COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - SECTION 6—(AMENDMENT OF SECTION 8 OF THE FINANCE ACT, 1923).
I beg to move:—
To insert immediately before section 6 a new section as follows:—
"(1) The rules set out in the First Schedule to this Act shall be added to Schedule C of the Income Tax Act, 1918, at the end of the "Rules applicable to Schedule C" and shall be construed and take effect as part of those Rules.
"(2) This section shall be deemed to have come into force and had effect as on and from the commencement of the Finance Act, 1923 (No. 21 of 1923)."
To understand this amendment correctly one must presuppose the adoption of amendment No. 19, which gives power to the Land Bank, in the same way as the Bank of Ireland in connection with deductions of income tax from annuities or other sums payable to individuals in the country. The Land Bank discharges on the part of the Government interest in respect of bonds issued under the Damage to Property Act. As those bonds are running at an interest of about £5 per centum, it will be necessary in order that the State should get its quota of income tax in respect of that particular investment, that power should be given to deduct at source. How it is to operate is set out in amendment No. 19, which is to insert a new first schedule.
Are we to take it that this amendment, as well as amendment No. 19 to the First Schedule, is in consequence of the Act which authorised the Land Bank to do certain things in relation to the land purchase and damage to property?
In respect to damage to property, I do not know if land purchase comes within its purview. I should say not, as in that case a different set of circumstances would arise, and another method of deduction is open to the Minister for Finance. As regards interest on bonds issued in pursuance of the Damage to Property Act, there is no such power and the Minister would have to get a list from the bank of persons getting interest, serve notice and go through the expensive methods adopted in respect of landed property, house property or other property, in respect of which income tax must be collected. This is an easier and more expeditious method of collection. If it should occur that a person in respect of such deduction is not liable to income tax, directly that matter is reported to the Revenue Commissioners and such deduction need not be made. This is the most direct, the least expensive, and certainly the most expeditious method of dealing with it.
Question: "That the new section be inserted before Section 6"—put and agreed to.
New section ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Motion made: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."
Can we have some information as to what this section means? "Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1923, shall be construed and have effect and shall be deemed always to have been construed and had effect, as if the words "tax upon" were inserted therein before the word "such" where that word secondly appears in the said section." I have not been able to refer to last year's Finance Acts, and perhaps the Minister would help us by explaining the effect of the section.
A couple of words were omitted accidentally, as sometimes occurs during the progress of a Bill, and passed without the error being discovered. As a matter of fact, as the schedule stands in the Act of 1923 it is unintelligible, owing to the reference to tax having being omitted.
Has the Minister done anything under that schedule?
Question put and agreed to.
Section 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 8.
(1) Where the amount due in respect of a tax duly assessed under the Income Tax Acts does not exceed £300, the collector or other officer of the Revenue Commissioners duly authorised to collect the said tax may, on and after the coming into operation of Part II. of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924 (No. 10 of 1924), sue in his own name in the Circuit Court for the said amount so due as a debt due to the Minister for Finance.
(2) Where the amount due in respect of a tax duly assessed under the Income Tax Acts does not exceed £25, the collector or other officer of the Revenue Commissioners duly authorised to collect the said tax may, on and after the coming into operation of Part III, of the Courts of Justice Act, 1924 (No. 10 of 1924), sue in his own name in the District Court for the said amount so due as a debt due to the Minister for Finance.
(3) In any proceeding brought by a collector or other officer under this section, the production of the duplicate assessment of the tax or a copy of such duplicate purporting to be certified as a true copy by an officer of the Revenue Commissioners shall be conclusive evidence of the due assessment of the tax.
(4) The costs of any such proceeding as aforesaid shall be subject to the law and practice applicable to the costs of a like proceeding for the recovery of an ordinary civil debt of like amount in the same Court.
I move:—
"In sub-section (3), line 62, to delete the words ‘duplicate assessment' and to substitute in lieu thereof the words ‘collector's duplicate of the assessment.'"
It is merely a drafting amendment.
Amendment put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 8, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Section 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 10.
(1) The new import duties (except the duty on records and other means of reproducing music) which were first imposed by Section 12 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, and were continued up to the 1st day of May, 1924, by Section 14 of the Finance Act, 1923 (No. 21 of 1923), shall continue to be charged, levied, and paid on and from the said 1st day of May, 1924, up to the 1st day of May, 1925.
(2) The duty on records and other means of reproducing music which was first imposed by the said Section 12 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, and was continued up to the 1st day of May, 1924, by the said Section 14 of the Finance Act, 1923 (No. 21 of 1923), shall continue to be charged, levied, and paid on and from the said 1st day of May, 1924, up to the 1st day of August, 1924.
(3) The provisions of Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1919, shall apply to the duties continued under this section with the substitution of the expression "Saorstát Eireann' for the expression "Great Britain and Ireland."
I move:—
In sub-section (1), line 19, after the words "the duty on," to insert the words "musical instruments and"—and to insert a new sub-section after sub-section (1) as follows:—
"The duty on musical instruments, including gramophones, pianolas or other similar instruments, which was first imposed by the said Section 12 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, and was continued up to the 1st day of May, 1924, by the said Section 14 of the Finance Act, 1923 (No. 21 of 1923) shall be continued to be charged, levied and paid on and after the 1st of July, 1924, at a rate equal to fifteen per cent. of the value of the article."
This amendment is really a very simple one, and its intention is perfectly clear. An ad valorem duty at the rate of 33? is charged on musical instruments coming into the Free State. The object of the amendment is that after the 1st July instead of 33? per cent., 15 per cent. be charged. In order to make the purpose of the amendment clear I would like to recall the origin of this tax. It was first introduced and known as one of the “McKenna Duties.” It was brought in in England to protect the British piano against what was then considered to be the unfair competition of the German piano. The unfairness of the competition rested in the fact that the German exchange permitted a high-class piano to be introduced into England on terms that were actually cheaper than the lower class piano the British manufacturer made. Consequently this tax was introduced in England to protect what was then spoken of as the poor man's piano that is to say, the piano generally sold to the artisan family.
That was at the end of the war.
Some of them still, I believe, have desires for harmony. What happened when Ireland was created a separate fiscal unit was this: that the main purpose of this tax was defeated and that the cheap piano instead of being protected from competition, in order that it might be made available to people who could not afford the more expensive German piano, was at once charged on the same basis as the more expensive German piano; and the result has been that during the past year the cheap English piano has risen to a rate equal to, or within a few pounds of the more expensive German piano. The result has been during the past year that the purchase of these instruments has been very considerably retarded and that the sale of the German instrument has been to a certain extent increased. Now, what has happened? Owing to the adoption and enforcement under the new German financial system of the rental mark the German piano has increased in cost also, with the result that at the present moment, the entire trade in Ireland is threatened with extinction, as I am informed by those whom I have consulted in the matter and who I believe have represented the case very strongly to the Minister for Finance. I believe some of the larger shops in Dublin are contemplating the closing of their premises or the dispensing of a large portion of their staff on to the unemployment market because of the incidence of this taxation. That is the actual position of the trade at the present moment. In urging that this tax be reduced I am doing it principally on the ground that the reduction will be one that will be good for trade and therefore good for employment, in as much as it will keep a number of persons who, at the present moment, might find themselves thrown on the unemployment market, in employment.
