When we adjourned for tea I was discussing the effects of financial policy upon the country and, I think, the anachronisms in this country. It is an extraordinary thing to find that on the one hand we have the Minister who has just left the House carrying on a strong policy of development of industry and on the other hand the present Minister carrying out a financial policy in direct opposition to the fulfilment of that policy.
Finance Bill, 1953.—Second Stage (Resumed).
That is quite untrue. The Senator ought to know that. It is a disgraceful assertion.
I can quote figures. The Minister says that I am making a disgraceful assertion, but I can only quote the facts in reply to that. If there is one thing from which this country suffers it is a fall in consumer purchasing power, and that is plain to everyone. The figures of unemployment are continuously increasing. The percentage is increasing. In January of this year the percentage of increase over January, 1951, was 32 per cent., and without going through the various months the percentage of increase as against this month in 1951 is 31. The gradual percentage of increases in unemployment goes like a step-ladder from 32 to 42, 53, 60, 71 per cent. The Minister said that I made a misstatement of fact. I say to the Minister that there is the proof of the facts in what I am saying. How are we going to increase consumer purchasing power? Why are many of our industries at the present moment under-worked and under-developed? For the same reason that consumer purchasing power is falling—financial policy is to blame for that.
How?
Senator O'Rourke asks me how, and he probably is a man lucky enough with his bank manager in Roscommon, but if he questions industrialists and businessmen about the present position in regard to their relations with their bank managers I think he will find that they are in a very bad way. If Senator O'Rourke also asks me why this has happened it is quite obvious that if there is restriction of credit—and Senator O'Rourke presumably will agree with the wisdom of the restriction of credit and finance—surely it is quite evident to him that consumer purchasing power has fallen and it is developing like a circulating decimal. If it has fallen, somebody at some time is going to go out of work—that is the obvious inference—as a result of that policy. You had now 67,000 people out of work in June of this year. I am not saying that this is a country of untold wealth, but I say it is a wealthy country.
I am quite certain the Minister is just as anxious as I am, in fairness to him, and I will read here a statement of his which he made in the Dáil, Volume 44, column 2078, on a Supplementary Estimate in 1932. This is what the Minister said and I am satisfied that he would agree with this to-day:
"We believe that it is better if people have to be taxed, and if people cannot find employment, that instead of being maintained by the community they should be maintained in work rather than in idleness."
The Minister said that in 1932, according to the Official Reports. Does he say it to-day? Does his policy carry the proof of what he said then? I am stating a fact. So far as I am concerned, it is not a Party matter, and I very much deprecate, as a businessman, that there is unemployment, and I am sure everyone does. My interpretation of the reason for that unemployment is the financial policy of the Minister or of the Government which he represents.
It would not do to leave the tariff policy of the Fianna Fáil Party there in 1948, when the inter-Party Government came in.
I am not discussing the tariff policy; I am discussing the financial policy.
The Senator is discussing economics, and I remember the time when he would agree with the Government's economic policy.
I am discussing a different thing, and I am saying that this position is the result of the financial policy. I may be quite wrong; I am not going to be adamant about it. I believe it, and that is what everyone is now saying. As a result of this financial policy we have increasing unemployment and as result of the financial policy, whether directed by the Minister or not, we have had a continuous deflationary policy by the banking authority over the last two years. As a further result we have the unemployed demonstrating in the streets of Dublin to-day, and we have unemployed in the countryside, and there is considerably reduced purchasing power.
I would not disagree with most other aspects of the policy of the present Government, but I say that when the fundamental policy is wrong—and the financial policy is the foundation of our whole economy—something should be done about it. I believe that the Minister might reconsider what he said in 1932, that what applied then applies to-day.
I am very glad to see that, even at this late hour, he has agreed to appoint a commission to inquire into the incidence of taxation on industry. Many of us have been crying in the wilderness for many years that it would not be possible to compete with imported goods and carry out greater production, without an allowance for wear and tear on machinery and a competitive allowance comparable to that of Northern Ireland on our buildings and general depreciation.
