Yesterday I spoke about the burden the stamp duty imposes on various people who want to purchase property, farms or businesses. I would like to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister and perhaps he will be able to give us the official view. There is now a 5 per cent. stamp duty on the purchase of any property of any sort in this country. It is a deterrent to very many people, particularly to farmers who may want to buy farms for their sons that the State comes in and takes 5 per cent. The same is true of anyone who wants to buy a business. It is the people who work and who want to do things who, in my opinion, are the true patriots, and I do not think the Government ought to put a premium on their initiative or ability. The tax is defeating itself at the moment. When a tax fails to bring in the amount of revenue it was designed to bring in, then, I think, it becomes a bad tax. We had an example of that in the case of wines and spirits for the last few months and I believe the same is happening in regard to this tax. It might be well if the Minister made a virtue of necessity and reduced the tax very considerably.
Finance Bill, 1948 ( Certified Money Bill ) Committee (Resumed); and Final Stages.
He cannot, if you do not put down an amendment.
Mr. Burke
The Minister can.
No, he cannot.
Not on a section. This is an exemption section.
The time fixed for amendments was 6 o'clock on Tuesday evening.
Mr. Burke
Senator Hayes said to-day, when another Senator raised an objection, that it would be better to allow the people to speak.
I cannot stop them, but what you are asking to be done cannot be done.
Mr. Burke
Perhaps we could have the Minister's view. I think it would be in the public interest to do what I suggest and maybe someone who has more experience than I have may sometime or another put down the amendment. In fact, I think Senator Duffy was in some agreement and mentioned it on Second Reading, and the Minister did not give his opinion.
The section is an exemption section simply. If there is any agreement or conveyance or anything of the description set out in the section which results in the transfer of property to a Minister of State then there is not to be any stamp duty payable on it. It is a simple section. Previously when a Minister took over property on behalf of the State he paid the duty and got the money refunded out of the Contingency Fund. It was only a passage of money from one pocket to another. Senator Burke is on the question of stamp duty. The 5 per cent. stamp duty has not failed as a revenue producer. It is getting revenue. The 25 per cent. stamp duty, from the point of view of revenue, is almost entirely a failure. There are only a few thousand pounds coming in from that but it means that certain sales of property have been stopped, whether the effect of the tax or not, I do not know, but these sales are no longer taking place. As far as the 5 per cent stamp duty is concerned, revenue is coming in and, apart from that—again, whether it is the effect of the duty or not, I cannot say; it has not been running long enough for any considered judgment to be passed on it —the fact of the matter is that house property is experiencing a bit of a slump at the moment. Sales are coming down and more and more sellers are finding it necessary to pay the tax. That being the tendency at the moment I think it would be bad to stop that. I think we should let that tendency develop. If the sellers pay the tax, from the purchasers' point of view, that is all to the good and, with the decrease in the value of house property at the moment, even with the 5 per cent., and even if it is paid by the purchaser, there is less being paid than there was before. In addition, the State are getting a considerable amount of revenue. I was asked to remit this tax of 5 per cent. It would cost at least £300,000 in the year, and I cannot afford that at the moment but, if the tendency is there, I think we should accentuate it.
Do I understand that it would cost £300,000 a year?
On the 5 per cent.
And that the revenue from the 25 per cent. was a matter of a few thousand pounds?
Negligible. The property on which the big tax would be paid is not, apparently, being sold under the circumstances.
To non-nationals.
Therefore, the tax is not yielding any revenue but it may have another effect.
The property is being sold to nationals and they are paying five per cent. on it.
In other words it acted as a deterrent.
We do not know. There was always a certain amount of confusion as to what amount of property was passing to non-nationals. People thought there was a tremendous amount sold. Afterwards it was found that the stories were exaggerated. We have no method of making a comparison. In fact, the 25 per cent. tax is worth only a few thousand pounds to the State.
Mr. Hayes
The sales were very slow.
The sales to non-nationals were very few.
This section empowers the Minister for Finance with a flair to do so to raid the Road Fund. It empowers him to take from the Road Fund £300,000 between certain dates. This is a means of raising money for the Exchequer and I am sure it is one under which the Minister claims to have brought about a certain amount of organisation. While it takes from one fund it devotes the moneys to purposes for which it was not subscribed in the first instance. There is much leeway to be made up in the road services and this money should be devoted to the work for which it was subscribed.
Whatever leeway has to be made up on the roads now, there were the same requirements last October when the tax was imposed. I am only trying to follow in the steps of my predecessor. He only got £200,000 for part of the year. It is the same tax and I am hoping to get £300,000.
