I will not detain the House much longer. I would, however, like to make a reference to the different character of the motor taxes. I have already welcomed, and shall continue to welcome, the imposition of taxes on heavy motor vehicles. I urge the Minister to continue in the direction of putting taxes—heavy taxes —on the heavy motor vehicles which are ruining our roads. That subject, as you have said, will come up for discussion on Resolution No. 10.
FINANCIAL MOTIONS. - FINANCIAL MOTIONS—DEBATE RESUMED.
took the Chair.
In regard to some of these other proposals connected with the motor taxes. I would like to impress on the Minister the distinct disadvantage that light car owners will be placed at, and the unfair position they shall find themselves in, by the imposition of what is known as the minimum rate of £8 upon the cars. It is a very difficult matter, and it will be a very great hardship on the owner of a small car, a car of about 6 or 7 horsepower. Up to this the amount was a few pounds, but immediately this Budget is passed, the duty will rise to £8 on each car. The type of car I refer to is the Peugeot, the Austin Seven, and similar small cars which are not doing and never would do any destruction to the roads that could be considered serious. I would like the Minister to take the position of the owners of these cars specially into consideration. The cars cost comparatively little, and their upkeep is very small. That is the reason certain people have for buying them. This impost of £8 would be an iniquitous impost on the owners of these small cars.
In regard to the proposed increase from 5/- to £1 in connection with drivers' licences—I understand it is already in operation—I think that will meet with severe criticism and opposition in the House. The idea that each person that drives a motor car will have to pay £1 for the privilege may seem all right, but in actual practice it will be a great hardship on, first, various classes like taxi drivers and, second, on people in the position of fathers of families and owners of motor businesses. Take the case put forward by Deputy Gorey the other night of the father of a family living in the country who has a motor car and who is quite willing to take out three licences of 5/- each, so that he may be able to send one or other of his children into the market or to get what he wants from a neighbouring town. If that man has to take out a £1 licence for each member of the family it will mean a considerable difference to him, and the fact that he will have to pay £10 only as a road tax on his Ford car will not be of much assistance to him.
I suggest that there should be something in the nature of an omnibus tax. That seems an anomalous term in regard to a motor car. The meaning of it is this: one person pays a licence of £1 and that licence shall be applicable to, say, several members of his family. If at any future time any member of the family commits a breach of the motoring laws or is prosecuted, that particular person's name, if there is a conviction, could be erased. That would be one way of meeting the difficulty.
There is another question also, and that is the lack of encouragement, or rather the discouragement, that this will give to visitors to this country. Possibly members of the Dáil may not be aware that when a person comes into the Free State from Northern Ireland or from England, that person has to get out a new driver's licence here. If a person comes here from Belfast for a week's tour in the South of Ireland, that person will have to pay £1 instead of 5/- for a driver's licence. That is a considerable difference. If a person were coming from Belfast to Dublin for a few hours only and had to pay £1 each time he came, the position would be rendered extremely difficult. The proposal to impose this heavy rate of £1 will not encourage visitors to this country. With those few observations I will leave the motor tax.
I think it is almost a pity that the Minister saw his way to depart from the existing scale of road tax. The reason I think it a pity is because it creates trouble, annoyance and a disturbance of the existing state of affairs, with no appreciable benefit to the Minister or his Department; it is not that I think there would be any great hardship on the owners of cars in general. As we have the Minister here. I desire to come to a matter which I have mentioned in connection with previous Budgets and which I hope he will not mind me mentioning now. It is true I mentioned it at an inopportune moment the other day, but I did not take his reply as absolute. That is the question of the remission of the cider duty. Last year the Minister, in deference to representations made to him from many quarters, including myself, reduced the excise duty on cider, which stood at 4d. a gallon. to 2d., and I would like if he could furnish me, if not now at least at some future date, with information as to the effect that reduction has had upon the returns to the Exchequer. I imagine that the return has increased, not like the beer or spirit duty. However, the matter is, of course, of minor importance compared with either of these other duties. But the fact remains, as I have stated on so many occasions in this House, that cider is produced in the Saorstát. It is made in Dungarvan. It gives employment to some people there. It benefits to some extent the farmers along the valley of the Suir from Waterford to Clonmel and Carrick and into parts of the County Cork. It is a good healthy beverage— I think nobody will deny that. It does no harm to anybody. It contains a very small proportion of alcohol. It is a native production made from Irish apples. It is an Irish industry already in existence. There is so much talk about protection for industries, so much talk of inducing new industries to grow up, that I think it is only fair that an existing industry such as this, which has managed to keep alive in spite of this excise duty, should be permitted to be on equal terms with its competitors elsewhere, and that is all I am asking. The fact remains that there is no excise duty on cider in England, in Northern Ireland, or, so far as I know, elsewhere. It does seem hard, and I think the Dáil will agree, that it is not asking too much that this remaining amount of 2d. per gallon excise duty should be removed from the manufacture of cider in Ireland. This would be of benefit to the employer, the employees, the farmers in the neighbourhood and the country at large. I will ask the Minister to consider—I will not say re-consider; I will not take his answer the other day as too serious in the matter— this question again when dealing with the Finance Bill. The amount involved is exceedingly small as far as the Exchequer is concerned, and it is exceedingly big as far as the manufacturer of cider is concerned. That is all I have to say on this question. I think, all things taken into consideration, the Budget is a sane one. It is a moderate one. The only objection I have to it is that any form of new taxation should be introduced.