You might have to pay a higher tax on your profits.
If the Senator were here earlier, he would not interrupt. If he were here when the Minister for Industry and Commerce was here, he would have got a direct reply from him, that he will not get from me.
Are you sure you have no profits to tax?
I am speaking about something that Senator Hartnett knows nothing about. If we have to develop export trade we must keep the machinery at top notch and if we must do that, we must give a greater allowance to the industrialists in the depreciation write down. In America to-day they write off machinery in four years. Generally here, our machinery write-off is as high as 20 years. In some cases the percentage allowance on machinery runs as low as 5 per cent., though in some cases it runs as high as ten. I will get the reply that normally there is an obsolescence allowance also. That is true. That is when the machine runs out and you are making a full replacement.
No; if you decide to replace it.
I am slightly deaf in one ear and cannot hear the witticisms.
You are making most of the noise yourself.
As a man who always missed a free kick, I give Senator O'Rourke full credit there. If you go to replace machinery and even get the obsolescence allowance, you cannot replace it at anything like the price at which it was bought four, five or ten years ago. I would ask the Minister to consider seriously doing something in the next year or two in this matter of machinery and buildings. Industry here cannot compete or develop unless there is some help in that direction. The blatant fact is—as is known to any person with his eyes open—that there was never such a depression as there is at the moment. Can anyone tell me of anybody he knows who has money to spend, money to buy with, or money to pay? Have we not got everybody with debts they owe to everybody else? I referred at the beginning to the Olympian heights of Senator George O'Brien; there may be others who are hoping to go as high as him and claim that position also. So far as I am concerned and so far as people in industry are concerned, we cannot get payment of our accounts. Many have difficulty in selling their goods, and the retail market is extremely bad. Anyone can tell you that. I hold in my hand a newspaper showing a very large advertisement of a sale by a big retail firm. Look at the prices at which they are selling these goods.
The lower the better.
Is that an indication purely of consumer purchasing power?
It is an indication that it is now a consumer's market.
Is the Minister trying to assert to me at this hour of the day that people still do not want goods?
They do, but at their price, not yours. That is the difference.
As a member of a profession of which the Minister was an adornment, I will not reply to that. As a member of the trade, I would not reply to a statement of that nature. It is something of a personal reflection and I am not replying to it at all. It is a statement I did not expect the Minister for Finance to make when I was talking about general principles.
It was not addressed to the Senator personally, and he knows that.
I was talking about consumer prices falling, that this was an indication of falling consumer purchasing power and that that fall has come as a result of the financial policy of the Government. I still say— and I am confident that I am right, and I am not saying it in any Party spirit—that if the present Government went to the country and tried to prove to the people that they were well off and that the country was well off to-day, that it is prosperous and that everything in the garden is lovely—I am sorry to say this, as I have a good feeling for the majority of the Government's policy—that they would be committed to everlasting Limbo because of this financial policy.
I do not think there is the slightest doubt as to the accuracy of Senator O'Donnell's remarks regarding the position of trade in this city and throughout the country in general for the last two years, nor do I believe there is the slightest doubt that the present Minister for Finance and his colleague in the Government and those who supported their policies, are responsible for the depression in trade and for the hardships which have been imposed on people in Dublin and elsewhere by that policy. Other Senators who are members of the legal profession, Senators who are active in business circles also, well know that it is a fact that there has been more business done in the Irish bankruptcy offices and bankruptcy courts in the last two years than was done in the decade before that. That is due to the activities of the present Minister for Finance.
There is no doubt whatever that the present Government's policy has brought about this depression in trade and has resulted in large-scale unemployment. On this evening's Evening Herald we read a statement by a Senator who certainly is not unfriendly to the Minister and who, I think, has always supported the present Government's policy in this House. I quote now from this evening's Evening Herald. Senator McMullen, President of the Congress of Irish Unions, speaking at the annual conference which opened in Killarney, is reported as saying:—
"The deflationary effect of the Budget changes of 1952 in sharply raising prices and reducing the purchasing value of wages had confronted them with a situation in which effective demand for commodities had fallen off...."