Everything they did must be right.
Not so much, but it is rather difficult for the Senator and his colleagues to argue against it.
This section empowers the Minister to increase the rate of interest on Post Office savings. The point I want to raise now does not concern interest on such savings but the increased interest on local loans.
This deals with the Savings Bank.
I understand. I suppose I will have an opportunity of referring to the matter later.
I am intrigued at the manner in which items in relation to the Post Office Saving Bank are dealt with. I happened to be looking through some Statutory Rules and Orders recently, and I came across one made last year by the previous Minister for Finance, by which he reduced the rate of interest from 2½ per cent., which I think was fixed about 25 years ago, to 2 per cent. That was done by an Order made by the Minister. I cannot understand why it was necessary to put this provision in this Bill. It seems to me that all he required to do was to revoke the Order made by his predecessor. Why it is done differently now has intrigued me, but I am not discussing the merits.
What was done by the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs with regard to postal charges?
Presumably this could have been done by Order. The situation was that the 2½ per cent. was provided in 1861 by statute, and when the change was made it was made by statute. We thought it better to revert to that procedure and to give an opportunity of having the matter discussed. Presumably it could have been done earlier. Senators will realise why this move is made. In the finance statement I indicated that there was an encashment in 1947 of £220,000. In 1946 there was an increase of £3? million in deposits. There was a net increase for many years before that. Withdrawals exceeded deposits for the first time in 1947, and some people question if the rate of interest had much to do with that.
I do not know if people are so meticulous about the rate of interest that they thought so much of the decrease. It had an unsettling effect. People took the line that money was not regarded as having any great value or likely to retain it, and that there was a move against savings. We want to show the opposite tendency.
Would the Minister induce the banks to raise the rate of interest on deposits? There is a considerable amount of farmers' money on deposit.
That is a situation I would not like to interfere with. If farmers are inclined to put money into the banks and get 1 per cent. on it that might form a very useful type of debate later. I am interested in that situation.
Farmers will be interested to hear that.
Some two years ago the then Minister for Finance introduced what was known as the Transition Development Fund. The object was to recoup local authorities additional charges arising out of works they undertook, compared with the liability that they might have incurred if such works had not been deferred while awaiting a reduction in costs of various items. A sum of about £5,000,000 was set aside for the purpose, but because of the slowness with which materials came along—which was not anticipated when the fund was initiated—there was not much demand on the fund by local authorities. Apart from the demands made by such authorities, many of them had plans prepared for schemes that they were about to start, on the assumption that, together with the subsidy they would receive for housing, they would get a contribution from this fund which would enable houses to be let at what might be considered reasonable rents. The Minister may say the last Government proposed to terminate this fund in December 1948 and he proposes to leave it to March of 1949. If general housing development is to be undertaken, when materials become available, the Minister should extend the date so as to give local authorities some encouragement. The Minister for Local Government has visited various counties and consulted various authorities on housing, but they seem to be as wise after the visit as before it. We have here a fund out of which they were to be recouped the additional cost of undertaking the work at the present time. There is provision here for the closing of that fund. On the other hand, we see the increased rate of interest on local loans and we are told that the increase will not affect housing. How does the Minister propose to segregate housing activities from the provision of water, sewerage and so on, so that the amount in one part of a loan will be at one rate of interest and the amount in another part will be at another rate?
The Minister said last night, in reply to Senator Fitzsimons, that it would not be any burden on housing, as there would be an increased subsidy to make up the difference. If the Minister is serious and appreciates that it is necessary to make up the difference, why put the ratepayers in every county to the expense of raising money at a high rate of interest when after 12 months a scheme is completed they will be recouped the amount spent on housing out of a particular fund? When does the Minister propose to bring about this increase in the rate of interest? What is the principle enshrined? What headline does he propose to set?
There is also a provision for local authorities to make loans to private individuals for the erection of houses under the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act. Local authorities borrowed this money more often than not from the Local Loans Fund. If the rate of interest is to be increased the local authority must, in turn, increase the rate to the borrower to whom the Minister has referred as the white-collar worker, for whom no other housing provision is made. This proposal to increase the interest rate will make it more difficult for those people to erect houses for themselves.