I intend on this occasion to confine myself to the proposed betting tax. I do not intend to go into details as to the merits or the demerits of that tax, on the ground that at a meeting yesterday at the Curragh, consisting of breeders, owners, trainers and bookmakers, in conjunction with members of the Turf Club, it was decided that an alternative proposition would be prepared by the persons who are interested and who are thoroughly conversant with the subject. This programme will be submitted on Monday to the stewards of the Turf Club, and if they approve of it they will come with us on Tuesday to the Minister for Finance and submit it for adoption.
With regard to the suggested 5 per cent. tax on stakes, I have no hesitation whatever in saying that if that proposal is carried and if this tax is insisted upon, racing will cease in Ireland within twelve months. I am very hopeful that a solution acceptable to both sides can be found and that a very serious situation will not develop in the way in which I consider there is at present no doubt it will. I want to give the Minister an illustration of the effect that a 5 per cent. tax on the stakes invested would have upon racing before the year is ended. All the available money for racing would be eaten up before the end of one year. Here is an illustration. I ran two horses at the Curragh last week. I had investments on both of them. One of them won and the other lost. The commission on the money which I invested I instructed a prominent bookmaker to put on for me. He reinvested with other bookmakers throughout the ring, and when they knew that he was investing that money they reinvested it again, and it was passed on and on, and what the amount of commission would be in the finish it would be difficult to account for. Therefore, if there is a 5 per cent. tax put on all bets that are made, I say that within nine months' time you would not have a copper left amongst the racing community. If racing ceased I am well aware there would be a certain number of persons in this country who would be delighted— people who call themselves anti-gamblers. I wonder are they anti-gamblers? They go along and they gamble as much as they like on the Stock Exchange. In years gone by there was more money lost in Ireland by investment in Dunlop and Marconi shares than was lost in a hundred years by betting at races. But these men are financiers, clever men, and all the rest of it, and the persons who back horses are mugs.
With regard to the cessation of racing which I hold very strongly will result from this tax, I would like to draw Deputy Johnson's attention to the fact that an enormous amount of unemployment would be created. It would be difficult to estimate the number of men who would be thrown out of employment. I estimate tens of thousands of people would be affected. You have motor-car owners, railway companies, and you have the huge number of men employed in connection with horses. There are thousands and thousands of interests connected with these matters, and they would, undoubtedly, be put out of employment if this betting tax of 5 per cent. is insisted upon. I do not believe that very much revenue would accrue from it. I have no doubt at all about that, because I know that a large number of officials would have to be added to the list at present in order to collect the tax. These officials would, I presume, have good salaries and they would collect the tax from persons interested in the racing industry and so extinguish it.
There is another matter that I was sorry to see in connection with this tax, and that is the necessity there would be for the opening of letters in the Post Office. I am sorry the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs is not here, because I would ask him if this matter has his approval. I say if a letter is properly addressed and stamped, that letter ought be delivered untouched by anybody, and it should not be interfered with by persons who have been paid for its safe delivery. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs has very strong views, and in other matters he holds those views regardless of other people's opinions, and I admire him for it. I hope the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, as the custodian of the Post Office, will refuse to carry out any such suggestion as is implied in this tax. I know if I were in his place I would prefer to resign rather than to open letters passing through the post office.
Now I come to the most important matter in connection with this important subject. A good many people would like to separate racing and breeding. The two items are quite inseparable. You have in this country a large number of breeding establishments, giving an enormous amount of employment. I might incidentally mention that yesterday one of the principal breeders showed me a wire he was sending, cancelling a £3,000 contract he had given for the extension of his premises on account of the betting tax. I know also that one of the principal executives have cancelled a contract regarding the extension of one of their race meetings.