But there is more than that. I revert to the case I tried to urge before the Minister in regard to income tax. He may or may not agree, and he did not agree with the argument as it bore upon income tax. I put that same argument now in a form which I think should carry conviction. It is this: I have stated that the ad valorem tax should be reduced to 15 per cent. Let me take a readier figure—20 per cent— in order to keep the argument on a parity. Supposing the duty were to be reduced from 33? per cent. to 20 per cent., the result to the trade will be that the sale of pianos will increase; and if the sales were to increase so that three pianos were sold where only two were sold before, not only would the trade be advantaged, but the actual gain to the Exchequer would be greater. The Minister will correct me if I have been misinformed as to this fact. I should like to ask him if the trade has or has not guaranteed him that if he were to reduce the duty from 33? to 20 per cent., there will be no loss in revenue. I am told that that guarantee has been given. I do not hold myself at all to the figure of 15 per cent. I put that figure in, and I urge that there should be a reduction from 33? per cent. to some figure below that. I do not think that any figure below 15 per cent. would have any possibility of acceptance. I put forward 15 per cent. for the present moment, and I should like the amendment to be considered, not as though that 15 per cent. were a critical or fundamental figure. What is critical and fundamental is that this tax should be reduced from its present position to some lower figure. I am informed that if it were to be reduced to 20 per cent. the gain to the Exchequer would remain exactly the same, the yield to the Exchequer would not be at all less. On the other hand, if there be no reduction, I believe that in this city of Dublin there will be a considerable number of persons thrown on to the unemployment market, because the trade is, as I am informed, considering at the present moment whether, with the present rate of taxation, it will be possible for them to maintain the staffs that they are now equipped with. I revert finally to the argument with which I began. This duty was never introduced for Irish purposes. It was introduced as an English piece of protection. We have no industries of that kind in this country to protect. Its purpose was not an Irish purpose; its purpose was not a revenue purpose; its purposes were both English and protective purely. It is an irrelevant tax in this country and I suggest that it is a tax that is doing more harm than it is doing benefit, and that it should be changed somewhat with a view to its final removal, because its effects are injurious.
I do not know whether the Deputy is correct in the statement he has made regarding the exact period of the McKenna Duties, as he calls them. My recollection is that in 1916, somewhere about the fall, Mr. Bonar Law was made Chancellor of the Exchequer—I may be wrong, but I think that is the case— and I do not think that Mr. McKenna was in the subsequent months Chancellor of the Exchequer. In 1915 there was no trade in German pianos with England. There was a little disturbance between England and Germany at that time, and pianos were not a commodity exported out of Germany or imported into England from Germany. We are not bound here in connection with our fiscal arrangements to follow the lines of the English Chancellor of the Exchequer in the matter of the imposition of taxation. What we aimed at this year, as the Minister for Finance very ably expounded in his Budget speech, was an experiment in the matter of protection. This is an experiment in the same direction. If there are piano people here in Ireland who are sufficiently interested in their business to start the manufacture, they have certainly got a very good backing in the matter of having a 33 and one-third per cent. import duty on German pianos, and 22 and two-ninths duty on British pianos, or pianos coming from Australia or Canada, if there are any manufactured there, and I do not think there are.
This time last year it was put up to us that the motor tax was prohibitive, penal, impossible, and would ruin the motor trade. But what are the facts? That the unfortunate people who must walk along the street are almost covered with dust now, by reason of the number of motor-cars that we have got. I suppose one would be told last year that the motor trade was on the point of collapse by reason of the tax that was put upon English cars and the prohibitive, excessive, penal amount of the tax upon foreign cars; and the case was put to us that by reason of the fact that we are not manufacturing here, these particular impositions should be removed. Our fiscal system must be necessarily different from that of Great Britain. There is there a great, rich country, having a big balance of revenue at the end of the year. Our taxation per head here is relatively much less than theirs. We have no plutocrats of the type of Deputy Figgis, on whom we can draw for huge sums in income tax, super-tax, and so on, and we must be content with drawing for taxation on such Deputies as Deputy Johnson, who requires a piano to while away the weary hours of night. This is a luxury and protective tax at the present moment.
I do not know whether there are many people prepared to pay £100 for an instrument which would amuse Deputy Figgis in the late hours of the night, who would refuse to pay £110 for the same instrument. Thirty-three and a third per cent. on £80, the initial cost, makes £26 13s. 4d. The Deputy will correct me if I am wrong, as he is very smart at figures. That would leave the price £106 13s. 4d. The Deputy, by this particular amendment, wishes to take off, in the case of a German piano—he will correct me if I am wrong—£14 13s. 4d., being the difference between the duty at thirty-three and one-third per cent. and at 15 per cent., and the instrument would then cost £92. The case is put to us that, by reason of this extraordinary concession on the part of the Minister for Finance, great business is going to be done by all the piano dealers in this country. I hesitate to adopt that view. I do not think that any person is going to baulk at an expenditure of £115 who is prepared to pay £100 for the same article. Imagine any man going home to his wife and explaining to her that he cannot possibly afford £115 for some particular instrument which he considers he could buy well at £100. Fifteen pounds is going to disturb the domestic happiness that is there! Deputy Figgis knows very well that he could not make an excuse like that to his wife. I think, in the circumstances, there is really no case made for this amendment by Deputy Figgis.
There are two qualities of the President I always admire. One is his courage and the other is the speed with which he gets off untenable ground. He intervened in this debate just in time to prevent the Minister for Finance from saying that this is a revenue duty and that he could not abate it. Now, the President has put an entirely different complexion on the case. This is not a revenue duty. It is a protective duty. The President is quite right when he says it is a protective duty. Nobody would ever think of putting a revenue duty of thirty-three and a third per cent. on anything but whiskey, which is a sort of slave of Ministers for Finance. This is a protective duty. It is a duty to encourage the manufacture of Irish pianos. It must be judged on that basis. Taking it on that basis and judging it on that basis, it has been an utter failure for eight years. It was introduced in 1916. Ever since then, the potential Irish piano manufacturer has had the benefit of this protection, and he has not taken advantage of it. The President has not told us that down in Thomastown or Callan, or somewhere in the backwoods of his constituency, there are dark piano manufactories where pianos are being secretly manufactured for the Irish market. Unless that is the case, what is the advantage of a protective duty, especially in relation to an industry which does not exist in the country, which we have no evidence is likely to exist, and which more than almost any industry in the world requires extraordinarily-skilled labour. I would prefer Deputy Johnson's theory about getting motor mechanics to build houses if he can persuade the building trades unions to help him. That is a more tenable proposition than the proposition to take the unemployed off the streets and set them to make pianos. Whatever the result will be, it will not be harmony.