One does not like to attribute everything to the change of Government, but it must have had certain effects, since the banks have already stopped loans for house purchase and so also have the majority of building organisations. The Minister should clarify the position of local loans. Despite his intervention on the Second Stage, I have seen this evening in a local paper from Galway, which I am sure does not exaggerate, that the secretary of Galway Corporation read a communication received from the Department of Local Government setting out that, as a result of the increased rate of interest in local loans, it will be necessary to increase the rents of houses at present about to be finished. Senator Burke could vouch for this, as far as Clonmel Corporation is concerned, that the same type of circular was read there. Despite the visits of the Minister for Local Government, despite the urge to proceed as quickly as possible, there is such a misunderstanding between the Departments of Local Government and Finance in this connection that the position demands immediate clarification.
One other matter requires clarification, with regard to the rate of interest on local loans under the Small Dwellings Act. Many people received with pleasure the announcement recently made that loans to local authorities for building labourers' cottages would still be at 2½ per cent. and would not be increased. However, there seems to be uncertainty as to what the rate of interest is to be for farmers with small holdings who wish to borrow money under the Small Dwellings Act, that is, those farmers who are not eligible for cottages under the ordinary labourers' cottages schemes. I believe that many of those small farmers, especially in the west of Ireland, are just as badly off as any agricultural labourer. They think it would be unfair that they should be charged a higher rate of interest than for the houses built for agricultural labourers. I hope that is not the case, but it deserves clarification. If money is to be lent for the building of labourers' cottages at 2½ per cent., then these small farmers should have the same advantage.
I do not know where the misunderstanding can possibly be. Speaking in the Dáil on the Financial Resolution on the 4th May— the reference is at column 1055 of the Dáil Reports—I said:—
"As the rate of 2½ per cent. now involves loss to the Exchequer I have decided that for advances made from to-morrow onwards from the Exchequer and the Local Loans Fund to State organisations and local authorities the rate of interest will be 3¼ per cent. per annum. It is proposed to alleviate the effect of this increase in the case of housing schemes of local authorities."
The alleviation goes the full 100 per cent. increase. Where there is any misunderstanding I do not know. I will have to look at the circulars that have been sent out. I am quite clear what is happening. I am making nothing out of this; in fact, I am losing. I am asked what is the principle. The principle is that the State should not be asked to lend money at a lower rate than that at which it can borrow. The 2½ per cent. was always notional. The Minister for Finance who preceded me, in one year said that he was going to look to the public to subscribe to an issue at a maximum of 2½ per cent., and on the basis that they could get the money at that rate they made these changes with regard to the Local Loans Fund. But he never did get the money and never ventured to ask the public to give him money at that rate. It was always a notion. The best rate that could be got was 3 per cent.—the rate at which money was borrowed recently. I am merely holding to what the position has been—that the State ought not be asked to lend to other people at a lower rate than that at which it can borrow. So far as local authority housing is concerned, there will be no difference.
In regard to the Small Dwellings (Acquisition) Act, that matter is under consideration at the moment. Certain changes are being suggested, but the final decisions have not yet been taken. I cannot anticipate what the decision of the Government will be on that point. With regard to the Transition Development Fund, which is really the only matter that is relevant to this section, all that the section does is that it postpones the date for the winding up of the fund. Speaking on that on the Financial Resolution on the 4th May, I said:—
"It is proposed to defer the winding up of the fund until the end of the current financial year and provision will be made accordingly in the coming Finance Bill. In the meantime, consideration will be given to the extent to which charges now accepted as a liability on the fund should be transferred to ordinary Votes."
That consideration is still going on.
The Minister missed the point that I was anxious to get information on. I am particularly interested in sewerage schemes in urban districts. Will the rate in respect of these be 3¼ per cent.?
I am making full alleviation in respect of housing and nothing else.
In other words, the ordinary sewerage works on a housing scheme will be at the new rate of 3¼ per cent.? I am aware of a sewerage scheme, the estimated cost of which was £15,000. It will probably cost £10,000 now. In connection with such schemes, it is customary for the local authority to borrow the money from the Local Loans Fund. Am I to take it that the local authority will now have to pay 3¼ per cent. interest on that money?
Yes.
In respect of an extension of a waterworks scheme in any of our small towns and villages, if the money for that purpose is borrowed from the Local Loans Fund will the interest charge be at the rate of 3¼ per cent?
Yes.
I take it that if there is a housing scheme in progress the installation of water and sewerage will form part of it. If the Dublin Corporation, or the Dublin County Council, borrows £50,000 for a housing scheme they will have to make roads, to build the houses and to lay on sewerage and water to the houses. It seems to me that all that work forms part of the scheme.
I am with the Senator there.
I think that all that work comes within the scheme, and that the £50,000 is borrowed for the purpose of a scheme which is properly called a housing scheme, the other things being incidental or ancillary to it.
