I beg to move recommendation No. 1:

First Schedule. To delete Ref. No. 5, including relevant references in columns 2, 3 and 4.

I am sorry that these few recommendations of mine were too late for the Committee Stage. Under the new conditions a Finance Bill really brings us into a whole mass of detail which previously was dealt with in a much more deliberate manner. We have now in the Schedule of this Finance Bill virtually a whole range of Customs duties which, I suggest, a body of this kind is singularly unfitted to examine. It is highly technical. I think it will be generally admitted that the confusion which followed the imposition of some of those duties rather suggests that this is not the right way in which to go about imposing them.

With regard to Reference No. 5, I would like to hear from the Parliamentary Secretary some justification for the placing of a preferential rate of duty of 33? per cent. on metal door frames, metal window frames, metal window sashes, and metal casements, excluding certain of those articles which are designed, constructed and intended for use as containers for stained glass. Surely all building material should be made not only as cheaply, but as wide in variety, as possible? It is inconceivable that local manufacturers, in this matter of metal casements and other metal work set out in the Schedule, can adequately supply the country's requirements. Anybody who has seen the catalogues of the large firms which specialise in this work will observe the infinite variety of these articles and will realise that it would never be worth the while of any firm with a restricted market to make them. These articles are of specialised manufacture and they are varied in their design.

I suggest that from the point of view of cheapness and quality we cannot, from our own resources, adequately meet those requirements. I do not say you will not get metal casements of one or two varieties and they may look all right, but I cannot believe that in a restricted market there will not be a very great temptation to cut quality. That is inherent in all these tariff questions in a manner that no ordinary person can detect. The range of competition is one of the sure methods by which you receive value. Value is not merely a question of price; it is just as much a matter of quality. In this case there are articles which are necessary for building, which are what I might call the amenities of building owing to their variety, and I think it is very wrong that a heavy duty of this kind should be placed upon them and that the sources of supply should be so restricted. I fail to see why casements intended for use as containers for stained glass should be free. I cannot take the view that ecclesiastical buildings, which probably have got stronger finances, should be given a preference of this kind. I take it that is the object in this instance. I think those engaged in work of that kind are just as well able to bear a tax as are those who are in need of housing and who very often are hard pressed to finance that need.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance (Mr. Flinn)

The relative justification of any tariff is quite a difficult job. As between half-a-dozen tariffs, to say one is justifiable and one is not justifiable is a matter for highly technical examination. Broadly speaking, this Government has decided that over a broad range those things which can be manufactured in Ireland, with the necessary limitations which are put upon them by the fact that they have to be manufactured in Ireland, shall be so manufactured. That means that we may have to sacrifice variety in the article for the sake of getting it at home. It may mean that in certain cases we may have to sacrifice some of the price for the purpose of getting it at home. It means that we will be restricted necessarily in our choice if we are going to provide machinery for constructing a wide variety of articles for a limited market.

That is quite a common and admitted condition in relation to the whole tariff position in respect to a small country with a limited market. Nobody needs to put up any one of those arguments in relation to any other thing which is objected to. It is the policy of the Government to stand over those particular proposals for the purpose of having the goods manufactured here. I say deliberately, as one who recognises the narrowness of the resources of this country and the greatness of its necessities, that we will have to be prepared to put up with the things that we can afford to have until we can afford to get the things that we want. That is, broadly, the answer to all the objections which will be made to all tariffs on all articles for the purpose of a market which is relatively small. There is no special objection outside that being put forward in relation to this particular tariff.

There is a firm in Ireland capable and willing to make those things. There is a firm in Ireland at the present moment which gives a certain amount of variety. There are other firms, such as the Macroom Engineering Works—and it is doing marvellous work in the way of casting and so on —which, with the wider market that will be provided, will be able to enter upon this trade. On broad grounds, we are satisfied that the sacrifice of variety or anything else which is entailed in having these goods manufactured in this country is justified by the advantage of having them manufactured here and that is the reason we are going on with these tariffs.

[The Leas-Chathaoirleach took the Chair]

Mr. Crosbie

What is the value of these window sashes—ironwork generally—that are imported?