For some years past breeding in this country was at a very low ebb, but recently it has been quite the other way. Anyone who reads the racing results, which everyone does, will have seen the enormous number of Irish-bred horses that have been successful. I have no doubt at all about it that there will be an enormous influx of money in connection with the breeding industry. There are thousands of farmers who have two or three brood mares but who at present may not be able to afford much racing. They cannot sell any of their young stock unless they can race them, and if a young horse does well the owner can get his own price. If such horses have brothers and sisters, or other relations from the breeding point of view, they will have no difficulty in making more out of them than perhaps Deputy Gorey would out of cattle. Therefore I address my remarks very much to the Farmers' Benches, because I say that their interests are wrapped up very much in this matter of horse-breeding, and I hope that they will not support what I say will mean the extinction of racing in this country.
I said that I would not at present go into details with regard to other matters, because I presume that we will have an opportunity at another stage of doing so. I only say, therefore, that I hope a solution of this difficulty can be found and that it will not be necessary for me, and other Deputies on these benches, to be in the unpleasant position of being obliged to vote against the Government on this matter.
Under the circumstances I propose to be as brief as possible. I gave an undertaking a short time ago that I would not refer to the matter of tariffs, although it goes very much against my grain to allow certain statements to remain uncontradicted. Dealing with the Budget generally. I think everybody will agree—and I think Deputy Redmond said it—that it is not a sensational Budget in any shape or form. In the final balance sheet which the Minister for Finance handed round the day before yesterday there is, however, one item on which I would like to throw a little more light—Deputy Johnson referred to it—and that is the £650,000 of over-estimating. At first sight, it rather appears to me to be a weak figure to introduce in a balance sheet. I was very glad to see that for the first time the Minister has definitely and in precise figures committed himself to the principle of funding abnormal expenditure. He has agreed to fund £4,429,000 of such expenditure, and I venture to say that that proposal will have the support of the whole commercial community. At the same time I consider that he is perfectly right in refusing all suggestions, even when they are made, as some of them have been, by responsible business men, that a certain proportion of normal expenditure should be funded. Once there is the least deviation from principle in the matter of meeting ordinary normal expenditure out of revenue future Ministers for Finance might take advantage of it, and we might finally arrive at a stage of living altogether on capital.
I want to say a few words about this economy campaign. Everybody knows that there has been more or less raging, a tearing propaganda on the question of economy, and that very many bitter attacks have been made on the Government for their apparent lack of economy. I would point out that the Minister for Finance has reduced his Estimates this year by a million and three-quarter pounds, so that some attempt, at all events, has been made to secure economy. But there is a feature of this campaign which, I think, requires a little attention, and that is that in the main, Government policy springs from the demands of the people, and on investigation it will be found that a great many people, who are most assiduous in their suggestions for economy are the people who are always asking the Government to spend money for one thing or another. In an industrious mood some evenings ago I spent two hours reading over some 250 Questions that had been asked in this House, and I found, as I expected, that 70 per cent. of these Questions were asking the Government to spend State money in one shape or another. In some cases the Questions were directly requesting such expenditure, in others by implication, and in a great many instances the Questions dealt with complaints as to why the Government were not spending money. That is one of the things which some Deputies who are very anxious about economies should bear in mind. I am not blaming Deputies; Deputies simply reflect the instructions given to them by their constituents. I am probably an offender myself in that respect. What I do suggest to the newspapers, and to the leaders of public opinion generally, is that when they are blaming the Government for being uneconomic they ought, at the same time, to make some effort to educate the people up to the fact that if economies are to be carried out changes of policy will be necessary, and that they will have to lower considerably the standard of demands that are constantly pressing on the Government from all directions.
In further support of that contention I think every Deputy will agree that fully 90 per cent. of the correspondence which we all receive from our constituents is, directly or indirectly, asking for the expenditure of State money. I will allow any Deputy who can do so to contradict that, but I venture to suggest that that is absolutely the case. In other words, the people, by their demands and by their expressions of opinion in every way that they can do so, are calling a certain tune. They cannot blame the Government, or any government—it does not matter what government is in power. If the people, through their representatives, insist on calling a certain tune, the Government cannot be expected to play a different tune altogether. In connection with Questions, as we are on the subject of economy, I would like to ask Ministers to tell the House what each of these Questions cost. I have given a little bit of thought to the matter; I have tried to work out the amount of time which must be spent by various officials in answering questions. I have found that there was an average of 20 questions per Parliamentary day, and I venture to say that the cost of each question would be about 5/-, and the cost of them each day would be about £5, or £20 a week. So that perhaps a curtailment of the inquisitive spirit of Deputies might be some little help to the Government in achieving a measure of economy.