That is the President's justification for maintaining this duty at its present scale. It is easy to talk of music as a luxury. I contest that. I hope Deputy Johnson will contest it, unless his newly-found nationalism—perhaps I should not say newly-found—so emphatically expressed this afternoon, leads him to contend that the only claim to harmony is to be found in the Irish pipes. Unless that is so, I think Deputy Johnson will agree with me that music is more than a luxury. Music is an art. Music is culture. I am quite certain that neither the Minister for Finance nor the President would have come here to defend this tax if it had not been that it was imposed by the British Government in 1916—and imposed for a definite and specific reason. Deputy Figgis's history might have been more exact. It was imposed, as the President said, in 1916, not against German pianos, which had few facilities for coming into Great Britain at the time, but against American pianos—against pianos which were being brought across the Atlantic and which were taking up shipping space that was extremely valuable at that time. Shipping space being valuable, it was necessary to curtail the import of certain articles, and pianos were included amongst those. If that had not been the case, I am quite sure that we should not be taxing pianos now.
I take a parallel case. The Minister is not putting any duty on tennis rackets. A tennis racket is an instrument of sport. We do not manufacture anything in that line, perhaps, except hurley sticks. Tennis rackets are, perhaps, luxuries, but I cannot picture Deputy Johnson raising the fiery cross and saying: "Hands off the poor man's tennis racket." Sport is good and exercise is good. So also music is good and there is no justification for a tax on musical instruments which does not exist in respect of instruments of sport produced outside this country. The reason—and the only reason—we have this tax is because it was an old British duty. The Minister has given us one concession in taking off the tax on gramophone records. I am grateful to him for that. But I do say that he must have regard to the fact that ever since his Budget was framed— though we are not bound to follow British Chancellors of the Exchequer— where there was a 33? per cent. duty in Northern Ireland there is now no duty at all. That is a suggestion— and perhaps no more than a suggestion —that it might be wise to go some distance to meet not the contrast but the scale of expenditure and the cost of one of those instruments which makes people's lives happier. Those who are fond of music and who are deprived of it know that it is as great a deprivation as being deprived of food or drink. To make the contrast between Northern Ireland and the Saorstát not too great is, I think, the task of a statesman, and because this amendment of Deputy Figgis will do something to that end and will diminish the disparity that now exists, I think it is worthy of the support of the Dáil.
I think it might be well to remind Deputy Bryan Cooper that I am not Minister for Finance.
You have shed your mantle over him.
His arguments were singularly directed to me in this matter, as though I were responsible for this particular tax. I am open to conviction on this amendment. But it is not directed to pianos only. If the duty of 33? per cent. is protective in respect of pianos, I gather, from Deputy Cooper, it has not had so far a protective effect, and it has not led to the manufacture of pianos, or even the assembling of pianos in this country. In that case it is for the Minister to prove that the revenue value of the duty is worth taking into account, having regard to the advantage of the cheaper pianos. The Deputy says "music is not a luxury." Unfortunately it is. It ought not to be. If the reduction of the duty on pianos was going any distance towards making it less a luxury, then, in view of the absence of its protective effect, I would be in favour of the reduction. But it is for the Minister to say what the value of the duty is in respect of pianos. The language of the amendment includes musical instruments of all kinds. If I read the newspaper advertisements aright some of the musical instruments—and I am now giving Deputy Bryan Cooper the credit of considering that Irish pipes produce music—include pipes manufactured in Ireland. In this general sweeping amendment it speaks of the duty on musical instruments being reduced from 33? per cent. to 15 per cent. It means that the protective value of the present duty on bagpipes is lost. The question is whether it is better to forego the protective value of the duty on pianos for the sake of cheaper Irish pipes, or whether it is better to maintain the duty on the pipes for the purpose of maintaining the industry of pipe-making. I do not know whether there are any other musical instruments, that are more democratic, manufactured in Ireland. It has been said very frequently within the last few years that the most exhilarating and pleasant music heard in Ireland was the the short staccato sound produced by the firing of a revolver. That may be called music; I do not appreciate that kind of music, and I do not know whether there is any protective value in these duties. But the inclusion of all musical instruments seems to me to mar the value of this amendment from the point of view of assisting the development of an Irish industry. There is a possibility, I think, of developing an industry in that kind of music, or the instruments for producing that kind of music which is growing in popularity in this country. But if we pass that kind of amendment we are reducing the protective value of these duties. Ought we to do so for the sake of cheaper pianos for a small number of people? I do not think that the number of pianos that is going to be sold is going to be reduced very much by the change from 33? per cent. to 15 per cent. But I think nobody has the information available which will help us to decide that question except the Minister for Finance himself.
Before the Minister replies I would like to deal with the point that Deputy Johnson made. I am glad in a way that he touched upon that point, that the amendment in its present form might conceivably destroy some of the protective value of the duty as it stands at the present moment. I think that is inconsiderable, because it is merely a drafting point. There is only one instrument which is made. That, I believe is the favourite instrument of the President. I do not know whether he plays it himself. I cannot imagine him marching up and down his galleries playing the Irish war pipes. I have heard him doing it metaphorically. But actually I have not. I am told by those who are in the trade that they are quite prepared to have that protection removed and still to deal with their present business, and that the total gain would be quite considerable. I had an enormous admiration for Deputy Cooper. I generally have an enormous admiration for him, but particularly on this occasion I admired Deputy Cooper's courage going in on that question of music in homes, that might, even by a small matter of £15 or £20, be induced to purchase a piano that would otherwise be without one. I do know that in England you have the average artisan's home with its piano, but you are not likely to get it in Ireland while this duty prevails here.
The artisan in Ireland is not able to afford a piano.
I do not think he is, but he will be less able to afford it if the duty makes it more expensive than in England. I remember during, I think, the education debates last year, that Deputy Johnson developed a very strong and very powerful argument in the Dáil as to the necessity for the cultivation of more than the ordinary bread and butter aspect of life within the homes of the poor here in Ireland. I did not touch upon that. I did not deal with it, but I do desire to do so. I frankly confess that I fear to do so at the last moment, feeling that an argument like that might not perhaps be appreciated to its full value by the President. But seeing that it has been mentioned, I tread in where Deputy Cooper has shown the way first. That in itself is an aspect of the case that we ought to remember. Anyway, my information is, that information has been put, with detailed figures, before the Minister for Finance, who will be able to reply to the question that I put to him on that point. That is, if it is not the case, owing to the circumstances that have arisen during the past six or seven weeks, that there will be a throwing of people into the unemployment market if the incidence of this duty is not lowered; and, secondly, if it is not the case that the trade has guaranteed him an equal receipt of revenue if the tax be reduced to 15 per cent.?
