Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 26 Jun 1952

Vol. 40 No. 23

Finance Bill, 1952—Committee and Final Stages.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Mr. Douglas

I move recommendation No. 1:—

In sub-section (2), page 4, to insert before paragraph (c) a new paragraph as follows:—

(c) the words "or proves that he was unable to obtain remunerative employment by reason of physical incapacity of a permanent character" were inserted after the word "upwards" where the latter word occurs in paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) and.

I put down this recommendation in order to draw the attention of the House to a class of persons who are unduly penalised by the new Budget. When he decided to increase the standard rate of income-tax to 7/6, the Minister decided, quite properly, that some concessions would have to be made to lower income groups, but he confined that not quite but almost entirely to persons with earned incomes. It seems to me that a person with an unearned income which does not exceed £600 and with no other income is definitely a person in the lower income group, and that it is particularly hard at this time that such a person should have his or her income-tax increased to 7/6. Those people are just as much hit by the removal of the subsidies, or any other possible effects of the taxes which were intended to be met, in part at any rate, by special concessions to persons with an earned income. It seems to me to be rather a pity that the Minister could not see his way to do something for persons in the lower income groups whose incomes are below a moderate figure, £600 or £800. He took £800 in the case of persons with an earned income in order to give this special concession.

The actual recommendation I have put down concentrates only on one quite small section, though the section itself deals with the allowances. There was an amendment introduced in the Dáil which I welcome and of which I would like to express approval. It increased the limit from £500 to £600 in the case of persons over 65 who had an earned income. It seems to me that if you make that concession to persons over 65—they are, presumably, persons who saved money and who are living on earned income as a result of their own savings or the savings of near relatives—it would be only right and reasonable that if a person is not 65 but has retired because of permanent disability which has made him unfit to earn an income by means of his own labour, a similar concession should be made. I know that there are difficulties in regard to making any concession at this stage on a Finance Bill. This is not a Party matter in any sense but a matter to which the attention of the House and the Minister should be drawn. If the Minister does not do it now, I think it should be done by him or some other Minister in the future.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

This proposal by Senator Douglas would strike at the whole principle upon which a differentiation in favour of earned income is based. The assumption in relation to earned income is this, that it is by its very nature precarious; it depends upon a man's ability to continue to earn. Therefore, it assumes that, being prudent, he will deprive himself of the enjoyment of some part of his real income, his earned income, in order to insure himself against the vicissitudes to which a person engaged in earning his daily bread must inevitably be subject. On that basis we differentiate in favour of income which is earned, earned by day-to-day effort out of which provision can only be made for the future by a process of self-deprivation and self-restraint.

A person who enjoys an investment income is in quite a different position. If his investment income is substantial, the capital from which that investment is derived is substantial, too, and, to the extent to which the investment may be considered to be a good investment, the income of the owner of the investment is secure. It is not subject to the exigencies of ordinary everyday life such as in the case of a person who is employed or who is himself an employer but who is engaged in a daily occupation in order to provide himself with a living.

The question of what is known as the age relief which we have given has been mentioned. That relief has been based on the broad assumption that in a great majority of cases the income which is enjoyed after a person has reached the age of 65 is, in fact, deferred earned income—income which accrues to the person who enjoys it as a result of savings made in the period during which he was earning. Like all other broad assumptions, that assumption may not be correct in every case. We assumed that, broadly and generally, it is correct. Therefore, when we increased the earned income relief in the present Budget it seemed equitable to extend that concession to this class of retired persons—persons who are assumed to have retired from active occupation and to be living on an income derived from past savings.

When we are considering reliefs and concessions under the income-tax code, we can deal only with broad, general classes. It is quite easy to differentiate between earned income and income which is derived otherwise—mainly from investments in land, property or industry. These are broad categories. Income, quite clearly, can be ascribed to one or other of these categories and it is easy, convenient and practical to differentiate between income which, on the one hand, is earned and, on the other hand, which is derived from investment.

Once we get into the question of incapacity of a permanent character, the matter becomes very difficult indeed. I think it would practically be impossible to administer it. It is not so certain that a particular individual is completely and permanently incapacitated. After all, a person may not have the use of his hands or even the use of his eyes, but who is to say that such a person has not the use of his mental faculties and that he would not be in a position to earn? The more this proposal is examined the more manifest, I think, is the difficulty of administering it. For that reason, I think the Seanad should not make this recommendation. Certainly, I could not undertake to ask the Dáil to accept such a recommendation if the Seanad were to see its way to make it.

Professor Hayes

I have often remarked on the unchanging character of Ministers for Finance. The Minister said to-day that this amendment raises administrative difficulties and that, for that reason, he was against it. For the same reason, the Minister is against fractions and against everything but very simple arithmetic. He began his speech on a very high line: he spoke about principles. In the end, he abandoned principles altogether and came down to the real objection, namely, that it might be a difficult matter to administer. The principle which the Minister mentioned—he entirely ignored the new facts, facts which are not so very new either—was that unearned income is more certain than earned income. Surely it is not so? The difference, in this connection, between the position which obtained when I was a boy and the present situation is that nobody could possibly be as well off now as a man with some kind of a job, whereas long ago the reverse was the case.

In the old days, if people saved money they were sure of a certain income from it. Nothing is more insecure now than invested capital and the dividends thereon. The idea that a man with a pension is in an insecure position while the man who has dividends or capital is in a secure position is quite absurd. The Minister's objection on principle has no foundation in fact. He seemed to have a glimmering of that himself. He said he was basing his case on the fact that the investments were good and that, to that extent, they would be secure. That argument is quite foolish.

There is no doubt whatever that one of the poorer classes of the community now is composed of people over 65 years of age, who have no pension and who are living on dividends. These people are in a very bad position. The removal of subsidies, for example, and the rise in the cost of living—I do not want to make a point of that—no matter how caused, hits those people very hard and, as a general rule, their income is a falling income instead of a rising income. I think that the previous Minister for Finance recognised that position by giving certain concessions to people over 65 years of age who are living on unearned income. This recommendation endeavours to put into the same category people who cannot obtain employment because of incapacity of a certain character.

We have seen all kinds of administrative difficulties overcome, and I suggest that the difficulty in this connection could be overcome too. This recommendation should not be rejected because of administrative difficulties, and most certainly it should not be rejected on the basis of any principle so foolish as that people who are living on dividends—a small amount of dividends, for example—are in a more secure position than people with wages or pensions. Whether that is good or bad leads to a wide scope of debate. My desire is to stress the fact that people of this particular category are in a very pitiful position.

I do not know very many of them but there are some old people or people who cannot work and they are in a very lamentable position. Their capital is dwindling and their dividends are dwindling and the Minister knows that thoroughly well because, in his position as Minister for Finance, he has ample opportunity for ascertaining these matters. He could have given this recommendation a much more sympathetic handling than to allege that it is a breach of principles which are in themselves unsound or throw out the very ancient and hoary line that it offers administrative difficulties.

There are no administrative difficulties recognised by the commissioners when they want to get money. There never were. That is all to the credit of the Revenue Commissioners. They will get your money under any circumstances and under any form of legislation. That is their work and that is what they are there for, but if you look for any concession they will write you a seven-page memorandum saying there are administrative difficulties.

Mr. Burke

I would like to support Senator Hayes in this respect. The people to whom Senator Hayes has referred have to save in face of the continuing depreciation in the value of money. Money has depreciated so much during the century that saving is discouraged. I think the Minister should grant the concession to those people who have to save in order to provide for their old age.

