Collection of Taxes (Confirmation) Bill, 1954—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Finance (Mr. Sweetman)

May I say at the outset that I am very glad indeed to have the opportunity of coming back again to this House. I cannot forget that it was in this House that I first learned the rudiments of our Parliamentary procedure and that I, so to speak, served my apprenticeship to Parliament here nor can I forget the many courtesies and kindnesses which, while I was here during those years, I received from members of the House, some of whom are still members, and the friends I made on both sides of the House. I hope that we shall have the same happy relations in the future.

This is a Bill which is limited in scope and limited in period. As the House is aware, it is not part of the ordinary financial procedure of the Oireachtas. The need for it this year, is due to the dissolution of Dáil Éireann in the period between the Budget and the passing of the Finance Bill.

On 21st April last, the Dáil agreed in Committee on Finance to four Financial Resolutions, the first of which dealt with income-tax and surtax, the second with customs duty on beer, the third with excise duty on beer and the fourth with excise duty on matches. These Resolutions were given temporary statutory effect under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927, but, since they were not confirmed by legislation, they lost their statutory force when the Dáil was dissolved three days later.

The position in regard to beer and matches was safeguarded, however, by Orders made by the previous Government on 22nd April, under the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act, 1932, to the same effect as Financial Resolutions Nos. 2, 3 and 4. No such safeguard could be employed in the case of income-tax and surtax and accordingly unless special steps were taken, it would be necessary to await the enactment of the Finance Bill before the position would be regularised. This course would be undesirable, however, since it would prolong the period of uncertainty regarding income-tax and surtax.

The purpose of the proposed Bill, therefore, is to restore the position to what it would have been had there been no dissolution, by enacting that the Resolutions passed on Budget day shall be deemed to have had continuous statutory effect from the outset and to continue to have statutory effect for a limited period pending the passing of the Finance Bill.

The Confirmation Bill includes consequential provisions, the principle of which is that the Government Orders I have referred to will cease to have effect on the passing of this Bill as being no longer necessary when the Financial Resolutions of 21st April last are given statutory effect once more. The procedure suggested now accords with precedent. In 1938, 1944 and 1951, when similar situations arose, they were dealt with in the same manner.

As the Bill is a non-controversial measure with limited effect, I trust the Seanad will be able to give me all stages to-day. Very shortly the Finance Bill will come before this House and that will give Senators an opportunity of discussing financial policy and administration.

Mr. Hawkins

While we on this side of the House are prepared to accept the explanation given by the Minister for the introduction of this Bill and, under the particular circumstances prevailing at the moment, to give him all Stages, we are surprised—and I am sure the members of the public are also surprised—to find that the very first measure introduced into this House by the Minister for Finance of a new Government is one to confirm the budgetary position of some months ago. Since the Budget was introduced and those taxes were first imposed, we had a general election. That general election was fought, in the main, on the suggestion by the people who now form the Government that the Budget created hardship, that giving effect to the provisions of the Budget as outlined in the Bill before us to-day would create emigration and general stagnation of business, that it was a tyrannical Budget and that the collection of these taxes we are asked to-day to confirm was something the people should be asked to reject.

It was stated by those who put that as their policy before the country that the people rejected the terms of the Budget as it was then introduced and supported the various Parties that proposed to offer to them cheaper food and cheaper beer, but particularly cheaper bread, butter and tea. Now we are asked to confirm the Resolutions giving effect to the taxes as they were imposed under that Budget. Since then an announcement was made by the Minister for Finance that he was prepared at a later date to give certain concessions. Harsh though the Budget was, with taxation, as we were told, at its very highest, the concessions the Minister now proposes to give will have the effect of a levy of £1,250,000 in additional taxation; if not, the Government must obtain the money by means of savings in some other direction.

This taxation is to be levied for the purpose of giving a reduction of 5d. per lb. in the price of butter. While the Minister, in his statement in the Dáil, pointed out that butter is a very essential item and for that reason the Government were concentrating on giving a reduction in respect of this particular item, I do not think the Minister is putting the full picture before the people. He also stated that a reduction of 5d. per lb. in the price of butter would bring it down to the level at which it could be bought in other countries. To my mind, that statement is very significant, because it means that the purpose of this levy of £1,250,000 is not to subsidise butter for our people—in fact it would mean, as far as the average household in this country is concerned, about 8½d. or 9d. per week—but to subsidise the export of butter and to enable us to compete with New Zealand and other butter-producing countries in the British market.

Professor Hayes

I think Senator Hawkins's statement would be more appropriate on the Finance Bill. I remember being in Mountjoy Jail in 1920, and at night a big Clare man used to climb up, put his mouth to the window and shout out for the whole prison: "The constitutional movement must go on." In the same way the Revenue Commissioners and the financial movement must go on, no matter what Government is in office. This Bill merely ensures that certain Resolutions passed by Dáil Eireann in Committee will have statutory effect. They are, as the Minister said, interim; they have a limited effect both from the point of view of their content and from the point of view of the time for which they are valid. I think serious debate on the butter question and other questions could easily be deferred to a more appropriate occasion.

Mr. Sweetman

I do not really think I should follow Senator Hawkins down the somewhat enticing avenue he opened out for me. The members of the House have no doubt read in the Official Report of the proceedings of the other House my comments on a similar argument put forward there, and perhaps they may also have read it in the newspapers. In fact, this does not deal with the matters which the Senator mentioned. Regardless of what the new Government intended to do by way of Financial Resolutions or otherwise, this would have been necessary to keep the status quo until the Finance Bill became law, whether the Bill changed or did not change the tenor of the Resolutions passed on Budget day. If it were not for some Bill such as this, there would be complete chaos between now and the time at which the Finance Bill was disposed of.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take the remaining Stages now.

Bill put through Committee without recommendation, reported, received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 23 Jun 1954