The Minister for Local Government has been urging local authorities to do certain development work on housing schemes by direct labour. In view of all the circumstances, I am in favour of such development by direct labour, but ordinarily all that work would be included in the building contract. I do not want the position to arise whereby the Department of Finance could come along and say that such work was not housing, and that, therefore, the rate of interest on the money required for it was to be at the rate of 3¼ per cent. I do not want to have them saying that there will be no alleviation in respect of that, and that the local authority will have to bear the extra ¾ per cent. Such work is part and parcel of the housing scheme. If we attempt to do that work by direct labour then I think we ought not to be fobbed off by the Department of Finance and told that we will have to pay the extra ¾ per cent. If that is going to be the position the local authority will refuse to do this work by direct labour. All the work will then be set out in the contract documents and tenders will be invited.
I am glad to be given the opportunity to make a reservation. What I said in the Dáil was that in respect of advances made from the Exchequer and the Local Loans Fund to State organisations and local authorities the rate of interest would be 3¼ per cent., but I added "It is proposed to alleviate the effect of this increase in the case of housing schemes of local authorities." I see now that a very wide interpretation is being put on that. I want to enter a reservation against any enlargement of what I said. I am not going to have development schemes run in as housing schemes. I will stand by what I said. Will Senator Hearne agree that the builders' organisation might well afford to bear part of the ¾ per cent.?
I want to tell the Minister that I was amazed to find the difference which this will make in the weekly rental of a house.
Not if the builders cut down.
Last night I went to the trouble of looking up some of my books and I found one fairly good example about increased costs. This was a piece of work that used to be done by a tradesman in 1938. He did 30 yards in a day. In 1948 the output, instead of being 30 yards, was only 18 yards. Wages have been very considerably increased since 1938. The actual cost of a yard of work in 1938, as compared with a yard of the same type of work in 1948, has increased 3.45 times over the 1938 figure. Senators may find it hard to believe that. It seems almost incredible. I did not believe it myself until I worked it out. Senator Fitzsimons last night mentioned a fact which is well known to every member of a local authority, namely, that in 1938 we used to be able to get houses built for an all-in sum of £300. Now we get tenders from various people for building the same type of house at £1,000, £1,100 and there was an extreme case where the figure was £1,400.
That is a good deal more than your 3.45 increase.
The figure that I gave was practically 3½ times greater than the 1938 figure.
On your own figures if the tradesman sinned the builder sinned doubly.
These were types of houses that used to be built in 1938 for £300. I am not standing here to justify exaggerated profits by speculative builders or anything like that.
Or an increase in the price of the essentials.
Exactly. I never built a speculative house in my life. All my work and my father's work was on competitive tenders for local authorities and these are the figures I am going on. The picture presented by the Minister about increased costs suggested that £8,800,000 was left in the pockets of the builders by way of excess profits.
Of limited companies.
Of limited companies. Then he went on to point out what his opinion is in regard to wages and all the advantages gained in the last few years and he laid responsibility on trade union leaders and said that they should think before supporting any more demands for increased wages except in very special circumstances. Every thinking person will agree with him but there is a third aspect to the matter and it is that there is something more that responsible trade union leaders will have to inculcate into the minds of their members and that is this question of the reduction of output, unless the whole lot of us are riding for a fall. A man was no worse off when laying three squares of flooring in 1938 than in 1948 when he only lays two squares. There is no justification for that. Unless something is done about this we are all, as I said before, riding for a fall and that applies not only to building but to every other industry as well.
I do not like to enter into this interesting conflict that has arisen between Senator Hearne and the Minister. I want to go back to the point I was dealing with a few minutes ago, and that is to the definition of development in regard to houses under the housing loan. I do not want to feel that what the Minister has said implies that the housing authority must divide its loan into two or three parts for the purposes of finding out exactly the portion to be spent on the actual building of the house as distinct from the amounts spent on road-making, the provision of sewerage and water. I do not think the local authority should be asked to do that. I do not think they will do it. Well, I suppose it could be done if insisted upon, but let us keep this in mind: if the Minister is going to charge 3¼ per cent. for a loan to a local authority for making roads as distinct from the actual building and also for the provision of water and sewerage he is going to add 15/- per cent. to the cost of the house. Senator Hearne knows more about this matter than I do, but I assume that if a house is costing £1,000 it is only reasonable to attribute £150 or £200 of this sum to the cost of road-making and the provision of water and sewerage. I am only guessing now. I remember houses being built on the Malahide Road about 20 years ago. They were not built by a local authority, they were built by a utility society, and the contract did not provide for a wall at the end of the gardens. The persons who got possession of the houses soon discovered that there was only a piece of wire running at the end of the gardens, which was not effective in keeping out trespass. They decided to build a dividing wall at the end of their property, and if I remember rightly the cost of building a nine-inch wall was £15 per house. If that was so, I think that the cost of putting in water and sewerage and roads is going to represent about £150 of the total cost of the house which is £1,000.