There is another small section of the community in respect of whom something should be done. I am referring to the widow whose husband has died and has to look after a family. In looking after that family she has to work very much harder than the people who are put in the category of the earned income group. If such a woman is living on unearned income, in order to bring up the children, I think this State, which is a Christian State, ought to do something for her. The number of such people is not large and any concession to them would get support from every section of the community. This woman works possibly 12 or 14 hours a day to support her children and yet the State comes along and says that the work that widow is doing does not constitute earned income.

Mr. Douglas

I would have included widows in this recommendation, if I had enough technical knowledge as to how they could be described in a simple amendment. I did not make any serious effort to draw up a recommendation in the form which the draftsman would ultimately make because I knew that if this House accepted the recommendation it could easily be put in order later.

I am not quite prepared to agree with the Minister's criticism of my wording when he said that the words

"or proves that he was unable to obtain remunerative employment by reason of physical incapacity of a permanent character"

might not apply to a blind person or a person who lost both hands. I cannot conceive of any Revenue Commissioners claiming, under any circumstances, that a person who is disabled by loss of sight or of a hand was not permanently incapacitated because somebody might pay them as a reward for their brainwork. I think the Minister was carrying the thing far too far.

Fundamentally and underlying this amendment which deals only with one section of the people in whom I am interested—the whole section does deal with them—I do not agree with the Minister that at the present time when dealing with lower income groups of £400, £500 or £600 having an earned income as distinct from an unearned income justifies a differentiation of anything like a 25 per cent. concession. I am not sure that it is justified at all. I do not think that where you consider large unearned incomes which must, as the Minister says, represent a very substantial capital investment that there is a clear case for a substantial differentiation. My plea is that the State should take into consideration the people with low incomes. Remember that an income of, say, £500 now is not more than £250 before the war. It is really a small income.

I do not agree with the Minister when he says that they are excluded from concessions because it is a principle to deal only with a general class. My object in concentrating on the people covered by my recommendation was in the somewhat vague hope that the Minister would regard these people as of a general class with the persons of over 65 years of age. In this country and in all countries there are a very substantial number of persons mainly, civil servants and those employed by large firms who do not have to save for their disablement or for old age because they are entitled to pensions. I do not think that these pensions are at all precarious. They are nearly always guaranteed by insurance companies in the case of firms and we are not uneasy that the State will not meet its pension liabilities.

The best incentive for saving is to save something to provide against old age or disablement. That is a greater incentive than anything else. I am suggesting to the Minister that the principle of a concession similar to the earned income allowance has been accepted for persons over 65. I am suggesting that the concessions should apply to persons who have not reached 65 and who are living on invested saving and who are disabled. I think they ought to be included. I am not arguing that my wording is perfect but it is sufficient to make clear what I want and think should be considered. In spite of the Minister's attitude, I hope he will carefully consider the matter. I know of one or two cases— cases which brought this matter to my notice—where it will be very hard for these people to have to pay increased costs for food while at the same time income tax is at a standard of 7/6d.

An Cathaoirleach

Is the recommendation being withdrawn?

Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. O'Donnell

What is the maximum increase allowed under the earned income section? I think it is £100.

Mr. MacEntee

The Senator asks what the maximum increase in concession under the earned income section amounts to. The increase is £100.

As I am on my feet, I might take the opportunity to correct here for the benefit of the record a statement which I see on reading it is not quite accurate. It is a statement I made in the Dáil. It is one which I made under a misapprehension as to the point which had been raised. We were talking on the Final Stage of the Finance Bill in Dáil Eireann when Deputy Dockrell put me a query which I quite frankly misunderstood. I thought the query related to something which had been raised privately by another person.

The point which Deputy Dockrell raised related to taxpayers who, in this country, are obliged to pay tax on their full profits from businesses carried on abroad. The Deputy stated that in Great Britain the liability for tax was confined to taxes on the profits which were remitted. In my reply I said that I had a great deal of sympathy with the taxpayers, that I indicated that I thought the matter could be dealt with administratively. Actually, I had in fact, discussed this matter with the Revenue Commissioners and, on finding that the provisions of the law were as Deputy Dockrell pointed out, I issued directions that the matter should be examined with a view to possible legislation in next year's Finance Bill. There is a case which is very similar to this where the Revenue Commissioners are able, strictly in accordance with the law, to remove difficulties which certain taxpayers have anticipated would arise, and it was that case which I had in mind when I was replying to Deputy Dockrell.

Section 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Donnell

I wonder would the Minister inform me how the increased amount of £80 was arrived at in relation to the present value of money? The previous amount was £50. Was the new amount just an arbitrary amount, or is it worked out statistically to be the proper amount? What relation has the new amount to the previous amount of £50? We are all aware that money has altered so much that the allowance should be much greater in this case.

Mr. MacEntee

This increased allowance of £80 is fixed with reference to the Social Welfare Act of 1951.

Professor Hayes

Would £100, being a round figure, not be much easier to administer?

Mr. MacEntee

Though £100 would, as you say, be a round figure and lead to easy administration, it would lead also to further inconsistencies in legislation.

Mr. O'Donnell

I assume that I can take it that the Minister would agree that this new figure is merely an arbitrary one and that it does not represent the real value which should be allowed taking present day values of money into consideration. £50 was allowed under the 1944 Act, and a larger sum than £80 should be allowed under the present Act notwithstanding what the Minister said about the allowance of £80 under the Social Welfare Bill, 1951.

Mr. MacEntee

I just cannot get the Senator's point. I do not know exactly what he wishes to convey.

Mr. O'Donnell

The allowance under the 1944 Act was £50 and, under this Act, the Minister is bringing that amount up to £80. On arriving at this amount, had the Minister in mind the value of money now in comparison to its value in 1944? The Minister says the allowance under the Social Welfare Act, 1951, will be £80. I would have thought that the allowance should have been made £90 in this case.

Mr. MacEntee

I do not think there is any validity in the point the Senator is trying to make. After all, the present Government is engaged in giving effect to a policy which is going to make the people's money worth more next year than this year.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 4 and 5 agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Question proposed: "That section 6 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Donnell

On sub-section (2) of this section, might I ask the Minister a question? Can the Minister tell us what will be the effect on transport costs of the proposed increased tax on hydrocarbon light oil?

Mr. MacEntee

I do not see how I can possibly answer that question. After all, the cost of transport does not depend solely on the cost of fuel. It depends upon a great many other things, such as rates of wages, conditions of employment, efficiency of management, and the condition of the vehicles in which the fuel is burnt. In normal circumstances the consequence that flows from an increase in the cost of any essential material is to make people try to see if they can use the material more efficiently. It would be quite impossible, on the basis of the multiplication table, to give the Senator any worth-while estimate in a matter of this kind.

Professor Hayes

Surely an estimate could be given of what this particular tax would mean on transport costs. Having given the estimate, the Minister's second point would arise to the effect that there might be possibilities of effecting economies which would offset the increased cost. The amount of the increase, in my opinion, would be easily ascertainable. I suggest that the Minister is really humbugging Senator O'Donnell. I trust that humbugging is a parliamentary word, and that the Senator is not easily humbugged.