Mr. Flinn

I am sorry I have not the figure at the moment, but I will give it to the Senator later on.

Mr. Crosbie

Has the Parliamentary Secretary an estimate of the amount of material of this nature manufactured in the country at the present time?

Mr. Flinn

It is not by any means a large amount at the moment.

Mr. Jameson

I noticed that in the Parliamentary Secretary's reply— whether it was intentional or not— there was not a word mentioned about cost. It is a peculiar thing that the Seanad's attention should be drawn to this when we have just finished the Housing Bill. I should think that a very vital question arises as to the cost of housing and as to how the money spent on housing is to be spent and if it is to be profitably spent and for the benefit of the class that we are trying to help. For instance, we find very vital items in the structure of a house —window frames, door frames and so on—of late years have been enormously improved and greatly cheapened and they have greatly cheapened the cost of building as far as one can judge, but I have not heard the Parliamentary Secretary say a word as to how the tax on these will affect the ultimate cost of the house. It is true that we are not going to get from our Irish manufacturers at the present moment anything as cheap as the iron structures we are getting just now. But the duty that is being put on these frames is going to raise the cost of the building of the houses and raise it to the prejudice of the very class for which we are passing the money under the Housing Bill. The tax under the Finance Bill will fall on our very poorest classes. There is no doubt it will increase the cost of the houses. Why are we not logical? Here we are trying to help the solving of the housing problem of the very poor classes and at the very same time we are increasing the cost of erecting these buildings. The latter is part of the policy of the Government. It is a policy which I cannot understand. On the one hand, you say "help the poor" and, on the other hand, you are going to put a tax on the very money you are giving the poor to build those houses and you are making the solution of the housing problem more difficult. We are all going to pay in taxation for the grants towards these houses and yet a large part of that grant is going to be taken away because of the tariff on the building material. I utterly fail to understand a policy like that.

Mr. Comyn

I thought it was a principle accepted in this House by every member of the House, including Senator Jameson, that the housing scheme was to be used for the purpose of encouraging local industries wherever it was possible to do so.

Sir John Keane

Not at all. The housing scheme was to provide cheap houses.

Mr. Comyn

I thought that the principle was to encourage local industries and I thought that principle was accepted in this House. It was not contradicted in this House until now.

Countess of Desart

It was never put to the House.

Mr. Guinness

I wish to say that in this matter of window frames and sashes, I noticed the Parliamentary Secretary has told us that there are firms now making this part of the material in Ireland. If so they must be only beginning operations, I should imagine, and they will be in competition with firms in England. I could mention several of the latter who have for years studied this department of the industry and who are turning out these things for a very long time and who now make them far more cheaply than they can be turned out here. I think there is a great advantage in being able to buy things of this description in a cheap market and these things are very necessary for house building to-day. I am afraid the Minister would not adopt my suggestion in the matter in regard to deleting the duty. If it were necessary to support a local industry, which I admit is a most advantageous thing to do, I suggest that the rate of duty should be reduced. I say that because a 50 per cent. or a 33? per cent. preferential duty will practically exclude all this metal work, castings and frames. I know these are very finely turned out articles. They are finished now all right. It is quite impossible in any new factory to make an article equal to these at the same price. After all, a reduced tariff would still allow the new industry here to develop slowly and on reasonable and proper lines. But with a 50 per cent or a 33? per cent. Imperial preference duty it will be made practically impossible to make use here of these metal frames which are now almost invariably used in both small and large houses.

Mr. Douglas

I think that probably we are only discussing again the principles which were discussed on quite a number of similar recommendations. I would not like it to be thought that there was not some pretty good quality, and well-made window frames turned out at present in Ireland and they have, I think, been made for some years. One firm of which I have knowledge had very long experience in metal work. Where I myself differ from the Government policy is, as I said previously, not that they are prepared to put on tariffs for the purpose of getting goods made here, but that instead of proceeding slowly they are going on without a careful examination. As I have demonstrated here on a good many occasions, if you have one-sixth of the total demand as in the case of shoes, it would not be wise to put on a high tariff on the whole amount instead of proceeding gradually so as to give the home manufacturer an opportunity of gradually increasing his output. The same thing applies in this case. If you have specific articles in metal work and if you were satisfied that the articles could be made here if you gave them protection, in that gradual way you could get the manufacture of the articles going here without increasing the cost to the people. That would have been the way to proceed. But the policy now is to go along slap-bang in every way and then hope for the best. I do not think that is the best way to proceed. I do not disagree with most of the arguments put up by the Parliamentary Secretary, but when he assumes that the policy to be accepted is that you are to pay for the setting up of industries here by paying higher prices than would be necessary if a scientific way were adopted, then I disagree with him.