If the Minister's reservation means he is going to divide the rate, it means he is going to add 15 per cent. to the cost of the house. I think he should reflect on the effect this is going to have on rural housing and town housing too. It is the psychological effect I fear most. You will find local authorities starting a row and there is going to be a conflict between the council in Longford and the Custom House and the Department of Finance and between all three the people are going to be left without their houses and the Minister will have to come along eventually and help out of public funds. If the houses are built and the people who occupy them cannot afford to pay the economic rent the Minister will be obliged, in the long run to come in by a side wind and relieve them and that will cost the Exchequer more than the relief suggested here. I hope that the Minister will not close his mind to the plea I am making now.
I am pleased that my remarks have drawn from the Minister a clarification of the position, a clarification which I feel sure the local authorities will not be too pleased to hear, because he has clarified the position as I was putting it. Senator Duffy, I am pleased to see, agrees that if the rate of interest is going to be divided between the different types of work involved in the erection of houses, we are going to have a very unsatisfactory state of affairs existing as between the local authority and the central authority. You simply cannot segregate the development work in connection with the house from the entire building operation. If a local authority decides to go ahead with the housing scheme they raise a loan and proceed with the development work. If this loan is going to cost them a higher rate of interest than the actual loan for the building of the house the final costs are going to go up. I submit to the Minister that all the activities of the local authorities for which loans are necessary have more or less the same urgency and importance as housing. If a loan is for the purpose of providing a water scheme in an already built-up area or a playground or for the purpose of providing any of the other social services the local authorities have to provide it should be available at the cheapest possible rate of interest. I have no less important persons supporting this argument than the present Taoiseach and the present Minister for Education. This time last year a motion was introduced in the Dáil by Mr. Costello and Deputy Mulcahy asking the then Government to set up a housing public utility corporation or a national housing authority financed by State funds. I do not want to weary the House by going through it—it is a very lengthy motion—but they suggested that advances should be at a rate of interest not exceeding 1¼ per cent. It was the view of the present Taoiseach 12 months ago and of his colleagues who now form the Government that the question of housing was of such national importance that money should be provided by the Exchequer at no greater rate than 1¾ per cent. Now we have the Minister for Finance telling us that, because builders have made such huge profits, they should oblige local authorities by making a sacrifice, in order that houses might be erected at the same cost and should make up the difference between the new rate of interest in the Budget and the old rate of 2½ per cent.
What reply did the Minister for Finance make last year to the proposal?
Surely you do not want the previous Government to reply to it?
Was there a division?
The Senator is so inquisitive that I feel in case he might be worried I should tell him that the motion did not reach the point of being discussed, because there was a general election.
It was said of a judge long ago that he explained what seemed so clear so clearly that it seemed confused. I am apparently in that condition. I said in the Dáil that it is proposed to alleviate the effect of the increase in the case of housing schemes by local authorities. I say that the alleviation is the full 100 per cent., and I am sticking by that. My mind was drawn to the danger, when I heard people who are very strong on the local authority side beginning to talk about what they called development schemes, which might be entirely sewage disposal schemes or water supply schemes, that they might be run in under them. They will not be. Senator Duffy asked me whether the supply of water to a housing scheme or whatever is done with regard to sanitation is included. I should think it would be, and I know very well that when this goes back to the Government my colleague in the Department of Local Government will bite the national ear for all he is worth and will probably insist that this phrase of mine be interpreted entirely in favour of the local authority. I do not know what confusion arises about the matter. I do not want to have what is really a development scheme of the sewage disposal or water supply type run in under the guise of a housing scheme.
I think builders ought to be asked to make a contribution, and in saying that I am not referring to Senator Hearne personally. I have under my eye builders and building material suppliers and a range of profits from 1937-38. There was one phenomenal year when they soared to such a point that they declined immediately, but I am leaving that year out. There is an upward line all along the whole period —an increase in 1943-44 over 1942-43; an increase in 1944-45 over the year before; in 1945-46, another increase; in 1946-47, a further increase; and in 1947-48, an increase again. If I could get builders' profits back to the amounts they were taking as profits about the year 1944-45, and if they would remit the profits over and above, the difference of ¾ per cent. in the interest rate does not matter.