Another point arises with regard to this tax increase which, some years ago, would not have arisen at all. We must bear in mind the fact that this tax will now have an effect upon agriculture which is becoming increasingly mechanised. Therefore, any increase in this particular duty is having an effect upon agricultural production. Perhaps the Minister's answer to that is that the farmers should become more efficient and thus offset the increase. This section will certainly impose a tax upon our agricultural production, and it will tend to retard it. It will also make transport dearer. It is no answer to say that the amount of the increase cannot be calculated and that the effect of the increase will be to bring about greater efficiency.

Mr. O'Donnell

I asked the Minister a perfectly innocuous question, namely, what would be the reaction of the proposed increase in hydrocarbon light oil upon public transport costs. I did not ask the Minister to tell me that transport costs were made up of various other factors such as rates of wages, conditions of employment and so on. I am already aware of that, and the Minister knows that. I asked the Minister a particular question. If he could not answer it, I would have accepted the fact. I did not ask the Minister to inform me that increased costs would have the effect of more efficiency, but only to inform me what would be the amount of the increase.

Mr. Douglas

The Minister's answer did not surprise me. Rather has it confirmed a suspicion which I have held for a considerable time and that is that the tax put on petrol was based on the proper figures, after proper consideration and with proper knowledge. The Minister tells us it is impossible to obtain these figures. The petrol tax has been increased by this Government and by their predecessors to the amount of 50 per cent.

I think that these increases have a far wider effect than the increase in transport costs and in agricultural costs. They are a definite factor in increasing the cost for manufacturers, commercial travellers and all classes of people. The people who are affected possibly least are the private motorists with whom nobody has any sympathy at all. The Minister's statement shows that it is not possible to get the figures which will enable him to know the amount of harm or expense caused, the amount of damage done, by a petrol tax. It has only one merit—that it is near the Minister and can be imposed and administered easily. The Minister's answer is a very good argument against the tax imposed in this section.

Question put and agreed to.

Sections 7, 8 and 9 agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Question proposed: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Donnell

I should like to know if the Minister has any information as to the effect of the increased taxation upon beer drinking at present. I understand that figures are available to show that for the past three months there has been a very heavy reduction in the consumption of alcohol and that the Exchequer has suffered very considerably in that respect. May I ask if the Minister thinks it wise to proceed with this increased taxation on beer and spirits?

Mr. MacEntee

I am advised that we have not got any figures which would support the contention that there has been any unexpected fall in the consumption of beer, arising out of the increase in the beer duties. Naturally, one of the consequences which was anticipated was a decrease in the consumption of the beer, but I understand that the decrease has not been abnormal, having regard to the increase in price.

Mr. Colgan

Might I ask Senator O'Donnell whether he is satisfied that, for a nation of our size, we are drinking altogether too much beer?

Professor Hayes

Is it not the Minister's calculation that we will continue to drink as much as ever?

Mr. MacEntee

No.

Professor Hayes

Yes.

Mr. MacEntee

Very definitely not.

Professor Hayes

Is this a temperance or taxation measure?

Mr. MacEntee

It happens to be a taxation measure.

Professor Hayes

Exactly. That is a point of some importance. This section is aimed at getting more money spent on beer. There is no doubt at all about that. It is not a temperance measure and Senator Colgan cannot lay any balm to his soul that, in supporting this Budget, he is supporting temperance. He is doing no such thing. He is supporting the expenditure of more money on beer by the man who will give less money to his wife to spend on household necessities.

Mr. Colgan

I am not talking about the amount of money spent on beer. I am talking about the amount of beer consumed by a country of this size.

Mr. MacEntee

The argument would seem to be that there has been a very marked decrease in the amount of beer consumed over the past three months. I think that was Senator O'Donnell's assumption and it has been accepted or adopted by Senator Hayes.

Professor Hayes

No. I never adopt anything or accept anything.

Mr. MacEntee

The Senator is like Deputy MacBride, who thinks of a number and then says: "My concept is not based on any statistical data. I think of a number and, because I think of it, I can proceed, on the basis of having first thought of that number, to deduce anything I like from it." The point would seem to be that the increase in the duty on beer has been followed by a decrease in the consumption of beer. If that is the case, it must be that the bar-drinker is not spending more on beer but must be continuing to hand over to his wife as much money as before; he is consuming less beer for which, if you like, he is paying more per unit because the State is taking a larger share of what he spends on it. I do not think the contention put forward by Senator Hayes that, because we have increased the duty on beer we are leaving the man with less to spend on food for himself and his family, can therefore hold.

Professor Hayes

Like one of the Minister's colleagues who once introduced a licensing Bill in this House, I am far from being an expert on licensed premises, but the Minister himself in his Budget speech said:—

"From these changes in the beer duty, I hope to gain an extra £2,400,000."

If he gains an extra £2,400,000 from the people who drink, he takes that sum from somebody, and I suggest that he takes it from the housewife in respect of the consumption of ordinary goods.

Mr. O'Donnell

What I was trying to get at was that two people are going to suffer as a result of this taxation. If I am correct in my reading of the figures for the past three months, there has been a severe decline in the consumption of beer and spirits generally, and a severe falling off in income to the Exchequer as a result. Further, what is worrying me a good deal is the fact that an increase in unemployment has resulted from the decreased consumption of beer, and I am wondering whether, in view of that position this increased taxation is not going to worsen the position from the treasury and employment point of view, I am not particularly interested in the total abstainers' point of view, but I am interested in the employment aspect, and I am merely posing the argument that I do not think that it will improve the income of the treasury or the employment position.

Mr. MacEntee

I suggest that, as representing opposite wings of the Opposition to the Government, Senator O'Donnell and Senator Hayes should argue this out amongst themselves outside the Chamber, because their two points of view and arguments are completely inconsistent with each other.

Professor Hayes

May I add that the Minister has answered neither?

Mr. O'Donnell

There is no such thing as an Opposition to the Government here. We are elected on a vocational basis and I am probably just as much for the Government as is the Minister himself.

Professor Hayes

I again disagree with Senator O'Donnell. I am here against the Government.

Professor Johnston

Will the Minister agree that if the reduction in beer drinking goes to a certain point, he may get no extra revenue at all?

Mr. MacEntee

Yes, but——

Professor Hayes

The Minister was about to say—"but" something.

Mr. MacEntee

Merely that the Irish people are so convivial that that point is a long way off.

Professor Hayes

The Minister is going to get £2,500,000 out of the pockets of the housewives.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 11 and 12 agreed to.

SECTION 13.

Question proposed: "That Section 13 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. O'Donnell

With regard to this matter of snuff, I pointed out in my speech on the Second Reading that poor people are suffering a good deal as a result of the increased tobacco tax. I understand that this snuff is mainly made from the stalks of tobacco which are not consumed in what are known as the king's pipe. If it were not used for the manufacture of this snuff, it would go back to be destroyed. I should like to explain for the benefit of Senators that the king's pipe, as I understand it, is a chimney attached to the Custom House, where the tobacco that goes back, and for which there is an allowance, is destroyed by fire, so that it cannot be re-used. I understand that the particular portion of the tobacco which makes snuff is the stalks which would go back to the king's pipe for destruction if it were not used. This is a hardship, particularly on the older people, old age pensioners and people in institutions. The Minister might consider the effect of the tax on snuff manufacturers and he might even leave the tax as it was. This makes a difference of from 2/- to 2/9 an ounce, which is quite a hardship on old people.

Mr. MacEntee

"Snuff" is a monosyllabic word which covers a variety of commodities. There is dry snuff, wet snuff—I do not propose to be an authority on snuff. I am told, however, that there are luxurious snuffs as well as snuffs used by poor people and it would be quite impossible to deal with this proposal of the Senator's on an ad misericordiam basis.