I think that in that phrase lies the explanation of the advertisements which Senator O'Donnell displayed here a few minutes ago—
"...effective demand for commodities had fallen off, with resultant unemployment on a larger scale than they had experienced for many years."
That is the opinion of the President of the Congress of Irish Trade Unions— a Senator who has consistently supported the Government group in this House.
This is an opportunity which Senators get for reviewing the work and the policies of the Government in the past 12 months. In his recent Budget and in his Budget statement, the Minister reimposed, in their full savagery, the taxes which were imposed in the Budget of 1952. During the past 12 months there have been a number of significant facts in the political scene —in the sphere of policies and in the sphere of politics. We have seen, as other Senators have mentioned, marching feet in Dublin. It was not the march of the nation. We have seen Irish civil servants marching through the streets of Dublin in protest against the treatment meted out to them by the present Minister for Finance, who is in charge of the Irish Civil Service. More recently, we have seen the march of the unemployed in Dublin. We have seen men marching in protest against Government policies which have put them into the position that they cannot find work. In that connection, I think it might be well to refresh the Minister's mind on the provisions of the Constitution drafted by his leader and adopted by the people of this country.
Against the advice of the Opposition.
The fact is that it was adopted by the people of this country. It was fathered by people like Senator Hawkins.
Of which we are proud.
Article 45 of the Constitution concerns directive principles of social policy. Paragraph 2 of the said Article 45 of the Constitution states:—
"The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing
(i) That the citizens (all of whom, men and women equally, have the right to an adequate means of livelihood) may through their occupations find the means of making reasonable provision for their domestic needs."
Would it not be as well for this House and for the Minister to examine the policy which he has pursued for the past two years and, in particular, for the past 12 months, side by side with that provision of Article 45 of the Constitution? Is it not a fact that the financial policy pursued by this Government, whether deliberately or not, has had results diametrically in conflict with the pious aspirations of paragraph 2 of Article 45 of the Constitution? Is it not quite clear that many thousands of our people not only in Dublin but throughout the country may certainly have the right to an adequate means of livelihood but, by reason of Government policies and by reason of the policy of the Minister for Finance, have not at present an adequate means of livelihood? They have not, through their occupations, the means of making reasonable provision for their domestic needs.
There was a time when foodstuffs, clothing and other articles were obtainable at reasonable prices. So far as foodstuffs were concerned, that level was maintained by means of food subsidies. Members of the present Government and their supporters— every one of them—boasted of being the authors of the food subsidies. They went before the electorate in the last general election as the authors of the food subsidies. When the election was over they solemnly published in every newspaper in this country their pledge to the Dáil, to the Oireachtas and to the people that if they were enabled by a group of Independent Deputies in the Dáil to form a Government they would maintain those food subsidies. Presumably, the food subsidies were originated in accordance with Article 45 (2) of the Constitution. They have been slashed and swept away by the Minister—with the support of people who went into the Dáil pledged to maintain them and pledged to press to have them increased. The fact is that their removal has made the cost of living soar. Side by side with the increase in the cost of living that was started by the Budget of 1952 and that is being maintained this year—the cost of living in respect of food alone increased within the last quarter, as was explained only yesterday in the Dáil by the Tánaiste—whatever the Minister or his colleagues may say, you have a very rigorous restriction on bank credit. You have businessmen, big and small, in the country who have been quite unable to get reasonable credit facilities from the banks. I am not talking in favour of the person who seeks credit for purely speculative purposes but people have been refused reasonable credit facilities for reasonable projects and it will be a long time before the people will believe that that has not been done if not actually at the behest of the Minister for Finance at least with his blessing and because it was in accordance with Government policy.