I just want to suggest after two or three Deputies have been playing a pathetic tune on the poor man's piano, that the Minister might remove from taxation altogether the poor man's piano. That seems to me to be the way out.
I may say that I had representations made to me by people in the trade in reference to this matter and that I took them with the proverbial grain of salt. We are always hearing of a number of firms who will go out of business if some tax that is not satisfactory to them is not lowered. We hear the same statements here, but these do not impress me at all. I had not and could not have any guarantee that if the tax were reduced the receipts would remain the same. Deputy Cooper said that during the past eight years no Irish manufacturer of pianos had manifested himself. So far as the protective effect is concerned of any of these duties, they have really been in existence in this country for the past year only. Because so long as this country was in one fiscal entity with England, which is a much more highly developed country, these duties were certainly no advantage to us from the protective point of view. I remember seeing an Irish made or Irish built piano. I do not know whether pianos really could be produced here, even though a great many of the essential parts were imported in such a way as to compete on the market. It is possible they might. In any case there has not really been time for us to see.
Will the Minister consider removing the tax on the essential parts in order to encourage this industry?
That is another question. There has been no demand for it yet. There are instruments being made here, such as Irish pipes. In my part of the country they make drums.
Drums are produced up there, and I suppose they are produced in other parts of the country as well, and we might discourage the making of various types of musical instruments if we reduced this duty. We get some £35,000 a year in revenue. It is not much, no doubt, but in present circumstances there are certain considerations in dealing with it as revenue. If Deputy Figgis' amendment were to get general support, I would much rather drop the tax altogether. If we reduce the tax it would reduce the revenue by roughly one half and it would not be worth the trouble of collecting. There is a certain amount of trouble in the collection of the duty. I know the people in the trade do not want this. I regard this as simply a plea from a small number of people who, owing to recent changes in the course of trade, and fluctuations of prices, find themselves up against certain difficulties.
In all trades you have certain fluctuations, and we do not alter our system of taxation to meet every little momentary fluctuation of that sort. In my opinion it would be better to let the tax remain; it may lead to the making of some instruments here. There has not yet been time, with our own Customs system in operation, to see what can be done.
Will the Minister consider, between this and the Report Stage, the suggestion made by Deputy Cooper in regard to the removal of the tax on essential parts in order that the protective value of this duty might be available for the creation here of an assembling factory?
That would require a good deal of consideration, but I would point out that the cabinet work in the making of a piano must be of considerable value, and even allowing for a tax being levied on the essential parts, the maker here would have a considerable advantage compared with his position if there were no tax. The question has not been put by anybody whose putting of it would seem to demand careful consideration.
I think that the Minister mentioned that the revenue on parts of musical instruments was only £800.
That is a comparatively small proportion of the total revenue, and taking that into consideration, perhaps the Minister might be prepared to consider my suggestion.
The Deputy is overlooking an important point. The importation of parts is not so small a matter when you come to the question of remitting duty. If you take the duty off parts you certainly invite the taking over of parts to evade duty without really causing the creation of an assembling factory.
The Minister is ingenious enough to defeat that.
Amendment put and negatived.
On behalf of Deputy McGarry, who is unavoidably absent, I desire to move the following amendment:—
To insert immediately after the word "music," lines 20 and 26, in sub-sections (1) and (2), the words "and on cinematograph films," and in sub-section (2) to delete the word "duty" in line 26, and substitute therefor the word "duties," and to delete the word "was," line 27, and to substitute therefor the word "were."
I hope that in this case the duties will not be regarded by the President or the Minister for Finance as of a protective nature. According to my information, the duties were originally imposed by the Finance Act of 1915. The main purpose of putting on duties at the time was to stop the flow of money from the then United Kingdom to America. I also understand that as a result of the British Budget, the duties will be removed in England in August next. It is only right and proper to expect when the duties have been removed there that the same treatment should be meted out to the people suffering because of the duties still in operation here.
I am informed that those engaged in the film industry are in a very bad way, that a number of places have closed down, and that others have threatened to close down as a result of the duties. Those duties eventually find their way to the people who patronise the picture houses. Deputy Figgis seems to think that the only consolation for the poor man is the procuring of a piano at reduced rates. I say that the only popular form of entertainment is either listening to a barrel organ in Ringsend or Moore Street, or to the speeches of prominent Ministers in bye-elections. As it is not very likely that we will have bye-elections in the near future, that is a reason why the Minister should consider this amendment.
I understand that representations on the matter have been made to the Minister and that the grievances under which the people engaged in the industry are suffering have been put before him in detail. I dare say that if Deputy McGarry were here he would be able to go into the matter in more detail. Seeing, however, that it has been explained to the Minister by a deputation representing the trade, I am sure he has all the facts at his disposal to enable him to say whether the suggestions in this amendment are fair or otherwise.
AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE took the chair.
The Film Renters Irish Advisory Committee last year made the mistake of telling the President that unless this duty were remitted they would go into bankruptcy, and the film and kinematograph industry would be destroyed; they even put that on paper, which was an indiscreet thing, for the industry managed to carry on. The trouble here seems to be that there are far too many renters for the number of films to be imported; there seems to be a comparatively big number of renters operating on a very small number of films. I think that is the root of the trouble. The amount of duty received by us is not very large, but it is easily collected. The films mostly go through Dublin, and in any case they would come here for censorship, so it is a duty that is neither costly nor troublesome to collect.
I have no reason to believe that the relief, if granted, would go to the picture houses or even to the exhibitors, much less to the public. It seems to me that there is an unduly large number of renters operating a very small market, and these would be able to maintain their prices and live upon a very small market. It seems to me that that would be the effect of remitting this duty.
Amendment put, and declared lost.
I beg to move Amendment 8:—
In sub-section (1), line 20, after the word "music" and inside the bracket insert the words "and motor cars, including motor bicycles and motor tricycles, also accessories and component parts of motor cars, motor bicycles and motor tricycles," and in sub-section (2), line 26, to insert after the word "music" the words "the duty on motor cars, including motor bicycles and motor tricycles, and also the duty on accessories and component parts of motor cars, motor bicycles and motor tricycles," and to delete the word "was,' line 27, and to substitute therefor the word "were."