Mr. Crosbie

Might I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that this metal work required for houses built under housing schemes should be allowed to come in free of duty? After all, the necessity of having this material as cheap as possible has been recognised and the way to help in that direction now is to leave it in free of tariff. It is essential that the money that we are going to vote for the housing scheme should be put to the very best advantage and that we should get as many houses as possible for the money voted. I ask that the Parliamentary Secretary should make inquiry in the office of the Revenue Commissioners as to what loss would be entailed by admitting, duty free, metal work for houses for these schemes that we have been discussing to-day. Failing that, I suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary would agree to fixing a very reduced tariff.

Sir John Keane

I do not want to labour these broader issues. We have got to agree to differ, but I do rather feel a certain satisfaction that the Parliamentary Secretary practically makes my case. He says that as a small nation we have got to suffer in a lack of variety. Why should we suffer because we are a small nation? I do not want to get into deep waters, but the whole philosophy of life, as expounded by the Government, is that because we happen to be a small nation our whole standard of life should be reduced. Now that is a way of looking at it that has the effect of discouraging people of wealth to seek the amenities of life. It will suggest to them either to stay out of the country or if they are in the country to leave it. The result is that the money they might have been circulating here is lost to the country. That is a very big issue. It would be a different matter if these things were examined carefully and their implications weighed, but the Government are dealing with the matter like a bull in a china shop and there is the end of it. Has the Parliamentary Secretary thought anything about the reactions of these things and what they will do? Has he abandoned all inquiry by the Tariff Commission and substituted for it Ministerial orders after a cursory examination? This is a matter that vitally affects the most important element of our national life, that of housing. This is a very flagrant case.

Mr. Flinn

I took the line at the beginning with the deliberate purpose to avoid a whole lot of futile discussion. I do not want every single thing of this kind that is brought up as an individual instance to be made the basis of a general tariff debate. That is exactly what I was out to stop, and for that reason I have stated with strength and clarity, which Senator Sir John Keane is apparently incapable of, the case against tariffs as strongly as it could be put so that it would be recognised that we are fully conscious of everything that could be stated against it and that it is on balance as between good and evil, that we have decided this particular matter. In other words, we are going to save Senator Sir John Keane the trouble of making the same speech that he made on the first recommendation on every other recommendation.

The Senator said that we have abandoned the systematic method of inquiry. We have abandoned the method by which they spent three years inquiring into a tariff on coach-building while the trade and industry of coach-building was in process of disappearing. We have abandoned that definitely. The Senator wants to know why a small nation should suffer under a lack of variety? Because a small nation may not be able to survive unless it is prepared to put up with that and other difficulties. If we are going to take it on that no man in this country will be employed except he is employed on a job which cannot be done cheaper in any other country in the world, then this small nation will disappear. We are not prepared to play chess in the matter. The Senator spoke of going ahead like a bull. He asked me to play chess with the bull, and I am not going to do it. Those are the actual circumstances in the world, and I am not going to have a nice mathematical formula put up to me which means the elimination of the whole people of this country, a scientific programme as represented by three years of investigating an industry which was disappearing.

Senator Douglas has put up a question which, in my opinion, is one of legitimate difference. Accepting the principle that we have to make sacrifices for the purpose of getting industries by means of tariffs, at what rate shall we do it? That is a matter of perfectly legitimate difference of opinion. We differ from Senator Douglas, and for that reason we refuse this recommendation. Senator Jameson has taken on a perfectly common polemical case against this thing; it interferes with housing. It is always the poor, always the poor widow and the orphan who are called in to help in all these cases.