Professor Hayes

It could not be administered?

Mr. MacEntee

Oh yes, it could be administered, but it could not be administered solely for the benefit of the poor old woman and that is just the point. I am not suggesting that it could not be administered but I am suggesting that we might lose a great deal of money which could be taken from people who could quite well afford to pay it if we were to look after Senator O'Donnell's poor old woman. When I say that we might lose it I do not mean that the Exchequer would lose it because the Exchequer has to get revenue and concessions can only be granted to one class of the community at the expense of everyone else. When Senator Hayes or Senator O'Donnell advocates that we should be kind to people do not forget that that kindness is always at the expense of the general body of taxpayers.

In any event, this is not a simple matter. There are all sorts and varieties of snuffs—aromatic snuff, plain snuff, wet snuff and dry snuff— and I do not think that we could in present circumstances attempt to ensure that only the people who were in what might be described as penurious circumstances would be benefited by any remission of the duty.

Mr. O'Donnell

The Minister was not listening to what I stated at the time. I pointed out that the basis of all snuff is the stalk and that if it is not used it goes back to the king's pipe. It is then consumed by fire and no duty whatsoever is paid on it. That is the basis of all snuff—white snuff, black snuff, wet snuff and dry snuff. I am not interested in the categories of snuff but I do know that if the Minister does not make allowances so that snuff consumers can consume it— because if the price of snuff goes up consumers cannot go on consuming snuff—the stalk will be consumed in the king's pipe and he will lose.

Mr. MacEntee

Our enunciation might be clearer if we tried to stop snuff.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 14.

Question proposed: "That section 14 stand part of the Bill"

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

I recommend that this section be deleted from the Bill. On the Minister's case which he stressed, that is, that he wants as much money as he can possibly get, this section should be omitted. By virtue of the duty levied on this entertainment, dancing we shall, if this section is made part of the Bill, deprive the Minister of approximately £140,000. This is the sum which might be expected to be obtained from the dance tax during the forthcoming year. We have heard that the Minister has said that this tax has been difficult to collect, but whether that is so or not I cannot say. Personally I do not think there can be any great difficulty in collecting it. Possibly there is great difficulty in collecting every tax, but whether is has been, will be or will not be a difficult tax to collect, it can be safely estimated to yield £140,000. Why should we allow the Minister to deprive himself of that substantial source of revenue at a time when he is going out of his way to say that he must obtain as much money as possible?

I do not think we should allow the Bill to go through containing this section. If we delete section 14, we shall allow the Minister an additional £140,000 for the treasury. Why he should seek by this section, by withdrawing this duty, to deprive himself of that considerable sum of money at a time when he has explained North, South, East and West, for perhaps some strange motive, that he must have all this money for which he has budgeted, I do not know. For these reasons the Minister should gladly accept this recommendation and I will be very surprised if he will not. I cannot imagine what case he can make against my recommendation.

Mr. MacEntee

This matter has already been fully debated elsewhere and the Dáil is satisfied that this remission should be given. It appears to me, therefore, that the onus lies on the Senator who put down this proposal to delete the section—because that is what it amounts to—to prove his case. I do not think that he has proved it. I do not think that he has made any attempt to show why this particular form of entertainment or amusment, not participated in by people for profit, should be discriminated against when we allow virtually every other form of personal entertainment to go untaxed.

This prejudice against dancing of a Party in a coalition which purported to be broadly based on liberal principles is, I think, extraordinary. If a person can do almost everything except dance it brings us back almost to the days of the Roundheads, when dancing was regarded as a civil offence. I wonder at the hardihood of members of the Senator's Party who oppose this concession for the young people of the country—because it is the young people of the country who will benefit from it —when last year they actually removed the tax upon wrestling.

One of the concessions which my predecessor granted in his Budget of 1950, I think—not last year—was to remove the tax on wrestling. In 1949 he put the tax on dancing but in 1950 he removed the tax on wrestling. I do not know how the tax on admission to wrestling entertainments happened to persist, as I thought that we had taken off all these taxes on personal amusements. They were originally imposed in 1932 in pretty stringent circumstances and they were removed as rapidly as could be until 1946, when I thought they had all gone. Certainly the last remnant of them in the tax on dancing as an entertainment was removed. It was reimposed in 1949 without any word of justification by my predecessor. Some people were, shall we say, prejudiced enough to suggest that one of the reasons this tax was imposed was that the Fianna Fáil organisation had been in the habit of holding popular entertainments from year to year, and that did not please my predecessor. Therefore, in order that he might strike at one political organisation he struck at everybody.

Professor Hayes

A political organisation?

Mr. MacEntee

In 1949, when he purported to be granting reliefs to everybody, he reimposed the tax which had been remitted three years earlier, in 1946. As I said at the beginning, the Dáil has decided that this concession should be granted to the general public and the onus rests on the Senator to show why it should not be granted.

Professor Hayes

May I make an appeal to Senator P.F. O'Reilly. There appears to be only one bright spot in this Budget, and that is this remission of the dance tax. Drinking has become more expensive, smoking has become more expensive, and even the poor people who take snuff and for whom Senator O'Donnell's heart bleeds will find snuff-taking more expensive. The Fianna Fáil Party must be going to abandon céilís, because they can have the céilís without any tax.

Mr. MacEntee

No, no.

Professor Hayes

I thought one could.

Mr. MacEntee

No; only the céilís under the auspices of one organisation.

Professor Hayes

In all these lugubrious circumstances, I think the people should be let dance without any tax. The Minister made a fairly good case, and I appeal to the Senator to be satisfied with it. It is the only bright spot in a very dark picture. Why not leave it there?

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

I regret I cannot adhere to Senator Hayes's appeal. I am not at all satisfied with what the Minister said. I am sure he did not mean us to infer from what he said about wrestling that, by virtue of the remission of the tax on wrestling, the Revenue Commissioners were going to lose £100,000 or £140,000 per annum. I must insist on my recommendation.

Mr. Quirke

I join with Senator Hayes in the appeal to Senator O'Reilly. At the same time, I think it is only right to say that, as far as one can judge, Senator O'Reilly is the one sensible man on the other side of the House. It is pretty obvious to everybody that this hullabaloo about the dance tax was invented for political purposes.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

Do not go too deeply into that.

Mr. Quirke

Now that the by-elections are just about over and won, the more seasoned politicians are prepared to let things go, but Senator O'Reilly sticks out for his point. I put it to Senator O'Reilly that the Minister's predecessor abandoned the tax on wrestling. I do not know what sort of an expert Senator O'Reilly is in wrestling—I do not know much about wrestling or dancing, except to look on once in a while, and maybe there is not much difference between the two and we could let it go. If the Minister had insisted, or agreed with the people who insist, on leaving the tax there on dancing, he would then be accused by everyone of being responsible for the flight from the land and the flight from the country. I appeal to Senator O'Reilly to withdraw his opposition.

Mr. Tunney

I appeal earnestly to Senator O'Reilly not to withdraw. Despite the statement by Senator Quirke, and even if this House is all agreed and there is no one to oppose it, my opinion is that if the Irish people had an opportunity to vote on this there is no doubt how the majority would vote. I think even the Minister, even to his own Party, finds it hard to justify this step. Even to look at it from a political point of view, it is a mistake. At a time when the Government is forced to withdraw the subsidies on food and increase the price of the loaf of bread so 9d and the lb. of butter to 3/10, and when many people in the city and in the country will be unable to buy sufficient bread and butter, we are going to take off the tax on dancing. I would make an earnest appeal to Senator O'Reilly not to withdraw. At least, let us have the opportunity to vote on it, which is all we can do against it.