The object of the amendment is to seek for the remission of what are known as the "McKenna Duties." These duties are at present imposed on motor cars, motor cycles and motor accessories. The Minister for Finance is aware that they were imposed in 1915 by the British Government, not as protective or revenue duties, but for the purpose of impeding the importation of American cars into England. As Deputy Cooper explained, that was done for the purpose of saving shipping space, which at that time was very valuable. When the Irish Government took over the British fiscal system they retained these duties. In England the duties have an advantage which they have not got here. They have an advantage in England from the point of view of those who are in favour of protective duties. They afford protection to the English manufacturer of motor cars. As the Minister knows, we have practically no firms in Ireland which manufacture motor cars. The only exception is that of the Ford Company in Cork. In Ireland, to all intents and purposes, these duties remain as revenue duties, and I think it has been acknowledged by the Minister for Finance that he is retaining them for that purpose. On a previous occasion the Minister, I think, stated that the revenue from these duties amounts to something like £300,000 a year, and that in the present financial state of the country he could not afford to abandon that amount of revenue. In my opinion the advantages which are derived by this revenue do not in any way correspond to the disadvantages which the public suffers because of the increased cost of motor cars in Ireland. I think it is a fact that by far the greater number of motor cars in this country are used for purely business and productive purposes, and that only a very small proportion of them are used for luxury purposes.
Ireland is a poor country. We are certainly poorer individually than the people in the United States, and yet a motor car in Ireland costs more than a similar type of car in America. If the catalogues are referred to I think it will be found, in the case of the cheaper type of cars, that they are from fifty to eighty per cent. dearer in Ireland than they are in the United States. My contention is that this has a direct effect in impeding the trade in the manufacture of motor cars. Motor cars are very much used down the country for the purpose of conveying people around on their business. When the cost of using or hiring motors for business purposes is high, it is natural to expect, of course, that this high cost will be added to the business cost, and the inevitable result is that all this tends to keep up the present high cost of living. I maintain also that these duties are calculated to impede the development of tourist traffic in Ireland. We are all very anxious, I am sure, to develop that traffic, but if the cost of transit is maintained at the present high rate as regards the employment of motor cars, that result will not be achieved. We find in countries which are dealing with tourists in a large way that the latter are catered for by being able to obtain motor cars at a cheap rate. It is natural, of course, that tourists should go to the countries where expenses are low. I think that will be found to be the case in fashionable holiday resorts, such as the Isle of Man and in places of that sort. I understand that motor cars can be imported free into the Isle of Man.
A somewhat similar state of affairs prevails in the North of Ireland, and the result will be that tourist traffic in the North will have an advantage over the traffic here. In the North they will be able to provide tourists with a cheaper mode of conveyance than people in the Saorstát will be able to provide. If these duties were only to be applied to those who use motor cars as a luxury I would not be inclined to put down this amendment. If the Minister were to make inquiries and have a census taken of the motor cars in the country, I think he would find that very few indeed are used for luxury purposes. Motor cars are now an absolute essential of ordinary business life. They are as essential as trains, and as the ordinary conveyances that we have in the country. Anything that tends to increase the cost of the use of motor cars will, in my opinion, tend to impede the motor trade, and I believe will tend to impede the progress of this State in general. I think, as regards his general policy, that the Minister for Finance is a bit short-sighted. Regardless of the fact that he must balance his Budget, I think it would be worth his while to take his courage in both hands and remove these duties. If he were to do so I think he would make in increased licence duties a good deal more than he would lose by the remission of these duties. These are my reasons for moving the amendment. I think its adoption would serve a very useful purpose, and that the advantage to be gained by the remission of the duties would be out of all proportion to the loss that might be sustained.
Deputy Heffernan takes a very optimistic view of this. His point of view is that if we were to reduce the income tax and the tax on motor cars that people would drink more beer and that we would get as good a revenue. I cannot see how that would happen. We are getting a sum of about £250,000 from motor taxes. If we do not get that revenue there we will have, as I said before, to get it elsewhere. We could have dropped the tax on motor cars and let the tea duty stand as it was, but I do not think that would be a right line to proceed on. The Deputy stated that motor cars are used purely for business purposes. I know a few people who have motor cars, but I never knew one who had a car for purely business purposes. Even the motor lorries are not used for purely business purposes now. You often see them with seats in them, and we all know that they are used for taking excursion parties from one place to another. I am not altogether satisfied that the tax is going to fall on business people, whether we put it on motor cars or not. A motor car that is used for purely business purposes or for trade or husbandry is free, except for the protective duty which we are going to put on motor bodies. The tax on motor bodies will not hit these people very much. It seems to me that this is a good tax. It is easily collected. As I have said about another tax, it is a tax put on people who are well able to bear it. It does not have the effect of grinding the faces of the poor.
Will the Minister tell us, as a matter of general information, what is the number of motor-cars at present in the Saorstát?
I believe I could get that information from the Minister for Local Government, or pretty nearly; but there are something like five thousand imported in the year. I do not know what the life of a motor-car is. I have made a rough calculation from the amount of the tax that there must be 25,000 or 30,000 motor-cars in the country.
Is the Minister able to approach this question from the point of view that if you are able to get everybody to have a motor car, you would get sufficient revenue to make the main roads suitable for the tourists that we expect to come across to this country? The effect of this tax raises the price of the motor car to the owners, and reduces the number of owners. If you take off the tax you would have a considerably larger number of motor cars, and while the Exchequer would gain £20 each year from each car, they would be enabled to make the main roads practically free. I consider it would be to the advantage of this country that the use of motor cars should be extended. It would enable us to get through our business more rapidly, and, as a matter of fact, you would save local taxation by means of the licences that would be paid for the cars. From that point of view, I think the Minister might consider it. The reasons given by Deputy Heffernan have covered the whole ground, and, having regard to the second point I put, I think the Minister should agree to this exemption.
I would point out to the Deputy that the rather cheaper type of motor car, such as the Ford car, escapes the tax. Fords are now assembling cars in Cork. I do not know about the bodies, but the chassis are assembled, and a number of completed cars are turned out in Cork at the present time. And in that way people would be able to get home-produced cars without the duty.
These cars are not sold at the United States prices.
I was glad to hear the Minister call attention to the Ford car made in Cork. The price of the Ford car at the present time in Ireland is an amount plus the protective duty. The price in America of a Ford is 490 dollars, or a little over £100. Owing to the protective duties we are not getting the benefit of the American price here. The amount of the duty is added to the price of the Ford cars, and goes into the pocket of the manufacturer.
Amendment put and negatived.
I beg to move Amendment No. 9:—
In sub-section (1), line 20, after the word "music" and inside the bracket to insert the words "and the chassis of motor cars."