Mr. Jameson

And who suffer.

Mr. Flinn

And who suffer. If, for instance, you add an extra tax on drink it is the widows and orphans who have to share it. If you do anything in relation to any large company or enterprise it is the widows and the orphans who hold all the shares. Senator Jameson, I am very glad to say, did not take the whole burden on his own shoulders, like the Knight of Tears, but he certainly did use these people. I am in favour of everything that is humanly possible being done in relation to reducing the cost of housing, but I am not prepared to take censure from those who are not prepared to do it themselves. When has the Seanad, which objects to this cost of housing, objected to other costs of housing? When have they helped us to reduce ground rents, when have they helped us to reduce freights, when have they helped us to reduce law costs or helped us to reduce anything except the labour costs that goes into housing?

Mr. Douglas

Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell us if he has gone to the trouble of reading through some 1,200 amendments that have been moved to various Bills that have come before us? If he has, I think he will get an eye-opener on these points.

Mr. Flinn

I know that 99 per cent. of them are no credit to the Seanad. For instance, I never found one which allowed for a systematic examination of such Bills as the Public Safety Bill which the Seanad passed without any amendment at all.

Miss Browne

Because amendments were not necessary.

Mr. Flinn

That is the mentality of the Seanad and that is the mentality which makes it absolutely useless for it to pretend to think that it is merely upon the grounds of the cost of housing that we are going to consider a matter of this sort. If the Seanad and the Dáil are prepared to take the line of doing anything and everything which is necessary to reduce the cost of housing to the lowest limit, I am prepared to go for it, but I am certainly not prepared to take the line that we should be treated as people who are acting improperly when we had not concentrated on iron windows and ignored the lawyers, ground-renters and all the rest which enter into the cost of this.

Miss Browne

The Parliamentary Secretary must be as blind as the wall if he does not see that the results of carrying out the Government's tariff policy is going to be more devastating, so far as this country is concerned, than even the great famine.

Mr. Flinn

I do not propose to answer prophecy.

Mr. Jameson

There is no need, I think, to deal with the Parliamentary Secretary's comments as to how the Seanad has carried out its business.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 20; Níl, 14.

Tá.

• Bellingham, Sir Edward.
• Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
• Browne, Miss Kathleen.
• Costello, Mrs.
• Counihan, John C.
• Crosbie, George.
• Desart, The Countess of.
• Dillon, James.
• Fanning, Michael.
• Garahan, Hugh.
• Guinness, Henry S.
• Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew.
• Keane, Sir John.
• Kennedy, Cornelius.
• Moran, James.
• O'Connor, Joseph.
• O'Rourke, Brian.
• Staines, Michael.
• Vincent, A.R.
• Wilson, Richard.

Níl.

• Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
• Comyn, K.C., Michael.
• Connolly, Joseph.
• Cummins, William.
• Linehan, Thomas.
• MacEllin, Seán E.
• MacKean, James.
• O'Doherty, Joseph.
• O'Neill, L.
• Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
• Quirke, William.
• Robinson, David L.
• Robinson, Séumas.
• Ryan, Séumas.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Sir John Kean e and Miss Browne; Níl: Senators S. Robinson and O'Doherty.

Recommendation declared carried.

Sir John Keane

I move Recommendation No. 2:—

First Schedule: To delete Ref. No. 15, including relevant references in columns 2, 3, 4 and 5.

I put down this recommendation to get information. What is the purpose behind this proposal? Is it to raise revenue or is it a tax on ideas? If it is not to raise revenue, I think it is very wrong to place a tax on printed matter—not that I myself do not regard some printed matter as highly dangerous. But on the whole, I would rather incur the danger than not have the printed matter at all; it is a safety valve. It does seem to be a most reactionary aspect of tariff policy to tax thought or ideas as expressed in print.