Mr. Kissane

It is seldom we find, among people who could be described as belonging to the Opposition groups, so much concern that the Minister is going to lose money by abandoning this tax.

Mr. Tunney

He will lose more than money. His Party will lose power.

Mr. Kissane

They are particularly concerned about the political welfare of the Minister and his Party. I suggest that the reason why this question is being debated at such length is that politicians seem to think they have found in it beautiful material for propaganda.

Mr. Tunney

It is honest material, it is not beautiful.

Mr. Kissane

That seems to be the sole approach to this question. Can anybody here tell me satisfactorily why people living in villages or within three miles of a village, which might have a population of 501, should be taxed for dancing, while people beyond that limit will not be taxed? The place with a population of 501 is only a village. I understand that that is a provision of the 1949 Finance Act, that people living in these villages or within three miles of them, will have to pay the tax on dancing, while people living beyond that limit will not. I suggest that that is class legislation of the worst kind.

I think it is a bad principle to bring in class legislation. If dances are to be tax free in this country, then I submit that it should be extended to all. I have never known any proposal such as this—that has been calculated to bring in such a small amount of money as £140,000—which has given rise to so much discussion. That, as I said, is because these people thought they had found in it material for propaganda.

This class legislation in connection with dancing, to which I have referred, has brought about a very undesirable position in certain parts of the country. Halls have been built in out-of-the-way places and people go to those halls from towns which are more than three miles away, and I doubt whether their attendance at those dance halls is sometimes of any value to the people of the locality. I have seen halls—some of which should not be described as dance halls—built in certain remote parts of the country in order to comply with the foolish proposal which was inserted by Deputy McGilligan, when he was Minister for Finance, in his 1949 Finance Act. Therefore, I do not think this matter has warranted the amount of controversy which has arisen in connection with it.

Mr. Tunney

Surely the Senator cannot accuse this House of debating this particular point at great length? We have hardly been five minutes discussing this matter.

Mr. Kissane

I did not confine myself to this House. I referred to politicians who have discussed this proposal inside and outside the Oireachtas.

Mr. Tunney

I think that, instead of taxing people who live in remote and mountainous places when they go to a dance, we should accept Deputy O'Reilly's recommendation. Surely Senator Kissane will not compare people living in remote areas with the people who frequent dance halls in Parnell Square?

Mr. Kissane

I did not mention Parnell Square. I was speaking about rural Ireland.

Mr. Tunney

People who live a long distance from the social pleasures and luxuries of this life and who work hard from Monday morning to Saturday night should not be taxed when they go to a dance. Rather, they should be encouraged to be contented in the area in which they live. I am afraid that Senator Kissane is not aware of the income derived from dance halls in the city. The people who will attend the dances will not get the benefit of this tax remission.

Mr. MacEntee

Of course they will.

Mr. Tunney

I am quite satisfied that the people attending these dances are not going to get the benefit of the remission. I think it is ridiculous that the dance-hall tax is remitted while the price of the loaf to the poor people in Cabra and elsewhere is increased.

Mr. Kissane

I am afraid the Senator is misrepresenting me. I drew no comparison whatever between the people in Parnell Square or in any other part of Dublin and the people living down the country. The comparison which I drew was between people living in a certain area, a rural area, and people living in another rural area. What justification have some Senators who have spoken on this section for taxing people who live in a village of, say, 501 persons and not taxing people who live three miles away from that village? Are the people who live in such a small centre of population as a village of 501 inhabitants not as much entitled to free dancing as people who live in other parts of the country? I cannot see why any distinction should be made in the matter, and no consistent man can see it. People have to work hard, and sometimes even to drudge, in small towns and villages of 501 inhabitants. As the Senator said, those people are entitled to their enjoyment on a Saturday night or a Sunday night, as the case might be. I draw a distinction between those people and the other people to whom I have referred.

Mr. Colgan

I feel that there has been a lot of dishonest propaganda both in the Dáil and throughout the country on the subject of the remission of the dance tax. I do not intend to accuse Senator Tunney of being dishonest, but it is nonsensical to suggest that a sum of £140,000 could be substituted for the revenue derived from the removal of subsidies. I think that the £140,000 would not go very far in that connection.

I recollect a meeting between the previous Minister for Finance, Deputy McGilligan, and the Labour organisation on the question of excess profits. We spoke of the amount of money made by the capitalists. The Minister said that if all the alleged excess profits were distributed amongst the workers of the country each worker would get an extra 3/-. It will be seen, therefore, that the sum seemed bigger than it actually was. I think the same can be said about the argument that the £140,000 derived from the dance tax should be devoted to relieve the people in Cabra in respect of the extra cost of their loaves.

It is unfair to suggest that the young people who go to dances should pay a tax. When Deputy McGilligan, the then Minister for Finance, brought this matter before the Seanad in 1949 there was great opposition to it by Fianna Fáil Senators—particularly to the matter of the three-mile limit from villages of 500 inhabitants. It was predicted that dance halls would be built outside certain villages and, as Senator Kissane has said, that sort of thing is not good for anybody. The dance halls are built in isolated places. The matter was bad in conception and should never have been passed into law.

I think that if you want people to pay a tax when they go dancing you should be consistent and say that there should be a tax on every other form of amusement. The Opposition argued that the dance tax should not be remitted, but they did not say anything about all the other types of entertainment which might be taxed.

Mr. O'Donnell

The Minister told me, on another matter, that taxation is necessary in order to get revenue. The business before the House concerns the getting of funds for the Exchequer.

It is to the mentality behind the Bill I object. The amount involved, £140,000, is a rather substantial amount and would give a considerable amount of relief in other directions. There is no reason why it should have been given away. With all due respect to my good friend, Senator Colgan, if there was propaganda made out of it, it was for the simple reason that the whole business smells badly. Letters have been read here and I do not want to follow that line, but the whole business sounds bad. I object to the removal of something which would bring £140,000 to the Exchequer on the basis that something else ought to have been taxed. If the tax was not doing any harm it should not have been removed. I would not say that the whole thing was evil or rotten, but I would say that it was bad—bad politically and nationally. It is the sort of thing that should not have been done by any Government in this country.

Mr. Fitzsimons

Last week, when the Finance Bill was introduced, I expressed the opinion that it was wise and sound from various points of view to repeal that particular section of the Finance Act. Everybody running dances up and down the country knows in his heart and soul that most people running dances made every effort to deceive the revenue authorities and paid as little tax as they possibly could. I am sure Mr. McGilligan, when Minister for Finance, knew in his heart and soul that he was expecting impossibilities from the excise officer in any county if he thought he could go out to every town and county where a dance was being run, remain at the door from the time the dance started until it finished and check the figures and the number of people in the hall. There is not a dance-hall proprietor in this country who did not go out of his way to put on as little stamps as he could on every ticket issued.

I do not see why a town with a population of over 500 should be tax-free while villages and towns under 500 should have to pay tax. That is really class distinction and class legislation, and I think we should not have that. Consequently, I believe the Minister is quite right in repealing the section of the Act referred to because the Act cannot be administered, and when an Act cannot be administered it is better to have it repealed. It is impossible to administer the Act and, consequently, I believe the Minister was right in repealing it.