The object of this amendment is to provide that the chassis of motor cars should be allowed in free of duty. My reason for this amendment is that there is actually a business in Ireland which is engaged in the manufacture of motor bodies, and I believe it is the intention of the Minister and the Government to protect that industry. And now that the Minister and the Government are definitely committed for good and all to protective theories, I am giving them a chance by this amendment to still retain their position, though removing the tax on chassis, so that the foreign chassis can be imported free of duty. The duties will be retained on bodies, and the users of motor cars will find an advantage in the cheap chassis, and have, at the same time, the option of buying an Irish product.
I do not propose to accept the amendment.
Amendment put and negatived.
With the leave of the House I will move amendments 10 and 11 together:—
In sub-section (1), line 20, after the word "music" and inside the bracket to insert the words "and motor cars the value of which at the port of embarkation does not exceed two hundred pounds, as calculated at the current rate of exchange where differences of currencies exist, and which declared value shall not be less than the wholesale price of such motor cars at said ports of embarkation."
In sub-section (1), line 20, after the word "music" to insert the words: "and motor cars including motor bicycles which are manufactured in the Dominion of Canada, the United States of America and France."
The arguments already used in support of other amendments apply very much to the two amendments I have just moved. Amendment No. 10 provides for the free importation of motor cars up to the value of £200, and amendment 11 provides for their free importation from Canada, America and France. The object is to secure the free importation of the cheaper cars while still retaining the duty upon the dearer ones, and so placing the duty on those who, in the opinion of the Minister, are best able to bear it—that is those who use motor cars as a luxury.
There are a number of difficulties against the acceptance of these amendments. There would be two systems of collecting the tax under these amendments. One system would be for the purpose of calculating value for exemption and another for the purpose of the tax. Then there would be the question of admitting cars from certain countries— France and the United States—free, no matter what price the French cars, for instance, might be, and excluding Italian cars. I think the amendments speak against themselves.
I put these amendments down largely for the purpose of getting information. I now ask leave to withdraw them.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move amendment 12:—
In sub-section (1), line 20, after the word "music," to insert the words "and accessories or component parts of motor cars, motor bicycles and motor tricycles to the declared value of not more than one pound in any one consignment or parcel, and which accessories or component parts are to the satisfaction of the Minister for Finance required for the purpose of replacement or repairs to motor cars and bicycles in use."
This amendment was put down for the purpose of securing that spare parts and accessories for motor cars and motor cycles to the value of £1, when contained in one parcel, should be allowed to enter the Saorstát free from import duties. This matter was fully discussed on another stage of the Finance Bill and on the resolutions, and I understood the Minister was willing to give the matter his careful consideration and to try if he could devise some system whereby he could allow these parts to come in free. I notice that even if he has given consideration to this matter, he has not introduced anything into the Bill that will cover the matter. I believe it is one of considerable importance, because I believe the motor trade has been greatly impeded by duties on small parts. Agents who require small parts have to wait a very long time before these parts can be imported, and there are difficulties and obstructions in the way of their importation.
Those difficulties may be due to a certain extent to lack of knowledge by the importers themselves, and I think they may be due to the inexperience of the Customs officers, but the fact of the matter is that if a motor agent requires to replace a broken axle in a motor bicycle, or any small part for a bicycle, valued at 2s. 6d. or 5s., he sends across to England and the part does not reach him, perhaps, for a fortnight or three weeks. There are many such cases. I have had such an experience myself with regard to a part of a motor bicycle, and I had to wait for three or four weeks. That is impeding business and trade very much. There are a great many varieties of motor cars and motor bicycles, and there are a great many different grades of each particular make of motor car, with the result that it is quite impossible for the motor agents to stock a large number of spare parts, because there are cars of one year and another, and parts are different in shape and in price. I think that this amendment might be accepted and might be made a practical proposition. I am not quite certain if the wording fulfils the necessary requirements, but, if not, I am sure that the Minister and his draftsmen could embody the idea in the Bill.
I had a consultation with the motor trade in reference to the question of spare parts, and I found that really it came down to a proposition on their part that a duty on tyres should be substituted for this duty. That would require consideration, and certainly I would not propose to take it up at the present stage. The remission of duty on parts would mean such a very substantial loss in revenue that it would have to be made up by some countervailing duty. In regard to this much more limited amendment of Deputy Heffernan's, I have stated that very small parts were actually admitted free, where the value of the part is regarded as negligible, or very small. The same thing applies to such instruments as mouth organs which are simply allowed in as an administrative concession, but as to allowing in parts to the value of £1, I do not think that that could be done. Once you come to that you would require investigation in regard to it, because you would require to make sure that the articles were not running to the value of £2, £3, or £4, and the delays that the Deputy complains of would certainly not be minimised. There were, probably, certain delays in the past; if the Customs authorities were to any extent responsible for them they are being got over, and I am prepared to take every step to have that overcome.
Last year we started a Customs barrier where there had been practically no Customs barrier before, and we really had to go into the work. The Customs people were not assisted by any experienced body from the Customs point of view, by shippers, or by any experienced body of importers. There was a certain amount of inexperience by all hands. There was a certain amount of unwillingness to take the steps necessary to get goods through, and there was a disposition rather to find fault, saying that the Customs system ought never to have been set up, and all that. Necessarily, all that caused delay. Delay was also caused by the fact that in certain ports there was no actual physical accommodation in sheds that would be necessary in view of the Customs system, and that may have caused delay. If goods are not displayed it is sometimes difficult to find them. They must be spread out properly. It is difficult to find a consignment otherwise, and delays might take place. I hope that all the people concerned will co-operate to do away with delays, and anything that I can do in this matter of motor parts to obviate delays I will do. I do not think that the Deputy's suggestion would obviate delays. When you come to goods of the value of £1 where you would have a duty, if it was not a preferential rate, of 6s. 8d., you have to make sure that you are not giving more than you intend to give, and you will have to have examinations to ascertain values in these cases, and I do not think this would carry you any further. The most you could do would be in regard to a routine thing like a nut, which is of negligible value, but I do not think we could extend this to anything like the value of £1.
Is there not a maximum of 2s. 6d.?
A minimum. There is power to fix it administratively, and that is the limit that was fixed.
In view of the lack of support from the Dáil in this matter, which I think is a very important one, but which the Dáil does not seem to do, I see no option but to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That Section 10 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Question—"That Section 11 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 12.
(1) A Customs duty at the rate of three and three-fifths pence on the pound shall be charged, levied, and paid on all sugar confectionery imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 26th day of April, 1924, in addition to any duty which may be chargeable in respect of any spirits contained in such sugar confectionery but in lieu of any duty which might otherwise be chargeable on any other ingredient contained in such sugar confectionery.
(2) In the case of fruit (not liable to duty as fruit) in syrup, containing not more than thirty-three and one-third per cent. of sweetening matter, the duty under this section shall be charged and levied at the reduced rate of one and one-fifth pence on the pound in lieu of the full rate of three and three-fifths pence.