Up to now nearly all the suggestions about economy have been in the form of generalisations. But take some of the really big services. Take the Army. Deputy Redmond referred to it a few moments ago, and also in a previous speech. Deputy Heffernan also referred to it. He would be an exceedingly courageous man who would say that you should cut down the Army more than it has been cut down up to the present and at a quicker rate. Deputy Redmond, some days ago, made a speech, and he had scarcely finished when a quantity of ammunition was found within a stone's throw of this House which would be sufficient to blow up half of Dublin or to equip half a regiment of soldiers. It is well known that there are dumps of ammunition still throughout the country unaccounted for, and having regard, shall I say, to the peculiar temperament of the Irish people, to the times that they have gone through and to the fact that even now we are not a particularly settled country, it would be an exceedingly dangerous thing to economise further in the Army. I would point out to Deputies who think it could be done that our Army crisis is not so very old. Some time ago, when the Minister for Finance demobilised the Army at what some thought too quick a rate, there was very near being another civil war. I regard the dissatisfaction that then manifested itself as simply an expression of discontent on the part of these people at the imminence of starvation. I never regarded that a particular Army trouble as altogether a political trouble. I regarded it more as an economic trouble, and we have to be very careful about risking a repetition of such a state of affairs, even in a much milder form. The first thing we require, after all, is stability.
Take the question of land purchase. An enormous figure is down in the Estimates in connection with the Land Commission. Every Deputy in the House knows perfectly well that the whole country is crying out because the land is not being divided up quickly enough. My own opinion is that it is going rather too fast, but still, there is an insistent demand for the division of land all over the country. If you want to take a big slice off the Land Commission Estimates you immediately slow down the rate at which land will be divided up, and you immediately create an uproar throughout the country. In other words, policy dictates that particular matter as it does all others.
I think that some of the reliefs which the Minister has given to the taxpayer will undoubtedly benefit industry and help to get over the great evil of unemployment. The alteration of the Corporation profits tax from £1,000 exemption to £10,000 exemption will undoubtedly help a great many companies throughout the State. Similarly, I consider, although Deputy Johnson does not approve of the super-tax reduction, that it and the double income tax reduction will undoubtedly bring a great many people back to the country who will spend a great deal of money in it. The whole community, and more especially the farmers, have, I think, lost a great deal by the absence of these people who used to spend their income in Ireland. I believe that these people, with the attractions that we are able to provide here in the way of hunting, shooting and fishing, and with lower taxation, will be enticed back to the country, and that extra money will be put into circulation.
I do not want to refer at any length to the question of motor duties, except to say that I am in thorough agreement with the principle of taxing heavy lorries at a higher rate than they have been taxed up to this. I would like to say this, that although the roads now are not capable of sustaining the weight of these heavy lorries—I am in agreement with Deputy Gorey on that —I believe at the same time it ought to be our ambition to get sufficiently good roads to carry all the traffic which the community requires. Deputy Gorey appears to think that the heavy motor traffic is not much good to the farmer. I disagree with him, because, to my own certain knowledge, an enormous quantity of agricultural produce is carried by lorries. I know, as regards the trade with which I am connected, that in the town where I carry on business about 30,000 barrels of barley are carried into it each year on these lorries, and I suppose that there would be between 30,000 and 35,000 barrels of barley carried in the same way to Stradbally. I am sure, if the quantities of barley delivered to the various maltsters throughout the country were available, it would be found that a great deal more barley is carried to them on motor lorries than in any other way. I would add my appeal to the appeals made by other Deputies to the Minister for Finance, to reconsider his suggestion about increasing a motor driver's licence from 5/- to £1. That, I think, is a rather severe increase to propose, and will come very hard on people like myself who live six or eight miles out in the country, and in cases where you have several members of a family taking out a car and driving it at different times. It will also come very hard on a great many small garage proprietors who perhaps employ eight or ten mechanics, everyone of whom must be qualified to drive as the necessity arises. I think the proposed increase of this tax is unnecessarily severe, and I hope it will be found possible for the Minister to get the necessary amount of money in some other form, such as by means of taxation on petrol in a small way.
In the two previous years I referred to the fact that the Minister for Finance did not reduce the whiskey and beer duties. I do not propose to repeat what I said on the two former occasions, as I am sure the Minister remembers my argument. All I will do is to emphasise that, in the case of the spirit duty, a decrease in duty does not mean so much an increase in the amount of the spirits consumed, but it does mean that there will be less of the illicit spirits consumed, and that is a very important matter from the point of view of public health and from other points of view.