No matter what we may hear from various people up and down the country, I think that the Minister is doing the honest thing. A lot of people do not believe for one moment the talk we hear. There is nothing but honesty and sincerity at the back of the Minister's actions.

Mr. Burke

I believe this tax was paid, and paid up to the hilt, by the people who were running the dance halls. In the case of small halls, where the tax was remitted, no tax had to be paid where the dances were run by committees. Was it not as desirable to run dances in rural Ireland as in Parnell Square? What is the difference? I think rural Ireland would be better served if Dublin were dead and the people left in rural Ireland. I think it would solve one of our greatest problems.

I know people interested in dance halls and they said they had to pay the full rate of tax. They were all in towns in which it was easy for the Revenue Commissioners to inspect them. The Revenue Commissioners would know the amount of stamps issued by reference to the post office. Some of their own daughters might be present at a dance and they could tell them that there were 400 people present and that 25 stamps were bought.

With regard to the tax on bread, the £140,000 would not subsidise the bread, but I object to the principle of removing the tax on dances and putting it on bread. Many desirable suggestions were made to-day, but we were told the Government had not the money. I would much prefer to see widows, bringing up families, given some relief rather than allow the dancers to get away scot free. The dancers would not mind giving a few pence towards that object. Dancing is one of the cheapest forms of amusement in the country.

Mr. MacEntee

It is good that we now know what the Fine Gael Party have in mind in relation to Dublin and presumably Cork, Waterford and Limerick. The Fine Gael Party wish to kill Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Limerick, and even Clonmel. Senator Burke has made it quite clear what his ultimate object is. Let us keep that in our mind for future reference.

Mr. Burke

Decentralisation.

Mr. MacEntee

Let us come back to see actually what is happening. Roughly 40 per cent., in round figures, of the people of this country, if they go to a dance, have to pay tax. The other 60 per cent., if they go, do not have to pay tax. That is roughly how the incidence of the dance tax rests. Forty per cent. of the dance-goers of this country pay tax, the remaining 60 per cent. do not pay tax.

It has been suggested by Senator Tunney, who said he has never been to a dance in his life, that the dancers are not called on to pay this tax. Here is what the official publication dealing with the entertainments duty has to say:—

"Stamped tickets of admission may be either Government tickets (that is, tickets supplied by the Revenue Commissioners, which are imprinted or impressed with a stamp denoting the duty) or proprietors' own tickets to which are affixed at or before the time of sale entertainments duty adhesive stamps denoting the duty."

It goes on to describe a form of Government tickets, to be used for the collection of the tax:—

"The price of admission and the rate of duty are printed separately on Government tickets—thus: Admission 6d., tax 2d."

Then it goes on to describe the details of tickets and the particular type of ticket that must be used. There is a special type of tickets for use to collect the tax on dancing. The value of these tickets is set out as follows in the Revenue Commissioners' pamphlet:—

"Price of admission for dances only, 6½d. Face value of the stamp on tickets, 1½d. Price of admission, 8d, face value of stamp on ticket, 2d. Price of admission, 9d, face value of stamp on ticket 3d. Price of admission 1/-, face value of stamp on ticket 3d."

Therefore, if a person pays a shilling for admission to a dance, simultaneously he has to pay 3d. by way of tax. The patron pays this tax and not the proprietor of the hall. The proprietor has the responsibility of collecting the tax. This tax ranges from 3d. on 1/- to 6d. on 2/-, from 1/- on 4/- to 2/- on 8/- and so on. It is levied at the rate of 25 per cent. on the admission prices. Will somebody tell me why it is that 40 per cent. of the taxpayers of this country should be compelled to pay this duty while the other 60 per cent. go free?

I believe Senator Tunney is a member of the Labour Party. I know he used to be a member of other Parties during his political lifetime. He makes slighting reference to the dance halls in Parnell Square. Apparently, he does not like the people who frequent the dance halls there, while he has no objection to the people who may go to the dances in the Gresham Hotel or attend Hunt Balls in places in the country which happen to be situated more than three miles from a town or a village with a population of 500. The Senator has an intensive dislike for the people who go to dances in Parnell Square—those boys and girls of the City of Dublin who work in the factories, workshops and behind counters. It is the working boys and girls of this city who frequent the dance halls in Parnell Square, in Anne Street and in other parts of the city where dance halls are situated— These are the people who pay the tax. If they go to the Four Provinces Ballroom in Harcourt Street, which is owned, I believe, by a trades union, they have to pay this tax. Remember, it is not the trades union or the leaseholder of the dance hall who pays the tax but the patron. In fact it is made quite clear to the patron that it is he who must pay the tax.

Mr. Tunney

Are they going to get in at a reduced price now?

Mr. MacEntee

Besides applying to the patrons of these dance halls in Dublin City, this tax also applies to the people who go to dances in Finglas or even in Finglas Bridge, in Rush, Malahide, Windy Arbour, Blue Bell and Churchtown and Butterfield. In every one of these villages in County Dublin people who frequent dances have to pay a tax of 25 per cent. Of course, if a person is fortunate enough to own a four-seater or a five-seater car he can afford the petrol and he can collect a party and travel three miles from his home and pay 5/ or 10/- to gain admission to a dance and he will not be taxed at all. However, if he happens to be a working chap and wishes to go to a dance in his native Finglas or Finglas Bridge, he has got to pay a tax of 25 per cent.

That is what Senator Tunney, the non-dancer, wants to inflict on the working-class people of the country. So, of course, does Senator Burke. Apparently Senator Burke is quite content that the people who live in or within three miles of Clonmel, Thurles, Tipperary, Nenagh, Carrick-on-Suir, Cashel, Templemore, Borrisokane, Fethard and Cahir, should pay this tax. However, if they live in a place situated outside the three-mile limit of these towns, they do not have to pay the tax. For instance, a person living in Clonmel has to pay the tax. However, if his abode is three miles outside the town in a place having a population of over 500, he does not have to pay the tax. Is there any justice or equity in that? Is it not quite clear that it should be either all or none?

In 1946, we decided that it should be none. In 1949, my predecessor decided that it should be some. There was no rational basis for that decision which has led as everybody is aware, to many undesirable developments over the last three years. This concession has not benefited the towns and villages. If a young man or a young woman happens to go to a dance in a village where there are 501 people, they have got to pay the tax. There is no use saying, as Senator Tunney has said that these dances were doing something to brighten rural life. That is no excuse for the entirely undesirable discrimination between two sections of the people. Very undesirable developments have taken place as a consequence of this lop-sided and unfair tax. The Gardaí and others are finding it very difficult to cope with such developments. If we remove this tax and the inducement to build these dance halls far outside towns and villages with consequent undesirable results, then I feel we will be doing a good thing from the social point of view and from the point of view of the country also.

Mr. Douglas

I have listened carefully to the heart-breaking appeal for the unfortunate 40 per cent. of the people who have been bearing the dance tax. I am still absolutely convinced that, in a Budget of these dimensions, it was a political folly—I do not mean necessarily Party political folly—to remove this particular injustice, however much the Minister may have been moved. The Minister says that it is unfair and quite wrong that 40 per cent. of the people should have to pay a tax while 60 per cent. go free. I only wish he said that before we passed Section I, which deals with income tax.