I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to define the meaning of "foreign Government." I cannot imagine that, holding the views he and his Party do, the British Government, which are generally supposed to be governing us here and under whose tyranny we are supposed to be suffering, could be classed as "foreign." I should like enlightenment on that point. I should also like to know why the tax on books is confined to those bound in leather or in imitation leather. If they are going to be taxed at all, why should only one limited class be taxed? I suggest that, owing to the tax, there will be very little demand for that class of books. I do not want to enter into elaboration of the broader principles. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will refrain on this item from a general attack on the mentality of this House. I was not surprised at his last outburst. I never expected his timidity at his first shot yesterday to last long—it was only to be expected—but I assure him that he should, with no justification whatever, not distinguish himself by a rather unseemly attack—an unwarranted attack —on this House which, as far as I can recollect, on no occasion has rejected any measure brought forward by either Government to ameliorate the conditions of the working classes.

Mr. Comyn

Senator Sir John Keane described this as a tax on ideas. Well, if the object of a tariff is to promote new industries in this country, a tax on foreign ideas may be assumed to promote new industries. I hope, in the future, we will have some new ideas in which we can join, and that we will not be brigaded into Parties which are now as old as our grandfathers. I hope to see Senator Sir John Keane and ourselves having the same ideas on some subject in the near future.

Mr. Douglas

I thought the tax was only on fiction.

Mr. Flinn

Unless Senator Douglas spoke from experience, as a commercial man, in relation to his own printing, when he said what he said he certainly ought to withdraw it in the interests of the reputation of commercial morality. The Senator thought this referred only to fiction. Broadly speaking it refers to commercial printing. Most of the stuff that will come under this item will be commercial printing, which Senator Douglas would be the first to say is not supposed to be fiction.

Mr. Douglas

My reference was entirely to Senator Comyn.

Mr. Flinn

The object is protective. It is for revenue to the extent to which it does not provide new employment. That is a definition of protective duty of a reasonable character. It is intended to protect our own industry including all binding that has foreign leather, to which Senator Sir John Keane objects. I understand that the binding output in Ireland recently from the technical point of view would compare with anything in the world. We are anxious to maintain that condition, just in the same way as yesterday we had to deal with trade technique that we do not know; that was on "eights" for rowing. In the same way the technique in which we have been supreme we desire to maintain. If Senator Sir John Keane's objection is to any preference or discrimination in favour of leather or other binding, if he would like to put down a recommendation that it be extended to all binding we will consider it with an amount of care. As far as the general reference to myself—the unprovoked attack made upon myself—and the inarticulation which made it difficult to know whether it was humility of which he accused me or not, I can only say that my humility is much preferable to Senator Sir John Keane's humidity, and that I am very glad the form of attack which he has been subjected to has raised the temperature so high that from this on he will be dry.

Mr. Guinness

The words in the Bill are "books of all kinds printed in the English language and bound in leather." Is that to be taken literally? There are books in languages other than English bound in leather. Are they admitted free?

Mr. Flinn

They are free.

Sir John Keane

After the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation and notable omission of a reply to my request for information as to the meaning of the word "foreign"—I hope that was only incidental—perhaps he will enlighten me on the meaning of the word "foreign"?

Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. S. Robinson

I move Recommendation No. 3:

First Schedule. Ref. No. 16. Second column. After the word "catalogues" in paragraph (e) to insert in brackets the words "(other than catalogues consisting only of samples of wall paper)."

Mr. Flinn

That recommendation is accepted.

Recommendation agreed to.

Sir John Keane

I move Recommendation No. 4:

Second Schedule. To delete Ref. No. 2 including relevant references in cols 2, 3, 4 and 5.

In order to show the effects in this special case that this will have I had the misfortune to try to restore some old Adam plaster work and I found that it is quite impossible to get the moulds in this country. My inquiries, which may be challenged, led me to believe that it was impossible to get the old moulds of work of a first class character done here. Only one or two firms are in possession of these moulds. People with any artistic taste wishing to restore a work of value will have to pay the tax on the imported article. There again that strikes absolutely at the amenities of life and does reduce the standard of living in the country. After all that standard is not merely confined to the poor but applies to all classes.

Mr. Comyn

Surely Senator Sir John Keane does not object to a tax of 6d. per square yard on material for a beautiful ceiling or cornice?

Mr. Flinn

I think Senator Sir John Keane's reference in this case is what the lawyers call misconceived. This refers to plaster of paris and to slabs which are not finished moulds. It does not apply to finished moulds.