There is one matter that has not been referred to at all in connection with the Budget and that is the report of the Committee that was set up to consider the question of the tobacco duty. The Minister for Finance has not seen fit to accept the recommendations of that Committee. I was one of the Deputies who acted on that Committee, and I must frankly confess that I went into it with a certain amount of prejudice against Irish tobacco. Now it is quite clear from the fact that the Minister agreed to appoint this Committee that the Ministry had made up their minds not to allow the industry to die. Consequently they asked for suggestions to keep it alive. I would call the attention of the House to the following words in one of the paragraphs of the report sent in by the Committee: "The Committee were making this recommendation as a provisional measure in order to save the industry from extinction." Now that is precisely the view that I took up about it. I think it would be a very great pity if, after all the years of experience and of the technique acquired in the growing of tobacco as well as of the capital invested in the industry, all this should be scrapped in a hurry, because unquestionably the industry, as conditions are now, is practically dead. That is why the Committee could not take the responsibility of agreeing to a course which would definitely bury it. I think it ought to get a little more breathing space, until such time as the question may be gone into more fully. The Minister referred to the fact that the proposals made by the committee would amount to £116 an acre. I would point out to him that tobacco bears a degree of taxation per acre that no other crop bears. At eight shillings on the lb. for 800 lbs. it would be bearing about £320, less the present allowance that is given. I do not think that any other industry bears such a tremendous rate of taxation, and the reason is that some English King in olden days discovered that tobacco was a particularly easy method of raising revenue. I hope we are not going to have the end of this tobacco industry without an effort to go into it further. Undoubtedly we did not have sufficient time at our disposal to make as complete a report as I would wish. For instance, we did not have the opportunity, although we wrote to the Secretary of the Tobacco Association, to get evidence from them as an association. The only manufacturer that came before us told us that, although he was a member of an association, he was giving his evidence as a private individual. I do not want to delay the House any longer, but I should like to say that on the whole I sincerely congratulate the Minister on his Budget. I think it is sound, safe, and it is certainly a sober Budget.
I regret that the Minister made no mention of reducing the duty on twist and plug tobaccos, which are largely consumed by the poor people. Perhaps he will be in a better frame of mind when we come to the Report Stage, and will accept an amendment which I intend to move in connection with the matter.
I had intended to speak on the various matters arising out of the Budget discussion, such as tariffs and so on, but under the arrangements that have been made I have to withhold my remarks. There is one thing, however, I have to stress to the House. It will have to face up to the problem of committing itself to the new duties imposed by to-day's Budget. Negotiations are at present going on with certain continental countries for the conclusion of commercial treaties intended to promote and develop the external trade of this country. These have followed on a detailed examination of the position of the Free State under existing commercial treaties, of which there is presently a large number. Their examination seems to indicate prospects of material benefit to this country and a substantial expansion of foreign markets. New and amended treaties may be in negotiation at the moment and it may easily be that at present one of them under negotiation would, if brought to a finish, involve, in its present state, fiscal adjustments. It would require the approval of the Dáil. I want simply to make that interjection paving the way later for the possible appearance of a treaty which might involve the readjustment of taxes which have just now to be voted.
There is only one matter I wish to raise. It is purely a technical question of procedure in connection with these Resolutions, and I do not know that it is quite correct. It is the agreement with the British Government on the question of double income tax, which all the members of the Dáil look upon as a satisfactory agreement. It states in the last paragraph:
"This agreement shall be subject to confirmation by the British Parliament and the Oireachtas of the Free State and shall have effect until and as long as the agreement is in force in Great Britain, Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State."
The only mention of this in these Resolution is in the second Resolution, which states: "For the purpose of the agreement relating to the relief of double income tax made by the Government, etc." Then it goes on to amend the law. It is a very curious procedure to confirm an international agreement in such an off-hand manner. It is customary that an international agreement should be definitely ratified by the Dáil in a separate motion or in a distinct and definite manner, and I do not know that the terms of Resolution No. 2 can be said to be a definite confirmation of this agreement. I do not know what the procedure is, but it seems to me that it is quite a formal international agreement. It should have been brought before the Dáil separately and definitely voted upon. If that is the case I should like to ask some Minister whether it is intended to register this agreement with the League of Nations. I think it is important that it should be done, because apparently we are the first nation to adopt the recommendations of the Financial Committee of the League of Nations in regard to this matter. Perhaps the Minister will explain the exact position.
On that point, I would have thought the Deputy had raised an important matter but for the confidence I have that the Dáil will not have confirmed this agreement until the Resolutions are reported, and therefore it would not have the effect that the Deputy has suggested. I hope that will be confirmed because certainly in agreeing to the formal passing of these Resolutions last night I was not aware that the formal passing, by the House in Committee, would bind us to the agreement itself.
The terms of this resolution had not been specifically formulated; they only mentioned it in passing.