(3) In this section the expression "sugar confectionery" means confectionery made from or containing sugar or other sweetening matter and not containing cocoa or saccharin, and includes breads, biscuits, cakes, cake mixtures, puddings and powders (other than medicinal powders) sweetened with sugar or other sweetening matter except saccharin, and not containing cocoa, and also sweetmeats, caramel, jams, marmalades, and jellies not containing cocoa or saccharin, and also peels and fruits candied, crystallised or otherwise preserved with sugar or any other sweetening matter except saccharin, and not containing cocoa.
(4) The provisions of Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1919, shall apply to the duty mentioned in this section with the substitution of the expression "Saorstát Eireann" for the expression "Great Britain and Ireland," and as though sugar confectionery as defined in this section were included in the Second Schedule to that Act in the list of goods to which five-sixths of the full rate is made applicable as a preferential rate.
I move:—
In sub-section (2), after the word "matter," in line 57, to insert the words "and not contained in bottles."
This amendment is intended to remedy what I think is an omission. In the course of earlier discussions the question arose as to the duty on tinned fruits and syrup, and a remission was agreed to when it was pointed out what the effect on prices of the tinned fruits would be. These are chiefly imported from California and semi-tropical places, they contain a considerable amount of syrup, and consequently the weight is very high compared with the value. In the course of the discussions on that proposal the Minister pointed out that it was not his intention to make any remission in the case of bottled fruit. He said:
In regard to tinned fruit, the position is that fruit in syrup imported into this country consists of bottled fruit and tinned fruit. Bottled fruit, to some extent, is manufactured or prepared in this country, but a great deal of bottled fruit comes in from Great Britain. It seems to me that there is no particular reason why any bottling that may be required for the consumption that takes place in this country should not be carried on here, and it is desirable that that particular industry should be stimulated. The effect will ultimately be to stimulate the growing of fruit here, as well as the industry of bottling.
Then:
It seems to me that in the case of tinned fruit the duty would be much too steep, and I propose in the case of tinned fruit, which cannot be produced here, but not in the case of bottled fruit, that the amount of duty should be reduced by, say, two-thirds.
And further:
As I say, the duty may be a little steep in the beginning on bottled fruit, but I see no reason at all why bottling should not be carried on here.
It is pretty definite that the Bill as drafted does not make any exception or differentiation between tinned fruits and bottled fruits, but as a direct consequence of the encouragement given by the Minister, and the definite statement he made at the time the Resolution was passed, a firm in or near the city have gone to considerable expenditure in the expectation of largely developing their bottling industry in the coming season. Now it is found that the Bill does not make provision for any differentiation between bottled fruits and tinned fruits. The omission, I think and hope, will be explained as being the result of a mistake. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment possibly with the addition of the word "glass" to bottles. I think that should be inserted.
This is a matter about which I am in some little doubt. It is true that at the time I made that statement I did not intend to propose any reduction in the case of bottled fruits from the full duty. Then another consideration was suggested to me to which I felt some weight should be given, and the result was that the clause appears in its present form. If it had only been the case of what I might call genuine bottling of fresh fruit I would not have thought of reducing the rate of duty on bottled fruits, for I regard it as extremely desirable that we should encourage the bottling industry, and particularly the growing of fruit here, but a great deal of bottled fruit in the market is not really home-grown fruit at all. You will see in any shop window bottles of assorted fruits, containing peaches, pears and cherries. These fruits are imported in tins. They will be brought in in that way, and pay 1 1-5d., and if the duty on bottled fruits is maintained at the full rate of 3 1-5d., it was suggested to me that there would be a temptation to both retailers and manufacturers to play on the fact that fruit bottled outside the country would pay 3 3-5d. duty, and to charge on the fruit that had actually come in tins, although sold in bottles, and pass the difference on the duties on to the public. There then remains the fact that a charge of 1 1-5d. on the bottled fruit, when the sugar duty would not perhaps be more than one farthing or the one-third of a penny, would give a certain protection to the genuine bottler of home-grown fruit. But the form of the section as it stands would not leave the home-grown bottler without some protection, and on the other point it would not provide this temptation to pass a duty on to the public which had not actually been paid. As I say, it is a matter on which I am in some doubt as to what line I should take.
The point the Mininster makes may have a certain value but not very much. It may be true that there is an importation of certain classes of fruit, which are probably not grown in great quantities here, but which may be encouraged, by the way. Even from those, if they are brought into the country, there is at least a certain revenue, and in addition you have the bottling industry getting encouragement, and possibly, although not under the present scheme, you may have the bottles made here after another year. The general fact is that it is the smaller fruits that are bottled, and the larger fruits that are tinned. I think that in the case which the Minister puts forward, even though that temptation remains, and is succumbed to, no great harm is done, but you will not have those small fruits sold as tinned fruits, and if you have, you have got the duty on tinned fruits, but you will have them re-packed and bottled, and you will have the advantage in this country of that bottling industry developed and assisted, and I think you will directly encourage the growing of the smaller fruits that are at present imported. I fail to see there is much weight in the argument that the importation in tins of these small fruits is going to be any loss.
The Deputy, perhaps, misunderstood me. I do not anticipate that the smaller fruits will be imported in tins at all. The fact is that there is a great deal of bottling done of the ordinary Californian fruits which come in under the tinned section. The syrup is discarded, and a clearer syrup is used, and it is packed into assortments in the bottles. You can see them in a great many shop windows; in fact, I noticed them very frequently of late. The actual Californian fruits are assorted into bottles, and the thing that suggested itself to me is that you avoid the temptation of putting on these "bottled prices," although the fruit had paid only the tinned fruit duty.
I think the main competition is between Irish bottled fruit and English bottled fruit, and that the great majority of people who buy Californian fruits will buy them tinned rather than bottled, but in any case if the rebottling and regarding is done here there is a distinct advantage, and there is no great grievance to the consumers, because they have a choice of buying the same fruits in tins—it is only that particular fancy that there is for being able to see what you are buying in the bottles. It is then a case of whether the bottling should be done in Ireland of Californian fruits, or whether the bottling should be done in England of the same fruits, for I expect the practice the Minister has spoken of prevails in England as well as in Ireland. I think the fact that elaborate undertakings have been entered into on the strength of the Minister's statement, and the Resolution we passed, would justify the acceptance of the amendment, or some form of amendment which would cover the same purpose, at least for the year, inasmuch as these preparations had been made on the strength of the statement made here.
I will accept the amendment. I may want to alter the phraseology.
Amendment put, and agreed to.
I move:—
In sub-section (3), page 8, line 5, after the word "caramel" to delete the words "jams, marmalades and jellies," and after the word "cocoa," line 9, to add the words "jams, marmalades and jellies shall be subject to the ordinary custom duty on the declared sugar contents."