Other matters occurred during the year. Last year, when he presented his Budget, the Minister for Finance was charged with budgeting for a surplus. The truth and accuracy of that charge has amply been demonstrated by the present Budget which the Minister introduced. During the past year. Supplementary Estimates to the tune of, I think, £8,000,000 were introduced in the Dáil. Of them, moneys to the extent of £4,500,000 were not forecast by the Minister for Finance or by any member of the Government. I think I am correct in saying that the Minister or the Taoiseach, or possibly both of them, stated that there would not be any Supplementary Estimates. Certainly, Supplementary Estimates to the extent of £4,500,000 were introduced in the past year without having been forecast by the Government or by the Minister for Finance. Where did that money come from? I think it is quite clear that it came because the Minister had budgeted for a surplus last year and he budgeted for a surplus so that he would be able to provide the extra £4,500,000.
But he was not. The Senator should go and read my speech before he makes that statement. Last year's Budget ended with a deficit of almost £2,000,000.
The Minister should listen to my speech before he replies to it.
It is very hard to do so.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister will get an opportunity of replying.
The only thing I can promise the Minister is that, as time goes on, it will be harder.
It will be longer and more tiresome.
Not alone did the Minister provide that money during the course of the year by his surplus budgeting of last year but he has made it quite clear in this year's Budget, either that he does not believe in all his talk about balancing budgets or he is budgeting for a surplus this year as well. Everyone will remember how the Minister used to beat the big drum and tell the people of the awful crimes of his predecessor in office, how this man, whom he described as a mean, grasping lawyer, had failed to balance his Budgets. We remember how the Taoiseach and other Fianna Fáil speakers stumped up and down this country condemning this crime of introducing and passing unbalanced Budgets.
What has the Minister done? This year, he introduced a Budget in the region of £100,000,000, based on a Book of Estimates for that figure, and calmly tells the Dáil that he sees no reason why, when one is talking in terms of £100,000,000, he should not be able to make savings in the year amounting to a minimum of £3,500,000. Either the Minister has budgeted for a surplus, or he has brought in this year an unbalanced Budget. He can take his choice. In case any Senators may think I am misquoting the Minister, I refer to his Budget statement of 6th May, column 1208 of the Dáil Debates, in which he says:—
"While economies affecting the living standards of the weaker sections of the community are out of the question and will not be sought, this does not apply to other sectors of the administration. There is little reason to doubt that within the framework of an expenditure of over £100,000,000 significant economies can be made without impairing efficiency or curtailing essential or useful services. Accordingly, the Government have decided that a general economy of at least £3,500,000 in the cost of the public administration must be secured. I can assure the Dáil and the taxpayer that this matter will be most vigorously pursued in every Department."
The Minister, in other words, introduced a Budget reimposing the taxes which he imposed in his 1952 Budget, based on a Book of Estimates in the region of £100,000,000. While he is going to collect exactly the same taxes as last year, while he is going to have the people paying higher prices for bread, butter, tea, sugar and practically every commodity one can think of, he says now, a year later:—
"Despite the fact that I am putting on the same taxes and despite the fact that I am asking the people to pay the same amount of money, I am perfectly convinced that, when you talk in terms of £100,000,000, you can economise to the extent of at least £3,500,000 in public administration."
What does this Budget mean? Is the Minister looking for £100,000,000 or for £96,500,000? A sum of £1,000,000 here or there does not seem to bother the Minister very much, but £1,000,000 or £3,500,000 extra in taxation may mean a very great deal to the people.
If the Minister had been able to find this sum of £3,500,000 last year—he says it is no trouble to him now and he is firmly convinced it is there—was there any reason to be so savage in the reduction of the food subsidies? Was there any reason to treat the civil servants as they were treated? Was there any reason to dishonour the arbitration award as it was dishonoured by the Government? Would the Minister answer these questions when replying to the debate? Remember that the people of the country have already answered them. I referred to the fact that there were significant events during the course of the year in the political arena. Three of these significant matters concerned Dublin City, Wicklow and East Cork, because, in these three constituencies, the Government policy, as put before the Oireachtas within the framework of this Bill, was put to the people for their decision, and can anyone doubt what the decision of the people was? In North-West Dublin, a very respected member of this House, an extremely popular Lord Mayor of this city, was soundly thrashed for no other reason than that he stood for Fianna Fáil and the Fianna Fáil policies.