It is certainly not intended that the resolution either in Committee or on Report to the House should confirm the agreement. It is intended that the agreement be specifically ratified by a clause in the Finance Bill and by a schedule to the Finance Bill, so that until the Finance Bill is passed the House will not have confirmed or ratified the agreement. The question of registration at the League of Nations is not a matter I had given any thought to, but what Deputy Esmonde says seems to be correct—that is, that it is in the nature of an international agreement which should be registered. Deputy Johnson dealt with the question of taking account for budgeting purposes of the probable amount of money which appears in the Estimates even after all abnormal items have been taken out which will not be required for the services of the administration during the year. It is true the amount of £650,000 represents something like 2½ per cent. of the total expenditure. I do not at all agree that we should, in any way, be satisfied to have over-estimation to any considerable extent. I am in favour entirely of the closest possible estimation but there is no reason that because I take that view and regret any over-estimation that exists, for thinking that in future there will be a lesser margin than there ought to be in the estimation at the present time. As I pointed out, there is bound always to be over-estimation no matter how much we perfect our system and how normal the times may be. Estimates are prepared by the departments in November or December, or at least they should be. They are not always ready by the departments. The procedure is that they should reach the Department of Finance for consideration by the 1st January, and after careful examination has been made the Department of Finance might suggest that they should be printed and circulated to the House at the beginning of March. Up to this we have not been able to have our Estimates in time.
It was not possible, until this year, to get the Estimates submitted as early as they should be and, consequently, we were not only not able to give all the time we would like to have given to scrutinising them, but the Estimates were actually late in getting into the hands of Deputies. This is the first year in which we are able to let Deputies have the Estimates in anything like a reasonable time. We made better time this year and actually made a closer estimate. If we had not been aiming at getting them out a month earlier than usual we might have been a little more exact. We are getting the Estimates down. We have not exactly the datum line in all cases but in another year or so it will be possible for the Department of Finance to say to a particular department: "Here is your ext penditure for this year and for last year and we are not satisfied with your reason for saying that the expenditure should be greater this year." In the course of a year or two there is no doubt that the amount of 2½ per cent. will be very greatly reduced. I do not know that we will ever reach a time when we would be sure that there would not be one per cent., or one and a quarter per cent., of a total margin in the Estimates, because it is perhaps equally undesirable that there should be an undue number of supplementaries. If we were going to have a great number of supplementary estimates the Dáil would be in a worse position to deal with budgetary questions than if there were some margin at which a good shot could be made. The Department will rightly try to avoid supplementary estimates and there will be a tendency in the case of a department, if it errs at all, to err on the side of some slight over-estimation. As I have said, the Estimates are prepared before the end of the year preceding that to which they relate, and before the results of that year can be known at all accurately. An estimate is likely to be out by about one per cent., or one and a quarter per cent., seeing that the expenditure will not be complete until about fifteen or sixteen months after the estimate is made. I say that that is not so unreasonable an argument.
I am as anxious as anybody could be, and as anxious as Deputy Johnson is, that the Estimates should represent as nearly as possible the amount to be expended, but I think that Deputies will realise that that is not feasible owing to the fact that we have new departments and new duties, and we are only getting the machine functioning now with some degree of normality. Owing to the fact that we have not got normality in the matter there is a greater margin than there is justification for, strictly speaking, and greater than there will be. Although it is very difficult in this matter to fix an exact figure I had to decide whether I would pretend to close my eyes to that margin and tax as if there was no such margin, or take it into account and say until we have removed the abnormal amount of expenditure, "While I cannot put my finger on the various items in such circumstances I know that there is a further margin there, and that the estimate is more than the expenditure will prove to be, so that I will allow for that in fixing taxation." If we knew that that amount was only going to be a margin of half per cent. the only course would be to ignore it for the purpose of budgeting, and if we had no provision for a sinking fund I think it would be correct to ignore any margin. Our National Loan has to be paid off in twenty years and our Compensation Stock has to be paid off in ten years, so we are providing for all that the taxpayers should be reasonably asked to provide for a reduction of debt. Our debt is so small that the provision made is ample. I do not want to be in the position of taxing for the purpose of keeping debt down—of really having these abnormal items in part paid out of taxation.
Deputy Johnson asked what was meant by the £200,000 shortage of income tax collection shown on the table which I have submitted. I thought that I made it clear in my Budget statement that the shortage was due to the fact that the change over will delay collection, and that, in some cases, there will be a permanent throw-back of collection. In certain cases in the past we got money from a company, and afterwards the company, in distributing its dividents, deducted the tax from the taxpayers. The taxpayers, if exempt or entitled to allowances, made their application and got a refund. Now, in certain cases, like the Guinness Company, we will not tax the company, and we will proceed to get the tax from the shareholders after they have got their dividends. Take the case of a tax arising out of Guinness profits. We will get it, as long as the new arrangement lasts, at a later date each year than that at which we are getting the tax now. In the case of certain other income tax the delay will be that which will arise from a certain amount of confusion created by the change over. On these grounds, while there is going to be no absolute loss of tax or reduction of tax, we will have to allow for delay. There will be a new sort of arrears, part of which will be almost permanent, year by year, because the normal date for collection will be thrown back. We will have that result from the new arrangement. Deputy Cooper, I think, suggested that the number of items which were being set aside in the general provisions of the Budget were such that we were hazarding a real deficit on normal expenditure. On the other hand, we had Captain Redmond's suggestion that we should borrow for other items, and that it would be reasonable to do so. I am certainly of opinion that we have gone absolutely as far as we can go. I think that if we were to try to set any other items aside as abnormal, we would be going further than, on any sound principle, we are entitled to go. I believe that the estimates that I have given to the Dail, as modified in the Budget, will work out and that we will not, at the end of the year, find curselves having to borrow for the purpose of paying salaries or ordinary recurring expenses.