Sir John Keane

I am very glad to know that.

Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.

Leas-Chathaoirleach

I omitted to place before the House the following recommendation which Senator The McGillycuddy of the Reeks dealt with yesterday:

First Schedule. Ref. No. 35. Fifth Column. To insert the following:—

Whenever the Minister for Finance after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce is satisfied that any rowing boat or gear appertaining thereto, which in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners is constructed, designed and intended for racing purposes, is not obtainable or likely to be obtainable in Saorstát Eireann the Revenue Commissioners may by licence authorise any person subject to such conditions as they may think fit to impose, to import the said article without payment of duty 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.

Mr. Flinn

That recommendation is accepted.

Mr. Douglas

Senator The McGilly-cuddy asked me to move the recommendation and he gave me the form which he understood was agreed upon.

Mr. Flinn

The intention of the recommendation has been accepted by the Revenue Commissioners and the one proposed fulfills the Senator's intentions.

Recommendation agreed to.

Sir John Keane

I move Recommendation No. 5:

Second Schedule. To delete Ref. No. 3, including relevant references in columns 2, 3, 4 and 5.

I put this recommendation down in order to get information as to why a tax on newspapers is necessary at all. Is it for revenue or to limit again thought, inquiry, and the stimulus of ideas amongst the reading public? If necessary, why is it limited to certain papers and not imposed upon all papers? Why are ordinary large-sized daily papers free while a weekly one like The Spectator, which, generally speaking, appeals to a most thoughtful and intellectual class, is taxed? There seems to be no policy or purpose except, of course, the very potent one of force majeure behind it, and that the Government cannot afford to offend the more popular daily papers, but does not mind the comments of The Spectator or The new Statesman, which appeal to a very limited public.

Then again, why is this tax confined to English papers, papers published in the English language? Why should this tax not affect Russian, French or German papers? The whole thing seems to me to be utterly inconsistent. I can quite understand the exclusion of periodicals of trade unions. Behind that is the idea of the master's voice. I do not want any explanation on that point. I should like also some explanation of the term "in bulk." It does not seem satisfactory to leave these general terms to the well-intentioned and, I admit, the generally well-applied judgment of the Revenue Commissioners. Can we not get from the Government some idea of what "in bulk" means? If Senator Gogarty or myself brings in two or three papers are we obliged to pay tax or not on them or where does this end? This whole tax seems reactionary. It seems far more a political tax or to be far more inspired by a political outlook than by the so-called tariff or revenue point of view.

Mr. Flinn

That a voice which pleads so strongly for thought and culture should make a speech which was nothing but a series of innuendoes is the condemnation of that speech and the whole mentality behind it. We have nothing but "His Master's Voice,""the political outlook" and the "superior newspapers." That was all. That is certainly not a good introduction for an amendment which is put forward on the grounds of the development of culture. The matter of Senator Sir John Keane's speech can be dealt with simply. "Bulk" means two or more. Very subtle! The reason that English papers are taxed is because unfortunately we do, most of us, know English and anyone who gets in a German or French paper will have to do some study as a rule, and in the process of reading it will keep up that culture and development of thought which is so desirable in the estimation of Senator Sir John Keane. The object is again a protective object, to develop, if possible, printing along that line and alternatively to get revenue. Senator Sir John Keane will understand that in all these cases you have a formula in which there is protection, there is revenue and there is possibly even regulation. In all cases that formula is made up of these particular qualities in different values. I do not think that I need be asked to go into the larger question of what Sir John or I might think might be reactionary—whose master's voice we are to obey in this country. That is a matter we ought to leave out of this question. It is to be regretted that Senator Sir John Keane's recommendation cannot be accepted.

Mr. Connolly

I might add, following what the Parliamentary Secretary has stated, that all trade, craft, scientific, religious and educational journals are excluded from this tax.