There is one terrible fallacy in the Minister's figures. There were no housing schemes in all these years—not a single one.
If you have more work, why should you have the same rate of profit?
The members of local authorities now have this question posed to them: when is a housing scheme not a housing scheme? That is what it amounts to.
A housing scheme is one which will get the alleviation.
Before we pass away from the very interesting discussion we have had on this Bill, it might be as well for me to refer to some few remarks made by various speakers. We had an appeal from Senator Baxter and other Senators from the Government side for co-operation. We had an appeal for the adoption by those of us on this side of a different approach to measures introduced into this House from that which we seemingly had. This appeal for co-operation and for the acceptance, as being in good faith, by us of every measure and proposal brought in by the Government is made, on the one hand, while the Minister introducing the Bill both here and in the other House saw fit to level the old charges of corruption and all that goes with them against this Party. We had trotted out here last night the same type of thing as the Minister trotted out in the Dáil. It was suggested that, while this Party was in power, there was political corruption and jobbery.
Might I ask, on a point of order, if the Senator can show how this is related to the Finance Bill, or if he can show what is in the Bill to which his speech is relevant?
I submit that my remarks in endeavouring to show the House how unjustified the Minister's statements last night were have more relation to the matter before the House than the Minister's statements last night had.
Mr. Hayes
I do not want to prevent Senator Hawkins making this kind of speech—I am afraid he will get plenty of opportunities later on—but I suggest that, on the Fifth Stage, we are confined to what is in the Bill.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is the rule, Senator.
Mr. Hayes
The Fifth Stage is not a time for going back over the debate on the various stages. I make that point merely from the point of view of general business and not for the purpose of preventing this particular type of debate. On the Fifth Stage, however, we are strictly confined to what is in the Bill.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That is so. Senators are confined to what is contained in the Bill.
I do not wish to dwell at any length on this matter, but I want to say that, if the Party opposite want co-operation and want the spirit which existed in this House to continue to exist here, it would be well if the Minister and some of his colleagues who come to the House from time to time, would refrain from giving utterance to the statements to which they frequently give utterance in the other House. I suggest again that if the Minister believes in that statement of his, that there was this corruption and bribery while this Party was in power, he and his colleagues have now at their disposal all the files and all the ways and means of having an investigation carried out, and the sooner that investigation is carried out the better for the political life of the country. I want to put another aspect before the House. As I said on the Second Stage, this Bill arises out of the Budget, and it is very hard to speak to one without having some relation to the other. I was surprised during the Second Reading and the Committee Stage at the attitude of those members who I assume to be representing labour.
I thought Fianna Fáil represented labour.
And the little they made of any remarks that were addressed to the question of increased prices or to what the Minister referred to as the adjustment in subsidies. I think it was Senator Baxter or Senator Duffy or Senator O'Farrell who passed slightly over the increase on oatmeal.
I made no reference to it whatever.
I never heard of it. I never saw oatmeal.
When a member of this House takes a matter of this kind so slightly as to say he never saw oatmeal and does not know what it is, we know that man is not serious, or we hope he is not.
Why be suspicious?
But the increase brought about by the adjustment in subsidy is no less than 3/- per stone and surely that is something to be considered and something in which the labour people in particular ought to be interested. Despite all the protests made by Senator Seamus O'Farrell as to the meagreness of these increases and the little effect they will have on the cost of living, I am sure that when the labour people go before the Labour Court to demand increases of wages, these are the very arguments they will use to sustain their claim.
I also asked the Minister on Second Reading—and so far I have not got a reply—as to what particular works were going to be put in abeyance as a result of the savings in the Board of Works, in the Department of Education and in the Department of Posts and Telegraphs. It is only reasonable that, if provision is made in a Book of Estimates for the expenditure of a certain sum of money and decision is taken afterwards not to expend that money, the House should know on what items the saving is proposed to be made. Since this saving was announced, we have received notification from the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs that he proposes to increase postal rates, which will have the effect of levying a further £200,000 on the public. Here again I am sure Senator Seamus O'Farrell and Senator Duffy will tell us that that is not going to increase the cost of living, that it will not have the effect of imposing additional charges.
If you keep your letters the right way you will not have to pay anything extra.
The Minister, in reply to my statements in regard to turf production and the repercussions of the stoppage of turf production in the West, told us that there was plenty of employment now for all who were unemployed.