Mr. Tunney

The Minister made a reference to me, and it was a pity he did so, because, before that, the discussion here had been going on very cordially. There were no personalities or no insinuations. The Minister made a personal reference to my past record politically. It was a pity that he drew that down, but I can assure him that I am not going to follow in that line.

Despite what the Minister has said, I feel that 95 per cent. of the Irish people will never look on the removal of this tax on dances in the same manner as the Minister is looking on it. Senator Colgan stated that we should tax everything. He mentioned Croke Park. Surely, nobody will draw a similarity between dancing and the sport that takes place in Croke Park— a sport that is good for soul and body.

Mr. Hartnett

For the players, but not for the spectators. Dancing is good for the body.

Mr. Tunney

The Senator will have plenty of time to speak. I did not say that dancing was bad. What I said was that the taking off of this tax is going to have a bad effect on the country, because the great majority of the Irish people will always feel that there was some dishonest trick behind it. I am not even suggesting that. I am a member of the Labour Party and I want to tell the Minister that I am very proud of that Party. I am tempted to follow the Minister, but I will not do so. I mentioned Parnell Square because that is the portion of Dublin where the greatest number of dance halls are situated, and I say that you cannot compare any portion of the city or suburbs of Dublin with a village in Kerry, in Donegal or in Tipperary. These are entitled to preferential treatment. It has been the ambition of, I believe, every Government to encourage the people to stay in rural Ireland and we should do all we can to help them in that direction.

There is no comparison between a dance hall here and in the country, because, in the case of a person who attends a dance in the city, his wage is different from that of the man in the country. Let Senators not forget that the people I have in mind are people, the majority of whom work for their fathers from Monday until Saturday night and who receive not one shilling in wages They work on small farms, on uneconomic holdings, and for that work receive no wages. I want an answer from him to the question: Will these workers who will go to dances in Parnell Square, the Gresham Hotel or anywhere else in Dublin benefit by this remission? If the Minister says they will and if he guarantees that the dance-hall proprietor will be compelled to reduce the price of admission, he will then be able to put up an honest case to convince the great number of people who have not, as yet, been convinced that this tax should be withdrawn.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

I have been unimpressed by those who have spoken against this recommendation. I am rather shocked by the attack which Senator Fitzsimons made on the dance-hall proprietors. He suggested that these people had deliberately evaded payment of this entertainment duty.

Mr. Kissane

He suggested no such thing.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

I am sure that any such suggestion is incorrect. These people are reputable people and I cannot for a moment accept the suggestion that they would engage in the wholesale evasion of tax. I am really amazed that they should have been attacked in this way, and if the Senator's argument on this is an argument at all, we might ask why should we have income-tax, if we can make an effort to evade payment of it or any other kind of tax. The Minister has made it very clear to us what the rate of duty is at present. He has explained that it is roughly 25 per cent., that a person going into a dance to-day pays 2/- tax in respect of a 10/- ticket. He has asked us to believe that to-morrow or the next day when the tax has been remitted, that ticket which now costs 10/-, will cost only 8/-. If I were satisfied that that would be the result, my opposition to the remission of this tax would perhaps not be so great, but I suggest that there is not the slightest doubt that the admission charge of 10/- to-day, which includes 2/- duty, will still be 10/- when no duty will be payable.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 19; Níl, 10.

Tá

• Aghas, Pádraig.
• Clarkin, Andrew S.
• Colgan, Michael.
• Dowdall, Jennie.
• Farnan, Robert. P.
• Fitzsimons, Patrick.
• Gorry, Patrick J.
• Hartnett, Noel.
• Honan, Thomas V.
• Jessop, W.J.E.
• Lynch, James B.
• Nic Phiarais, Maighréad, M.
• Ó Ciosáin, Éamon.
• Ó Donnabháin, Seán.
• Ó Grádaigh, Seán.
• Ó Siocfhradha, Pádraig.
• Quirke, William.
• Summerfield, Frederick M.
• Yeats, Michael B.

Níl

• Burke, Denis.
• Douglas, James G.
• Hayes, Michael.
• McFadden, Míchéal Óg.
• McGuire, Edward A.
• Meighan, John J.
• O'Brien, George.
• O'Donnell, Frank H.
• O'Reilly, Patrick F.
• Tunney, James.

Tellers:—Tá: Senators Fitzsimons and Kissane; Níl: Senators Burke and P.F. O'Reilly.

Question declared carried.

Sections 15 and 16 put and agreed to.

SECTION 17.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

I move recommendation No. 2:—

In page 11, lines 45 and 48, to delete "five hundred" and substitute "one thousand".

By virtue of Section 17 when a deposit receipt with bankers is in the name of more than one person and exceeds £500, on the death of one of the holders before the banker may pay the survivor, a certificate from the Revenue Commissioners must be produced with the receipt to say that all estate duties payable in respect of the money on deposit have been paid. Prior to 1935 money on deposit receipt might be paid over on the death of one of two joint holders merely on production of a certificate of death or other evidence of the death of the deceased depositor. The 1935 Act provided that a banker might not pay the survivor in a joint deposit receipt any moneys where the deposit exceeded £100 unless a certificate was produced from the Revenue Commissioners that all death duties had been paid in respect of the money on deposit. This section proposes to extend that limit from £100 to £500, and I would ask the Seanad to accept the recommendation that that limit be extended from £500 to £1,000.

I make this recommendation because I think the revenue will sustain no loss should the limit be raised from £500 to £1,000, and because it will facilitate people particularly in the country in dealing with money on deposit in a bank following the death of one of two joint holders. The case I have in mind is where a husband and wife have a sum up to £1,000 on deposit; one of the parties dies and there is some difficulty in obtaining money, the only source available, perhaps, being the money on deposit. If this recommendation is not accepted, if the deposit exceeds £500, the banker may not pay out money in order to facilitate such a person unless he produces a certificate from the Revenue Commissioners that all death duties have been paid.

The Minister has indicated that he did not expect any loss to the revenue by putting the surviving holder in a position to get money up to £500, and I do not think he will lose if he raises the limit from £500 to £1,000. On the other hand, it would facilitate a survivor in dealing with money up to £1,000 if he had not to go to the trouble of getting that certificate.

The Minister may say, possibly, that the Revenue Commissioners might lose, but I do not think they will. I do not think that people who have had money on deposit can or do evade death duties in respect of that money. I must remind the House that death duties are not payable except in a case where the net estate—that is, the deceased's estate, less deductions for debts—exceeds £2,000. Where it happens, as it often does in the country, that the money on deposit is the deceased's sole asset, or that money with a small farm, and the survivor becomes entitled to a sum up to £1,000, he should be able to cash that money without going to the trouble of obtaining the certificate. I do not think that the Minister will be taking any great risk of losing revenue if he raises the limit to £1,000 instead of to £500.

Mr. MacEntee

I would ask the Seanad not to agree to this recommendation. The limit of £500 has been fixed after very careful consideration, and the Revenue Commissioners are not satisfied that the risk of loss would not be significant and considerably increased if the recommendation were accepted. When I say risk of loss I mean the risk that a person might evade duties.

There is not very much substance in what Senator O'Reilly has said. If a person happens to have such a substantial sum as almost £1,000 on deposit I have no doubt that if money is urgently wanted the bank manager will facilitate that person. That is just ordinary business. You cannot base the case for this recommendation on compassionate grounds. On the other hand we cannot overlook the fact that if the amount of money on deposit is large, over £500, then it is a fair assumption that the rest of the estate is correspondingly large and will be liable to death duties. For those reasons I would ask the Seanad not to accept the recommendation.

