I beg to move:—"That the Dáil agree with the Committee in Resolution No. 13."
FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS—REPORT. - RESOLUTION No. 13.
There are some matters that I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to in respect to changing the law and I am doing it now as I am hopeful that, before the preparation of the Finance Bill, the Minister will give consideration and probably effect to the suggestions that I wish to make. One is a matter that I think ought to be dealt with at once. We are now engaged in the experimental period of tariffs and I think it is quite reasonable that there should be a body, not an official body, not primarily a Departmental body, but one representative of others outside the officials of the Department which would have access to all the information requisite to make enquiries as to the effects of the tariffs on the various articles, the effects on the prices here, the effects on the development of industry, the comparative conditions under which products are manufactured and prepared in this country and in rival countries, and generally to set up some kind of committee or commission to keep a watch upon the effects of tariffs for the next one or two years.
I suggest that it should be a body known to the public, known as a body of enquirers or examiners of the effects, and differentiating in that way from a purely departmental committee. I would assume in any case that there would be departmental enquiries, but I think we should understand that there is to be formally established a committee or body of that kind who would have the responsibility of finding out and publishing some time after enquiries have been made, and perhaps periodically, the effects of the tariffs on the industries themselves, on the consumers, and on the persons engaged in the industries. I would urge that upon the Minister, and I think it is one of these questions that can be well considered, say within the next month or two, and that we should have a carefully considered decision, perhaps before the Finance Bill becomes law.
There are three other matters that have been the subject of question and discussion during the last year which I hope will be dealt with in the Finance Bill. One is the provision in the law. relating to the collection from employees by employers of arrears of income tax. I think it was generally agreed outside the Revenue Commissioners, certainly generally agreed by employers and employees, that the provision in the Finance Acts which compelled an employer to deduct from the employees' wages or salaries arrears of debt due to the Commissioners, was one which could hardly be defended and certainly was only attempted to be defended because of the extraordinary circumstances. I would hope that the Minister would insert of his own volition a section in the coming Finance Bill to repeal clauses of the last Bill in respect of this power over employers and employees. It is quite unreasonable to throw the odium on the employer of having to collect taxes from workmen, and it is quite unjust to collect from workmen in that particular way, arrears of income tax. After all, it is a debt, and there is no more justification for making an employer a debt collector for the Government than there is for making an employer a debt collector for any judgment. I press that upon the Minister, and I hope he will insert a provision repealing Section 6 of the Finance Act of 1923.
Another provision which I would ask the Minister to take note of is a small matter in its results, but particularly affects State employees. There is a practice in Government Departments of charging twopence for stamp duty on receipts for the wages paid to State employees. Nominally that duty is supposed to be paid by every employee receiving wages and giving a receipt, but, as a matter of practice, employees do not give receipts for wages and are not obliged therefore to pay the stamp duty. In the case of State servants it appears they are obliged to give a receipt because they are paid weekly, fortnightly or monthly, and consequently there is a deduction of twopence. It is a small item per week, but it is appreciable at the end of the year. It does not seem to me to be reasonable that a duty of that kind should be imposed, when as a matter of practice, it is the employer who is getting the advantage. He is getting credit, of one, two, three, four or six days sometimes, from the employee for wages due at the end of each day. The employee gives credit to the employer, and, if wages were paid daily, no stamp duty would be required. I understand also that this stamp duty is deducted in cases of pensions paid to soldiers and sailors and to others where the amounts are £2 and upwards. As I say, it is a small matter and cannot affect the revenue very much. It is one of the little unnecessary irritations, inasmuch as it can be imposed upon all wage-earners and should not be imposed on the few. There was an exemption given last year in the British Budget on this point, and I hope it will be inserted in the coming Bill.
There is a matter, perhaps, of a little more controversy on which I think it is worth expressing an opinion at this stage. The Minister made some references in his Budget speech to a proposal to regularise default in respect of entertainment tax by the G.A.A. As far as I can gather, it was his suggestion that entertainments promoted by that body only were to be exempted. I would like, at this stage, to put in a demurrer in respect to that. I would say in parenthesis that the entertainment tax should be, and presumably was intended to fall, on the person paying admission. Apparently in practice, in respect of sports at any rate, if not in respect of theatres, the associations responsible for the organisation of those entertainments assume that it is they who are paying the tax or the duties. Whatever applies in the case of one association promoting a particular class of sport, applies to another association. If it is being admitted by the Minister, that it is the Association that is paying the tax in the case of the G.A.A., it is equally true in respect of other associations. I would strongly press upon the Minister that if there are to be different exemptions in respect of the entertainment tax in future, they should not be confined to any particular association. I do not think there is any principle of nationality involved in this. I think, on the contrary, that it would be very derogatory to every other form of sport to except the particular type of game promoted by one association. I am making this statement now because I think it might be sprung upon us in the course of the debate on the Bill. We may not have the same opportunity to express our views as we have now, seeing that we have three and a half hours still to spare.