I want again to point out that I do not get a 1d. saving from turf this year. It is not in the Budget or in the Finance Bill.
Is any member entitled to make a Second Reading speech on this stage? The sooner we have clarification of that point the better for the order of business in the House.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I have already stated the rule, and I hope Senators will abide by the rule and confine themselves to what is in the Bill.
The contents.
I think I have addressed all my remarks to the subject matter of the Bill, both on this occasion and on the previous occasion. It is only reasonable, when a case is presented to the Minister and when information is sought, that when that information is not given, it is within the rights of a Senator to press the Minister to give the information asked for. If I have transgressed it is as a result of the statements made by the Minister last night and I am trying to put before the Minister the position as it exactly is.
I think Senator Hawkins is under a misapprehension. Senator Hawkins clearly stated that his speech is directed to what the Minister said last night. I submit he is not entitled to any such right at this stage of the Bill.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
No, not on this stage. On Second Reading the debate is often of a very wide nature and matters are introduced which have very little reference to the Bill at all, but on a Fifth Stage the debate is confined to what the Bill contains.
The Second Stage of a Finance Bill is a free for all.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I quite agree. Very often extraneous matter is introduced.
Whether you like it or not, the Minister has the last word.
Senator Hawkins would be finished long ago if he were left alone.
I can, if it is the desire of Senator Duffy, relate all my remarks to the Bill and still occupy probably twice as much of the time of the House.
I am not thinking of the time occupied by the Senator. What I am afraid of is that if he makes the speech he is proposing to make he will call for a number of replies from other people.
We do not mind.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Replies will not be allowed.
I think we should be serious about this. Every member of this House has a right to speak as long as he is relevant. That is what the Fifth Stage is for. Senator Hawkins is quite right in that he asked for information. He says the Minister did not give that information. I think the purpose of the Fifth Stage is to give an opportunity to draw attention to that fact.
No.
I do not remember being asked any question that I did not answer.
My complaint about the Minister is that he answers too many questions at too great length.
After all, he is your Minister. He is not ours. In fact, the Labour Party claim the privilege and honour of putting him where he is.
He is a great credit to all of us.
I want to know what the questions are that I did not answer.
I do not wish to delay the House further, except to put the question to the Minister. I hope Senator Duffy will be satisfied and, if he has any lengthy speech to make, he will find that we have no objection to it.
Mine will keep.
The Minister stated last night in connection with turf production, which, after all, is very important——
On what section of the Bill is the Senator speaking? There is no turf in the Finance Bill.
There was no turf in it last night.
We were then on Second Reading.
If the Minister and the House are so much afraid to hear the truth about the position brought about through the cancellation of the hand-won turf scheme, then I must only submit. But I would put this point——
May I ask again a ruling on this point of order? Is a Senator entitled to get up and make a Second Reading speech on the Final Stage of a Bill and address himself to the Bill in such a way that there is no relation whatever in what he is saying to what is in the Bill? Cannot we have a ruling on that, not only for this occasion, but for other occasions as well?
I suggest that Senator Hawkins was just departing from the line of country that was being objected to and was going to make a point. He was not allowed to make it. Senator Baxter gets up and asks for a ruling on something that Senator Hawkins was about to say.
I am asking the Chair, and not Senator Hearne.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Chair has stated clearly already that on this stage of the Bill a Senator must deal with the Bill itself.
And not with turf.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Hawkins is making reference to some statements made on Second Reading, looking for an explanation.
He is not entitled to that.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
In so far as these statements have reference to the Bill itself, all right, but the matter of turf is not in the Bill.
The Senator will get all this on the Appropriation Bill.
We were discussing the advisability of the extension of time for the Transition Development Fund and the Minister pointed out to us that in his opinion there was no necessity for the maintenance of this fund after a particular date. On Section 15 I pointed out the advisability of extending this fund over a period of years. We had a prolonged and interesting discussion on the rate of interest. Senator Duffy I think joined with us in asking the Minister to have a uniform rate of interest for all purposes to local authorities.
On a point of explanation. I do not want that to go on the records. What I did join with Senator Hawkins in was in insisting that drainage and sewerage relating to a housing scheme belonged to the housing scheme. That is what I said.
That there was going to be no chopping about what a housing scheme was.
Quite.
With that proposal I agree.
Did not the Minister agree with that?
No, there was a reservation.
As a matter of fact, the discussion has brought out one very useful admission from the Minister and that is that there is going to be a separate line of approach for development and for the actual erection of the house.