The Army has been suggested as a heading under which the greater borrowing might take place and that we ought to fix the figure at a good deal lower than £2,000,000. I do not think that would be wise. I now believe that we will be able to go somewhat below £2,000,000. When I first mentioned the figure of £2,000,000 to the Dáil, it was at a time when the Army estimate was £10,000,000. I said that in my view the Army for the next year would have to come down to £4,000,000, and that in a year after it would have to come down to £2,000,000. Next year it certainly will be down to £2,000,000, and I believe that possibly we shall be able to get to something below that figure. I do not think it would be at all wise to go ahead of the improvement in the state of feeling in the country in the matter of Army reduction. We must remember that it is only a short time since people found themselves able to hold whole districts of the country by the simple possession of arms and do what they liked for a period. The memory of that has not died down, and the desire for it on the part of some people, at any rate, has not died down. If we are to get a defence force costing substantially less than £2,000,000, it must be a defence force organised on some kind of militia principle. I do think it would be very unwise to attempt to organise such a force at the present time. You might only precipitate some new sort of trouble by doing so.
In regard to the other items, I do not think it would be possible to cut off more than we are cutting off for borrowing, according to the announcement I made. Take, for instance, the provision in the Land Commission Vote for improvement of estates. What will happen is that for two or three years the present high expenditure will continue. Then it will begin to drop, and at the end of nine or ten years it will have sunk to a figure of trifling importance. Meantime, if we borrowed £200,000 this year in respect of that service, we would be incurring liability for interest and sinking fund. If we borrow the year after, we will be incurring a further liability, and if we borrowed more than £200,000 in respect of these works we would, on the calculations I was able to make, find that at the end of the ten-year period we had incurred a liability for interest and sinking fund that was greater than the figure we had put down at first as the normal figure.
Deputy Cooper seemed to indicate yesterday that we might gamble on an increased consumption of beer and spirits if we reduce the taxation on these items. We gave certain figures from America. I do not think those figures are such as to carry any conviction in the circumstances that exist here. There is no doubt that a reduction of, say, 20/- or 22/- a gallon in spirit duty would not stop the making of poteen. I do not think it would have any substantial effect on the making of poteen, because it would mean that there was still 50/- profit on illicit distillation. The number of people who now think it worth while to take the risk of illicit distillation and who would not think it worth while to do so if the duty were reduced by 22/6 is not large. The opinion of the Government is that the poteen evil has been got by the throat and that in most of the areas of the country the amount of poteen-making has been very substantially reduced. Progress in any event has been made in that direction. I do not know whether we can fix a date when the poteen evil will be entirely negligible, but very distinct progress is being made. I agree, as everybody must agree, that poteen-making is the greatest evil and that if at any price the Exchequer could afford the making of whiskey cheaper it would tend to check the manufacture of poteen and it would be very desirable socially to do so. We all know that the greatest evils attend the consumption of poteen.
With regard to the suggestion that revenue would be greatly increased by reduction of the spirit duties, the figures that should influence us far more than the American figures of the 60's are the figures in relation to the reduction of the beer duty in England. The British, as from the 1st April, 1923, reduced the beer duty by £1 standard barrel. The result of that was that there was a 10 per cent. increase in consumption. The reduction in duty was 18 per cent. In 1922-23, when the old tax was in operation, there was a consumption of 19.8 million barrels, giving roughly £100,000,000. In 1924-25 the consumption was 21.9 millions standard barrels, and the revenue was £82,000,000. In spite of the increase in consumption, there was a distinct loss of 18 per cent. in the yield of the beer duty. There is no doubt in my mind on this question, and there is little doubt in the minds of the impartial authorities we consulted in the matter. You could not expect people who were actually financially interested in an increased spirit consumption to look at the matter quite impartially. But in the minds of the impartial people there was no doubt that a reduction either in the spirit duty or beer duty would not, in our circumstances, give any great increase in consumption. On the other hand, it would mean a substantial loss to the revenue, amounting to something like the figure I suggested —£1,400,000.