Mr. P.F. O'Reilly

Having heard the Minister, I will not press the recommendation.

Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.

Section 17 agreed to.

Sections 18 to 25, inclusive, agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.

Question proposed: "That the First Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. O'Donnell

Might I ask the Minister to explain a point in the First Schedule to me? What does the preferential rate here mean and to what would it apply? I do not quite understand the two rates of duty on spirits in the Schedule—why one is preferential and the other the full rate. Is it due to export facilities or to something else?

Mr. MacEntee

The preferential rates of duty are the rates on spirits which have been shown to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners to have been produced in and consigned from a country within the Commonwealth of Nations.

Question put and agreed to.

Second Schedule agreed to.

THIRD SCHEDULE.

Question proposed: "That the Third Schedule be the Third Schedule to the Bill."

Mr. Douglas

I would be glad if the Minister would briefly explain what exactly is the change. It reads just as I thought the law read up to this.

Mr. MacEntee

To find the change we must hark back to Section 15 of the Bill.

Mr. Douglas

Is it a question of the interpretation of the value of imported goods?

Mr. MacEntee

It is much fuller. If the Senator will look at Section 15 (1) (a) and (2) (b) he will see:—

"For the purpose of any enactment (whether contained in an Act or an Order) for the time being in force under which a duty of customs is chargeable on goods by reference to their value, the value of any imported goods shall, whether it is or is not otherwise specifically provided, be that laid down in the Third Schedule to this Act, and duty shall be paid on that value."

The change arises in this way. At present the definition of value is that laid down in Section 25 of the Finance Act of 1938, which repealed Section 34 of the Finance Act of 1933 and substituted for it an enactment providing that

"the value of any articles or goods for any of the purposes of this Act or any other Act (whether passed before or after this Act) relating to the customs or of any Order relating to the customs heretofore or hereafter made under any Act (whether passed before or after this Act) shall, in the absence of provision to the contrary, be taken to be the price which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, an importer would give for such article or goods if such article or goods were delivered, freight and insurance paid, in bond at the place of importation."

Briefly, therefore, the Schedule gives a greatly extended prescription of the basis on which the value of imported goods will be computed. The underlying intention in both cases, however, is the same. The underlying intention in the case of the proposed new basis and that which is embodied in Section 25 of the Finance Act of 1938 is essentially the same, that is to say, that the duty will be based on the price which would be paid by a typical independent importer for goods delivered at the place of importation, freight, insurance and all other costs paid up to that point.

We propose to substitute for that somewhat brief prescription of the manner in which this value on importation will be computed a definition which has been agreed on by the Brussels Convention for the purpose of assessing the value of goods for customs purposes. This proposed new prescription or procedure has been formulated as a result of the study of the question by the European Customs Union Study Group, the idea being to try to establish uniform practice in all countries in regard to this matter.

Mr. Douglas

The only point which was not clear to me was whether Section 4 in the Third Schedule contained any change, because if it were carried out too logically it would be almost impracticable. You might easily be a shareholder in a public company in England and, therefore, have some interest. I take it it is not meant in that sense, that it is in the practical sense, that is, that they are not to associate together for the management of the business. If it is new, I think it would need interpretation.

Mr. MacEntee

The purpose is to ensure, amongst other things, that in what are known as "house to house" transactions, the true value of the goods will be assessed for customs and that it will not be possible by reasons of these "house to house" transactions to claim that customs duty should be levied at something less than the real or normal value, that is, what a typical independent importer would have to pay for the goods if delivered to him at the place of importation with insurance, freight and all other charges paid.

Mr. Douglas

I am well aware of the practice with regard to "house to house" transactions and I do not think anyone would question that. The reason I asked whether there was any change was that Section 4 of this Schedule seemed to be more stringent than in the case of "house to house" buying in the past and I wanted to know whether there was anything in it or what was the object. It may be that that was the phrase which was in before, interpreted in a general way, and I have no objection.

Mr. MacEntee

In fact, there has been no change in principle or in practice, but the idea is to introduce an element of precision into it and make certain that the intentions of the Legislature will be effective.

Mr. Douglas

If the Minister says that there is no real change in practice, that is all I want to find out. That is what I thought from reading it, but then I began to wonder about it when I heard the Minister's speech.

Mr. O'Donnell

I am trying to read this particular Schedule. I think that many people will find it very difficult, if not impossible, to understand portions of this Schedule. It seems to me that the Legislature is doing the public a grave injury when they draft Bills affecting the life of the public in language which it is so difficult to follow. I appeal for the drafting of Bills in clear and concise language, so that any ordinary man will be able to interpret it for himself. It seems to me that we are endeavouring to become more and more obscure in our use of the English language. I realise that it is very difficult to couch the phrases in a simple manner, but serious consideration should be given to the matter of clarity in respect of the implications of a section. I remember that Lord Dunsany said a considerable time ago that the Civil Service had done more to ruin English than anything Macaulay wrote about the New Zealander long ago.

The Civil Service has an extraordinarily obscure way of expressing something which should be clear and concise and easily understood by the ordinary man in the street. What does the Minister mean by the following extraordinary sub-section (b) of Section 2 of this Third Schedule?:—

"That the price made is not influenced by any commercial, financial or other relationship, whether by contract or otherwise, between the seller or any person associated in business with him and the buyer or any person associated in business with him (other than the relationship created by the sale of the goods in question); and ..."

Sub-section (1) of Section 3 reads as follows:—

"(1) Where the goods to be valued—

(a) are manufactured in accordance with any patented invention or are goods to which any registered design has been applied; or

(b) are imported under a foreign trade mark, or are imported for sale (whether or not after further manufacture) under a foreign trade mark;

the normal price shall be determined on the assumption that the price covers the right to use the patent, design or trade mark in respect of the goods."

That section brings up the point which the Federation of Irish Manufacturers have raised time and time again, namely, the legal right to the use of an imported trade mark or a trade name. We have held that the great majority of the trade marks and trade names used in this country are used illegally. It is interesting to recall the findings of the Lord Chief Justice in Britain on a certain case many years ago. We think that some reference should be made to the report of the Patents and Trade Mark Commission which was published some years ago. It is important that the rights of Irish manufacturers to a trade mark should be covered. If we specify in an Act that, by virtue of a sub-section of the Act, a right has been created to the use of a trade name or trade mark, we acquiesce in something which the Federation of Irish Manufacturers look upon as illegal.

Might I ask the Minister to explain the meaning of Section 4 of this Schedule? It reads as follows:—

"Two persons shall be deemed to be associated in business with one another if, whether directly or indirectly, either of them has any interest in the business or property of the other, or both have a common interest in any business or property, or some third person has an interest in the business or property of both of them."

I ask the House, was anything ever more extraordinarily and abstrusely and obscurely phrased? I realise that it has been common in all Parliaments to be as obscure as possible, but why not take the lead now and use more simple phraseology and make the Bills clearly understood so that the common mind can understand what exactly the Legislature is doing?

Mr. Quirke

I suggest that the Senator must not have read the portion of the Bill to which he has referred. I am no authority on matters of this kind, but the Bill is quite clear to me, and I think anybody could understand it. The point which the Senator has raised is much simpler even than the dance tax.

Question put and agreed to, Mr. O'Donnell dissenting.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without recommendation.

Agreed to take the remaining stages to-day.

Bill received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.