I do not accept that interpretation, by the way. I protested against it frequently.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Senator Hawkins should be allowed to continue.
It is very difficult to understand the attitude adopted by Senator Duffy and a few other Senators to-night.
My opening remarks must have hit Senator Baxter and some others very near the core, as they were so annoyed when I proceeded to reply to the statement made by the Minister last night. Since there is an appeal being made for co-operation by the Government Party, the least Ministers might do is refrain from indulging in the reckless statements they have made here and in public outside.
The Minister said last night that some manufacturers were operating under a tariff umbrella and suggested that some of them were making excess profits.
There is no provision in the Bill for that.
It was referred to by the Minister last night and so it might be introduced. Therefore, I think my remarks are perfectly relevant.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
That was on the Second Stage. This is the Fifth Stage and speeches must be confined to what is contained in the Bill itself.
I suggest that by implication the question of excess profits was brought into the Bill.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I am afraid we cannot allow implications at this stage.
Perhaps the Minister would clarify his remarks.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I am afraid the Minister could not do so now.
I regret to say that the ruling made in the case of Senator Dockrell precludes me from continuing, as I intended to address my remarks entirely to what the Minister said last night in regard to the reduction of prices by business men. If that is not relevant to the present discussion, I must refrain.
In regard to income-tax and surtax, I did not put down amendments on the Committee Stage, as I felt that in the circumstances they could not be accepted. I was not in a position to prepare an alternative scheme to reimburse the Exchequer for any relief that would be given to certain sections of the community on whose behalf I made an appeal on the Second Reading and on the Committee Stage.
I know it is difficult to discuss the subject of a section unless there is an amendment, since nothing can happen but an exchange of views. However, I hope these exchanges of views are not entirely fruitless and I make this last appeal, before the Bill leaves this House, that when the Minister is preparing his matter for the Budget next year he will have regard to the position of people with small incomes who are obliged to buy their own houses because they cannot rent houses and who are adversely affected by the levying of income-tax on five-fourths of the valuation. That is one of the greatest hardships on people with small incomes. It is ethically unsound, having regard to the fact that a house 60 or 100 years old is also subject to tax on five-fourths of its valuation. A house with 12 rooms is £4 10s. 0d., while a house with five or six rooms is £20. In both cases the occupier is called upon to pay income-tax on five-fourths of the valuation. I think that is unjust and unsound, and that it is absolutely unfair as between different sections of the community. I urge the Minister to take the matter into account when he is preparing his Budget for next year.
I have been provoked by Senator Hawkins to stand up in defence of myself. I shall try to confine myself to what is in the Bill, but in doing so I have a protest to make, The Senator accused me of approving of a tax on oatmeal. I did not refer to oatmeal because oatmeal is not in the Bill, and neither did I mention it yesterday. If oatmeal were in the Bill, and if it were possible to discuss it and to increase the price of it, I would say that it was not such a calamity because unfortunately a great many people in this country, like Senator Duffy, appear to have an abhorrence of oatmeal. Senator Duffy goes even further than Dr. Johnson. At times, when he is speaking, the Senator reminds me of Dr. Johnson. Dr. Johnson once described oatmeal as "food for horses in Scotland and for men in England". Probably Senator Duffy also holds that opinion. I think it is a good food for men in this country. I would be prepared to encourage the eating of oatmeal here. I do not think, however, that a little difference in price is going to get any more people to eat it than are doing so at present. So much for oatmeal.
I have been described as one of the people here who represent labour. There is nothing in the Bill, that I know of, about labour. I do not know if I do represent labour. Neither do I know if Senator Duffy represents labour. I do not know if Senator Orpen represents the farmers, because while this is supposed to be a vocational chamber, in actual fact, apart from those who are nominated by the Taoiseach, the members of this House were elected by political Parties.
And there is not a word about any of them in the Bill.
Or about the Taoiseach's nominees either.
Senator O'Farrell's last observation is not true so far as the six members elected to the House by the universities are concerned.
Senator Duffy made an irrelevant point about the small income group who are charged on the five-fourths basis. That is one of the hidden bits of taxation left to me by my predecessors. I would like to attack it, but it certainly cannot be done now. The only other matter was about oatmeal. The whole change in the oatmeal subsidy brings in this year about £50,000. According to Senator Hawkins, it is 3/- a stone. According to my calculation, that means that there must be 330,000 stones making up the £50,000 that I am getting. That means one-tenth of a stone of oatmeal per head of the population. It is not so much.
I would like to see the year-old baby that would eat a stone of oatmeal.