The same thing occurred in Wicklow and East Cork, and there is no doubt whatever that, as far as the people of this country are concerned, they want to see an end of the present Minister's policies. They want to see an end of the policy which the Minister introduced in 1952 and reintroduced this year. It is abundantly clear that not only the members of the Government but everyone sitting behind them in the Dáil and in the Seanad intensely dislike the very thought of a general election.
Try it out.
There are a number of Senators acting like a small boy passing the graveyard at night. They are whistling to keep up their courage.
It looks as if you yourself are whistling.
Out of tune, though.
Members of the Government remind me——
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
There is no general election in this Finance Bill.
I am merely making the point, which I believe I am justified in making, that members of the Government who come before the House with policies which they want implemented should take into account the expressed wishes of the people. I am making the point that the people have expressed their wishes on this matter.
What wish did they express in North-West Dublin when Fine Gael put up no candidate?
When they funked it?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
This question and answer across the floor of the House should cease. The Senator has dealt with the results of the elections and with the prospective general election, whenever it takes place. That is sufficient.
They put their candidate in on a dead man's coffin.
I ask that I be allowed to deal with the interruptions, and particularly the rather ignorant and boorish interruptions of the Minister.
Would the Senator stop playing politics and come down to the Bill?
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator should be allowed to proceed with his speech. Other Senators will have an opportunity of replying, but question and answer across the floor of the House is not debate.
The Minister has just made an interruption which is, to my mind, an insult to and a reflection on a member of the Oireachtas and on a member of the Oireachtas now deceased. I think the Minister should have the courtesy to withdraw it.
I am not taking lessons in courtesy from the Senator or from any member of his family.
I do not believe the Minister has the ability to learn courtesy from anyone.
An Leas-Cathaoirleach
The Chair did not hear what the Minister said.
If the Minister will not withdraw it, he will not.
You may be sure he will not.
His refusal to withdraw will go on the records of the House. The people of Dublin to whom he referred as the mob have given their answer and I have no doubt at all that, if we had in this country any kind of real democracy in Government, the people of the country as a whole would have an opportunity of giving their answer. Instead of submitting these policies to the people, the Government chose to hang on in the Dáil, despite the doubtful constitutional position. They did so by means of the votes of certain Deputies—certainly not of a majority of the members of the Dáil. They decided they would come into the Oireachtas and ask their own Party and their kind Party friends to give them a vote of confidence. The people who should be allowed to say whether they have confidence or not are the electors of this country. I invite the Minister and his Government to give the electors an opportunity of deciding that question.
In addition to bringing in a Budget designed to raise the same amount of money from the same taxes as last year, the Minister has persuaded his colleague in the Department of Industry and Commerce to add new charges. We remember how some months ago the Taoiseach and, indeed, the Minister for Finance in his Budget statement, were very emphatic that the limit of taxation had been reached and that the people of this country were staggering under the weight of taxation imposed by the Fianna Fáil Government and that it was not going to go an inch further. At the same time as those statements were made, we had the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs wandering into the Dáil with a new list of charges, new taxation and new burdens on the people. I do not know if in that situation any reliance at all can be placed on the pronouncement of Government Ministers. If the Minister for Finance tells the people that the limit has been reached and if the Taoiseach tells the people that they are staggering under the weight of taxation, surely the people are entitled to think that an end has come to the capability of the Fianna Fáil Government to find new ways of imposing taxation on them? But, not at all. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs found that he could raise something over £500,000 by increasing postal charges and, further, that money could be raised by increasing wireless licences. Another Minister discovered that money could be raised by increasing lorry licences and motor taxation charges. That is taxation whatever the Minister for Finance or the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs may say about it.