Mr. Guinness

I cannot understand the object of this tax unless it is purely for revenue purposes. What substitute can we supply in this country for a number of the weekly journals which are taxed? I might mention The New Statesman, which I invariably read and which is rather favourable to the present Government. Then you have such papers as The Saturday Review and The Spectator. Surely it is not suggested that they are being taxed because the Saorstát is in process of developing the production of periodicals of the same description? That cannot be the reason. If the Minister told us the tax was purely for revenue purposes I could understand it. On that ground I object myself to paying 7d. for The Spectator every week. The amount of revenue from this tariff is infinitesimal while it is most annoying. I remember the first time I was asked to pay it I felt inclined to do without the paper. That, however, was foolish, so I paid my extra penny. I really think it is most annoying.

Miss Browne

I wish to call attention to the tax as it affects children's papers, those of boys particularly. A large number of small boys are growing up rebels against the Government because of the fact that they have to pay 3d. for these papers now. I think it is a hardship to children to deprive them, as it is depriving a great many of them, of their weekly literature.

Mr. Connolly

I should like to express my personal opinion about this tax, as it has been discussed so freely. I think it must be recognised that a great many of the periodicals that were coming into this country and for which there was a ready market were not at all of a desirable type. I refer to the very big circulation of such papers as were known as penny weeklies and that were published in England. It is felt that if these are going to come in —and they do come in in bulk to a circulation of thirty or forty thousand —at least that circulation justifies printing here. I do not think the culture of the country is going to be disturbed or interfered with if these papers are kept out. The same applies, only to a greater extent, to such boys' papers as come in here. They were entirely an anglicising and certainly not an improving type of literature, if one could call them literature at all. The purpose is to get such papers as have a large circulation printed here or preferably have these substituted by papers of our own. If they have to come in, then we should make these papers a source of revenue.

Sir John Keane

I am sorry the Minister is not disposed to treat my remarks seriously. I think it is due to the House to be told or to be given more particulars as to the revenue which it is estimated will be derived from this tax. Senator Connolly tells us what is intended, but does he realise the effect of this? The effect of this is that if a person gets the Boys Own Paper, The Sphere and The Spectator by post he is charged 3/-.

Mr. Flinn

In bulk.

Sir John Keane

Is that not correct? I shall put it this way. If you get three old copies of The Sphere in you are charged 3/-. That has been my unfortunate experience. That is what actually happens in practice. No doubt, perhaps, it is not intended, but one of the beauties of all this tariff business is that what is not intended very often happens. That is the sort of thing that happens, and the Parliamentary Secretary must be extraordinarily out of touch if he does not know how exasperated the people are about these things. Would he deal specifically with these cases? For example, if you get two or three of these papers sent you in one wrapper, are you not allowed?

Mr. Flinn

Senator Sir John Keane is perfectly right.

Sir John Keane

There you are! There is the kind of irritation the public is suffering. Take a person in a country district. He cannot rely on a newsagent in his district. You have not got newsagents in these districts who find it worth while to carry stocks of these more or less intellectual newspapers with a limited public. I only ask the Seanad to weigh the two sides. The Parliamentary Secretary is asking us to look at it from the employment side. Up and down the country there are people being annoyed beyond all measure by this policy, and that is why I think it my duty to bring up this matter, simply as one example of the actual effect, the irritating effect, of this no doubt well-intentioned policy.

Mr. Flinn

I admitted it. Not merely did I admit it, but I proclaimed the truth of Senator Sir John Keane's statement, and he says "There you are"! That does not carry us anywhere. What does it mean? It means that if someone who prefers to get some English newsagent to send him the stuff, it will cost him 3/-, and if he tells a newsagent in Dublin to send it, it will cost him 3d.

Sir John Keane

A day later.

Mr. Flinn

Oh yes! That is the difficulty. There is no reason in the wide world to believe that they would be even a day late in the matter, and the idea that the whole policy of the Government is to be altered because somebody is afraid that his copy of the Delineator or the Tatler or the Sphere might arrive a day late is absurd. It is enormously important to such people to see those beautiful advertisements on the front pages, but to the average person it does not matter the tossing of a coin. By putting on that 3/-, it means that Senator Connolly, in his capacity as Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, will get the revenue of the distribution of those newspapers to the extent to which they are distributed by post as distinct from the revenue obtained on the other side. This is a tax making for regulation to the extent of keeping out relatively undesirable periodicals —I mean a certain type of periodical which does not certainly include such papers as those mentioned. The tax is here in relation to income, to the extent that the type of people who buy Tatler or the Delineator or the Sphere are quite capable of paying the extra tax, having regard to the 5/- in the £ of income tax and all sorts of other taxes on the poor here yesterday. It is for the purpose of giving employment to the extent to which it will induce these things to be printed in Ireland.