I hardly think it is necessary to support Deputy Johnson, but it may be no harm for somebody who has been connected with athletics in his earlier life and who still has a great interest in them, to urge the Minister to weigh very carefully Deputy Johnson's plea on behalf of athletics. We are all interested in athletics, and know that in Ireland at the present time they are rather in want of a fillip. While we feel that and would welcome the remission of this tax from athletic bodies—they have felt it very severely for some time —I think we have a deeper feeling, and that is if the Minister had in his mind a proposition to relieve the Gaelic athletic body of this tax he would be doing a very damaging thing for himself, the Government and the rest of the country in legislating in favour of that particular branch against all other bodies. I do not think he has that in his mind. I do not think that the words in his Budget speech convey that. Else I would have raised the point earlier. I hope when he brings forward legislation he will make a remission which applies to all forms of sport, because sport is universal and not confined to any one country.
I think Deputy Johnson made a valuable suggestion about a committee. A committee of that kind would be very valuable to educate people as to the effect of these fiscal tariffs. It may be said that such a committee should constitute itself and do that work itself, but if it had the sanction of the Dáil, its conclusions would carry more weight.
I have been connected only with one form of sport since I was a youngster, and that is Gaelic sport. Until recently I had never seen Rugby, and I have not seen Soccer yet. All my life I have been engaged in hurling, football, and what is known as Gaelic athletic sports. We must admit there is nothing that goes so far to preserve the physique and health of the race and clean living and sobriety of our young people as athletic sports. Nothing will do more to keep away from the streets and use up the surplus energy of the young than sports. I think we would be confessing ourselves one of the smallest peoples in the world if we took the view only that one class of sport should have favourable treatment. I am talking altogether about amateur sport. What is known as professionalism is in a different category altogether. We come down to something like a theatre there where people are making a living. It is a profession, but amateur sport is on a different plane. Anything the nation can do to facilitate amateur sport should be done in the interests of the nation, and State funds should be expended to keep our young people on playing fields of every description.
That will make for the health and for the physique of the race. It will make for clean living and sobriety. Everybody who knows anything about sport knows that, in its highest form, it has made for sobriety. Amongst the ranks of the people engaged actively in sport, you will find more strict T.T.'s than amongst any other class of the community. The reason for that is that no man can excel in sport if he does not maintain a strict standard of living. That is the universal experience. As one who has been engaged in one class of sport all his life, I appeal to the Minister to put all classes of amateur sport on the same plane.
I may say at once that I feel to the full the force of the case made by Deputy Johnson, Deputy Thrift and Deputy Gorey. I do not see myself how there could be discrimination. The case of the G.A.A. obliged us to take this move. If they had been paying the tax, I do not say that we should have made this remission. But I feel that there is a good deal to be said for the remission; that athletics and the promotion of athletics are things that are of value to the nation in themselves. The cost of this remission, if we apply it to Rugby, Soccer and any other games at which gate money is collected, will be about £10,000. That will absorb practically the whole of the net surplus which was budgeted for.
I think the suggestion, that a Committee should examine the effects of the tariffs during the years they have been in operation, is one for which there is a good deal to be said. I undertake to examine the matter and go into it with my colleagues. The two other matters that Deputy Johnson referred to are matters which I have had under consideration and about which I am not yet sure that I could agree to give way.
There was one point mentioned by Deputy Gorey which I forgot to deal with—the question of professionalism and amateurism in sport. I see the force of that difference, but whether it would be possible to make the distinction in administration of the tax is another matter. An Excise Officer can walk into a place and see whether the tickets are being stamped or not. He can see what class of sports or entertainment is being held, but whether he could say it was carried on on an amateur or professional basis is another matter. Then, supposed amateur sport is sometimes really professional. In principle, I agree with Deputy Gorey's distinction, but whether the discrimination can be made in practice or not I cannot yet say.
My reason for making the suggestion is that where professional sport is started it is started purely as a living. It is altogether different from amateur sport, and the two should not be put on the same plane. Money is not made out of amateur sport by any individuals. Those who engage in it give their time and energy to it for the sake of the sport, without any gain to themselves. On the other hand, people engage in professional sport because there is money in it, and there is a living to be got out of it. A distinct discrimination should be made between the two.
I agree with your argument in principle.
Question put and agreed to.
Is the discussion on this matter ended?
It is.
I desire to say that I hope the Minister will not take the tax off these games. It does not help athletics to have people paying to see them.