This amendment opens up the whole protective question again, but I do not intend to enter into an argument along these lines. The intention of the amendment is to see that jams, marmalades and jellies come in free of any duty, except the ordinary duty which the sugar contents should bear.
The idea lying behind this amendment is that jams and marmalades are essential as a food item for the poorer class in the country, who very often substitute these articles for butter, and the effect of the duties at present placed on them will be to increase the cost of these articles and further increase the cost of living on people who use them. It is purely a protective duty, and the question arises whether it is protective or not. I understand that there are many manufacturers in this country who make jam, and who are in a position to compete with foreign manufacturers. The raw material is in the country if they will use it. I see no reason why this duty should be retained. It will have an effect on the increased cost of jams used by the very poor classes, and it will have the effect of giving protection to manufacturers who, in my opinion, should not require protection.
Apart from the fact that there has been a very considerable import of jam into this country in the past—jams which might have been made here—that this is a country in which jam-making might very well be carried on on an extensive scale, and that the increase in the making of jam will tend to increase the amount of fruit grown in this country, there is also the fact that I would dislike very much to return in the case of these confectionery articles to a charge on the sugar contents with all its delays and the continual analysis and tests which it involves. There is no doubt that we would need to have, in the future, a large number of small consignments of different sorts of confectionery coming in. We would prefer to put on a flat rate rather than have a basis of sugar contents with analysis.
Amendment put and negatived.
Question—"That Section 12, as amended, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Question—"That Sections 13 to 18, inclusive, stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 19.
(1) Every customs entry form (not being a duplicate of any such form) required by law to be furnished by an importer, or the agent of an importer, of goods into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 15th day of July, 1924, shall bear an adhesive stamp of a value equal to the amount of sixpence in respect of each consignment of goods mentioned in the entry form, and such stamp shall be affixed to the entry form by the importer or his agent before the entry form is furnished to the proper Officer of Customs and Excise.
(2) The stamp duty imposed by sub-section (1) of this section on customs entry forms shall, for the purposes of this section and for all other purposes, be deemed to be a duty of customs.
(3) No entry shall be valid for the purposes of the Customs Acts unless it is stamped as required by sub-section (1) of this section.
(4) For the purposes of this section, the word "consignment" means any goods for which an entry is required and in respect of which a separate description must be stated on such entry in accordance with the Official Import List.
(5) The provisions (including the penal provisions) of the Stamp Duties Management Act, 1891, as amended by any subsequent Act, and of Section 65 of the Post Office Act, 1908, shall apply to the stamps used for the purposes of this section.
(6) The Revenue Commissioners may make regulations for securing the payment of the stamp duty imposed by this section and generally for giving effect to the provisions of this section.
(7) The provisions of this section shall not apply to entries in respect of goods imported through the Parcels Post.
I wish to propose the following amendment:—
In sub-section (1), line 9, to insert the word "dutiable" before the word "goods."
The effect of the amendment will be to secure that the stamp duty of sixpence which is charged on all parcels going through the Customs will be only imposed on dutiable articles, and that articles that are not dutiable shall not have to bear this sixpence.
This tax would be unnecessary in the case of dutiable articles. We have imposed a duty of 2/6, which is really to discourage the enormous number of actual retail parcels of non-dutiable goods that come across the frontier.
I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question—"That Section 19 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 20.
(1) On and after the passing of this Act sub-section (4) (which exempts certain motor-cars and component parts of motor-cars from the new import duties therein mentioned) of Section 13 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, shall not apply.
(a) to any motor-cars constructed and adapted for use and intended to be used solely as motoromnibuses or in connection with the conveyance of goods or burden in the course of trade or husbandry, or
(b) to any bodies for any such motor-cars, imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 1st day of July, 1924.
(2) Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners that any motor-car, imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the said 1st day of July, 1924, and on which customs duty has been duly paid, is constructed and adapted for use and is intended to be used solely as a motor-omnibus or in connection with the conveyance of goods or burden in the course of trade or husbandry, the Revenue Commissioners may, subject to such conditions (if any) as they may think fit to impose, repay such proportion of the customs duty so paid on such motor-car as they shall determine to have been paid in respect of the chassis and accessories (if any) of such motor-car.
I would like the Minister to explain this section a little more clearly than it appears in the drafting.
The explanation of the section is that duty will be chargeable on the entire vehicle as imported, but that a rebate or repayment of the amount of the duty payable on the chassis will be refunded. It is anticipated that there will be in the majority of cases no interval between the two operations, but in the case where the difficulty of ascertaining the value of the chassis as distinct from that of the body arises we could see that we are not defrauded of any revenue. In normal cases, the two operations will take place simultaneously.
Question—"That Sections 20 and 21 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
SECTION 22.
(1) Where on or after the 1st day of June, 1924, the Customs duty on any individual class of goods liable to any Customs duty contained in one consignment or parcel would, when computed according to the laws for the time being in force in relation to Customs duties, amount to less than two shillings and sixpence, such Customs duties shall (except as hereinafter mentioned) be charged on such goods at the fixed minimum sum of two shillings and sixpence.
(2) This section shall not apply to
(a)bona-fide trade samples consigned to recognised traders; or
(b) any goods which are imported by road, accompanied by the importer, and shown to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners to be imported solely for use as household supplies by the importer, or his family, or (where the importer is a domestic or farm servant) his employer; or
(c) any goods brought into Saorstát Eireann as baggage by any passenger or by any person employed on any conveyance which is being used for the importation of goods by sea, rail, road, or air, or which is itself being imported.
I would like to ask the Minister for a little more information about sub-section (2) as to the terms in which he has drawn up his Customs duty. Does sub-section (2) (b) mean that an "importer" is any person who happens to be travelling with the goods? Normally, I think the word "importer" means the person who pays for the goods and causes them to be delivered. That would in most cases mean the employer. If the Minister could elucidate the section we would be grateful.
I am afraid that I do not see the Deputy's point.
The language in sub-section (2) (c) is very broad and general. What is the point in saying in sub-section (b) instead of any passenger or any person you merely say "the importer" or "the employer of the importer?"
Sub-section (2) (b) deals with the land frontier and with importation across the border—farmers who import from across the border, from shops on the other side.
Sub-section (2) (c) also applies to goods conveyed by road, and it would also, apparently, apply to goods from across the border. What would be the bearing of the goods imported by a farmer by post? Say a farmer in County Louth imported by post from a shop in Newry—would that come under sub-section (2) (b) or under sub-section (2) (c)?
Such goods would not come under the section except they came in as bona fide samples.
Take such a case as sheep dip. Would a farmer have to pay if he got sheep dip from a chemist in Newry or Armagh?
I am not sure that sheep dip is dutiable.
Question—"That Section 22 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Question—"That Sections 23 to 28 inclusive stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
I move to report progress.
Agreed.