I have a certain sympathy with the objection of Senator Miss Browne on the point of the boys' papers. I will tell a story, however, which will illustrate the hopelessness of her position. The Minister who was responsible, and who has refused to exempt them in my House, was subject to the most violent pressure of two small boys, whom I cannot resist under any circumstances, and they were not able to shift him. If they were not able to do it, I am perfectly sure the Seanad will not be able.

Recommendation put and declared carried.

Sir John Keane

I move Recommendation No. 6:

Second Schedule. To delete Ref. No. 6, including relevant references in columns 2, 3, 4 and 5.

Here again, I should like to protest against this tax on books confined to novels. Would the Parliamentary Secretary say how this distinction is really going to be determined, because I imagine that there is a very wide range of literature which is on the borderline? And again, why is this tax, or most of this tax, confined to books printed in the English language? Is it a revenue tax? If so, how much is it going to bring in? If it is not a revenue tax what is its purpose?

Mr. Flinn

Again, I would refer the Senator to the formula already enunciated. It is partly for the purpose of regulation, partly for the purpose of income, and partly for the purpose of employment.

Sir John Keane

How much?

Mr. Flinn

As far as regulation is concerned, to an extent that the Senator is in quite as good a position as I am to judge. To what degree a particular amount of tax would prevent a particular amount of literature coming in, his judgment is a matter of his opinion, and mine would not most certainly be agreed to by him. From the point of view of income, as far as all the taxes in the Dáil are concerned, a figure of £900,000 was estimated to cover all of them. It was recognised that owing to the lack of systematic preparation, it was not possible to get those exact estimates which we would like, in relation to a whole series of individual items which have proved to be so wrong in so far as they were systematically examined. We do not profess to give in any detail the income which is to be derived from each of those sources. From the point of view of employment, it is certainly giving employment. There is a firm here in Dublin which is turning out very excellently bound volumes. I read one every night of my life, because I do not sleep in the City. They are the best bound and easiest to read of any novels of that particular character which I have come across, and I believe that this tax will enable that industry to be developed.

Mrs. Costelloe

What did they cost? Was it 6d?

Mr. Flinn

They cost 1/-, as a matter of fact. I am a plutocrat. We are asked who is going to define the novel. Considering the number of things that the Revenue Commisioners are asked to define it does seem a ridiculous job to ask them now to define a novel. They are asked, for instance, to define what is religious. If we have that amount of confidence in them that we ask them to define what is a religious periodical I think we may leave them safely to define what is a novel. We cannot accept this recommendation.

Mr. Douglas

Would the Parliamentary Secretary say how many novels per night the Revenue Commissioners would have to read to define a novel?

Mr. Guinness

I take it that novels printed in the French language will be admitted free. They are very edifying.

Mr. Flinn

I think the Senator should not give away his experience so easily.

Sir John Keane

I can only again say that I find my case strengthened by the remark made by the Parliamentary Secretary. I do not think anyone could have pointed out more forcibly the absurdity of the whole thing than the case of the Revenue Commissioners being asked to define what is religious. It was very interesting what the Parliamentary Secretary stated about a firm turning out excellent novels of which the Parliamentary Secretary tells us he reads one each night. I am surprised he has that capacity. I think there can be only one firm in the country that is doing that particular trade, that is a firm that does cheap business and has done a lot of printing for Woolworths. It would be worth his while to inquire further. The managing director of the firm I have in mind said that owing to the tariff policy that has been pursued they have lost their export trade. I think it is worth following up to see if it is the same firm. It certainly is a firm that does a large amount of novel printing and the managing director informed me that they were losing their export trade. I am sure the Minister would like to know what the reactions of his policy are and I think this would be one of the ways of finding out. I ask leave to withdraw the recommendation.

Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.

Question—"That the Finance Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.