Whether the Minister likes it or not the policy which he has been pursuing and advocating over the last two years has been emphatically repudiated by the people. I would ask him, in so far as he claims to be a democrat, to accept the verdict of the people, change his policies or else get out of office.
It was said here this afternoon that had we not known what took place in the Dáil in regard to the Finance Bill we should not have learned very much this evening from the Minister for Finance. In a very simple story he told us that this was a Finance Bill which he would ask us to pass. He went through the various sections of that Bill. Certainly we were not entitled to think from what we heard from him that the Finance Bill was giving effect to a Budget which was concerned with the spending of £100,000,000, £113,000,000 or, perhaps, even £125,000,000. No, he did not tell us anything like that at all.
For all we knew from the Minister, perhaps his Budget would not be concerned with anything more than knocking down Dublin Castle and putting it up again or, perhaps, knocking down the Oireachtas buildings and replacing them with new ones. He appeared to think that there was really nothing in this Bill. He had considered it fully. It was only a matter of over £100,000,000 and we should put it through as quickly as we could. The Minister really could not be heard to say that the policy of the Government but, perhaps, in particular, the policy of the Minister was not responsible for the position in regard to unemployment to-day. I think Senator O'Donnell has very clearly shown that if the policy of the Minister is not responsible for the state of the country, to-day, the Minister should tell us what is the reason for the unemployment we have. As everybody knows, the position in regard to unemployment was never in our history worse than it is to-day.
Nonsense.
Very good. It may be said that it is nonsense, but I think it cannot be denied that the position in regard to unemployment was never worse than it is to-day. That has been stated not by politicians like ourselves but by people occupying responsible positions in the trade union movement.
It is not correct all the same.
I do not know if a speech of a colleague of ours, Senator McMullen, made to-day at the Congress of Irish Unions, was mentioned here to-day. He stated quite clearly that in his view and in the view of many people like him there was no doubt that what I am saying is true.
Following the Budget of 1952, everything went wrong. Unemployment soared and I think all that happened —perhaps, it would not be true to say solely—principally because of the last Budget. This Budget is not improving things. Under the Budget of 1952, we had a general restriction of credit. It was strange that more or less following that Budget we had that restriction. I do not know whether the Minister has sufficient influence with the banks to compel them to adopt a restrictive credit policy, but the fact remains that they did adopt a severely restrictive credit policy with the result that trade in general slumped so that nobody could make any effort to make any progress in business. I would say, in fairness, that restriction in regard to credit has been somewhat alleviated principally, I think, because the banks realised that if they did not give advances until they were satisfied that old advances had been repaid they could not carry on. The restriction in credit has been relieved but only very slightly. There does not seem to be any indication that there will be in the near future any great improvement. We have heard something about elections here this evening. I do not know why the elections should cause any annoyance or heat.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Or why they should have been introduced at all.
The question of elections is clearly relevant, for the reason that the people have given an indication during the last three by-elections as to their views of the Government's policy.
The same as they did in 1934 in regard to the Blueshirt movement.
I think any reference to the elections is quite relevant.
Mention the whole country.
As Senator O'Higgins mentioned, we have other forms of taxation and new forms of taxation. We have the Minister for Local Government coming in here and getting the assistance of the people on the opposite side of the House to raise £800,000.
And spend it on the roads.
I do not know, but he did not have to get it four years ago to spend it on the roads.
He is cutting the grants to the county councils.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Other Senators will have an opportunity of speaking later.
The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs comes along and tears up the agreements which he has had for years with telephone customers and proceeds to make additional charges; this is more taxation. The Minister for Finance, of course, does not tell us anything about those things. These items of taxation for Local Government and Posts and Telegraphs have all to be paid by us. The Minister will tell us that he has nothing at all to do with this and the Government in office endeavours to deal with the position with regard to the roads grants. They thought they would withdraw certain grants. The Government in office proceeded to indicate to county councils that they would not get as much money, by way of grants, this year as they got last year. But the Independent Deputies said: "No, you will not do that." We have not heard anything more about that since.
It will be a long time before they go back to Fine Gael standards.
County councils do not know where they stand.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator should be allowed to continue his speech.
It must be quite clear that there is no sympathy for the policy of the Minister or of the Government, throughout the country. I would ask the Minister if he would, when replying, give us details of the circumstances giving rise to claims for the refund of duty proposed by Section 14. Apparently this section is to enable the Revenue Commissioners to give a refund of duty in certain cases.
I will deal with that on the Committee Stage.
Perhaps I could mention some of the points on which I would like information, later on. I find it difficult to understand how an Irish citizen in 1947 or 1948 could not at that time certify himself as an Irish citizen and that in 1953 he is able to certify he was an Irish citizen at that time. I am quite sure the Minister will be able to give us some information on that.
You mean some solicitors forgot to do that.
I shall take the Minister up on that. That is typical of the Minister.
It is typical of the solicitors.
The Minister has some bee in his bonnet about this particular clause. He thinks I am chasing that bee and in an endeavour to ward me off he says: "Some solicitor, some member of your profession, made a mistake".
They would not do that.
I certainly would not tell a person if he was an Irish citizen that he could not make a certificate to the effect that he was an Irish citizen. The Minister talks rubbish when he talks like that. In another clause we are told that the rates of stamp duty on deeds of exchange on property are to be increased and the duty in such cases is made chargeable ad valorem. The old rate of duty was a fixed rate of 10/- and has been in force, I think, since 1891. I would like the Minister to tell us later on what changed so radically that the Minister should now alter the fixed rate of 10/- to ad valorem which increases the amount payable.
I would say to the Senator that some solicitors have become very clever. They are now able to evade duty.
You will now compliment us.
They were stupid a moment ago.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Senator should be allowed to proceed with his speech.
I would like to obtain information later on in regard to Section 16 of the Bill.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
These are Committee points. Are you merely reminding the Minister?
The Minister is taking power to enable the Revenue Commissioners to accept in discharge of death duty 5 per cent. National Loan. That is only proper and in accordance with his undertaking. Perhaps he might consider enabling the Revenue Commissioners firstly to accept that, in discharge of duty and interest instead of duty only and, secondly, to accept at their nominal value land bonds which the Minister himself issued. He might consider that favourably. I do not know.
I would like the Minister also to tell us something in regard to the rates of duty on conveyances where the consideration is between £1,000 and £2,000. In such cases where a Government grant is not payable in respect of the property the duty is at the rate of 3 per cent. Very often great hardship is caused to people, particularly young people setting up homes. If the purchase money is in the neighbourhood of £2,000, as is frequently the case in regard to houses for that class of people, they find it very hard to pay the duty and a case could be made for a reduction of the duty where that occurs, and to have the duty payable at the rate of only 1 per cent. between £1,000 and £2,000.
Reference has been made to income-tax. My view is that income-tax is relatively fair. It is as fair a way as any the Minister can discover or design to obtain a substantial share of revenue. Our principal grievance about income-tax is not so much that there is a difference between how one person and another is assessed, but that we have to pay income-tax at all. I do not think there is much that can be done about the income-tax position. I have noted that it has been suggested here from time to time that the farmers are fair game for income-tax, and that the law should be altered so as to bring in farmers so that they would be made liable to tax in the same way as people who are not farmers. The less we seek to interfere with farmers the better for ourselves and the better for the farmers. I think we should leave the farmers alone.
I wish to come to another important point, the duties on beer and spirits. The Minister must listen very carefully to this and he will be honest enough to agree that in regard to spirits he has made a big bloomer.
No.
Debate adjourned.
The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Thursday, 16th July, 1953.