As to the betting tax, several Deputies have talked about the repeal of the Gaming Act. I intervened yesterday to say that I should prefer to drop the tax rather than have the tax with repeal of the Gaming Act. I believe that you would have deliberate attempts to induce people to enter into credit betting on a very extensive scale, and a scale which would mean ruin to them. It is not in any sense like a commercial transaction. There is no value received. The credit bookmaker, if dealing with ordinary prices, can easily indulge in a great deal of it. If you had disreputable people, you would have efforts made to ensnare unwary people into the most expensive transactions, and it would be ruinous. If you had bets recoverable, you would be liable to have, on an extended scale, the sort of "plunging" that sometimes goes on. You would have no way of checking it, and you would have the people bearing the penalty in the long run. I have indicated that publicans who supply drink on credit cannot recover, although they have supplied actual goods——
Are they not committing an offence against the law? They are not licensed to do that. It is against the law to do so.
That is rather immaterial.
I do not think it is.
The publican actually supplies value, and he is not allowed to recover. The reason he is not allowed to recover is that there would be the gravest evils arising from allowing a person freely to supply drink on credit. It is not proposed to prevent betting on credit, but it is recognised —I think everybody who looks at the matter impartially will admit it—that as great, if not greater, evils as supplying drink on credit would arise if you provided for the recoverability of bets. All sorts of unsavoury characters would get into the business to induce soft fools to pledge their whole resources and have no way out. The more one considers it the more one is convinced that recoverability would produce terrible evils and terrible abuses. I do not think it could be defended for a moment. There are even yet fees for services rendered that are not legally recoverable. The barrister cannot recover his fees. It is not such a long time ago since a doctor could not recover his fees. There is nothing new or strange in allowing certain things to be carried on, and yet stopping short at placing the machinery of the law at the disposal of the person concerned for the recovering of his debts. The bookmaker will have to be careful, as he is at present, not to deal with people who will not pay.
The point as to charging a bookmaker on transactions on which he might not be paid is one which could be easily met. It would be entirely unfair if some person went into a bookmaker and laid a certain sum of money on a race on a credit basis and then failed to pay, that the bookmaker should be ask to pay tax on that bet which he was never going to recover. Two things could be done. Either the bookmaker could be allowed to sue the defaulter for the amount of tax involved by that transaction, or the Revenue Commissioners could be allowed to give exemption in the case of any transaction which they were satisfied was not put through. They could be allowed to give exemption from tax in calculating the liability of the bookmaker at the end of the month or whatever period they would be settling with him. It would not be impossible on this question of "laying-off," which Deputies referred to, to arrange that exemption from tax or a drawback would be given, because the object of the proposals is not to tax the bet that Deputy Cooper might make with Deputy Wilson at the foot of the stairs about what Deputy Johnson would do, but to tax the transactions between a member of the public and a bookmaker. It would be impossible to organise or collect any tax in the other case. I think the difficulties Deputies have suggested are difficulties of detail that will be in no way difficult to overcome. Some of the things that troubled Deputy Shaw would be not all difficult to deal with.
Deputy Redmond asked about the "Totalisator." We have considered that question of the "Totalisator," and it is not one upon which we have been able, so far, to come to a conclusion. There are certain arguments against the installation of the "Totalisator" here. One is that there is not enough days racing, on any course, in the year; that the racing is too concentrated, and that the installation of this machine, and the overhead expenses and the depreciation to be allowed for, would eat up any profits, which would have to be limited, because you can only take a certain amount of bets.
On the other hand, it might be quite possible to try a "pari mutuel," because that, from the Government point of view, would be another method of collecting the betting tax. To actually instal one of these systems and operate it might be well worth trying. We know in Australia, and other countries, big revenues are obtained by the State, but, as I understand it, racing conditions are different there. They differ chiefly in this: that the racing is more concentrated. You have racecourses outside cities; there are a great many meetings in the year, so that the question of machinery and staff is easy and expenses are very much lower than they could possibly be in the circumstances that exist here.
Deputy Gorey harked back to the old question about salaries, and, of course, like most of the people who talk about these things, did not trouble to seek for accuracy. He talked about the salaries of officials who were entrenched at the peak-point of the war years. Of course there are no such officials. The official who, at the peak point, had £590 has now, with the fall of the bonus, £467. The official who, at the peak point, had £905 has now, with the fall of the bonus, £733. I gave another figure, some time ago, about the effect of the bonus, generally, as compared with 1914. I took it in conjunction with the income tax which civil servants have no means of escaping at all. Now the person who, in 1914, had a salary of £500, actually received £487 5s. The same person to-day with a bonus, and allowing for income tax, actually received £641—that is £641 as against £487.
Is that inclusive of increment?
I am taking a person's specific salary. For instance, £500 is the terminal point of a great number of scales. Thus, while since 1914 the cost of living has gone up by 90 per cent., that particular official receives only 31 per cent. more than in 1914. I have recently talked about that, and I do not want to repeat it. But I want to point out that even a Deputy of the standing and honesty, and of the very excellent qualities, that Deputy Gorey has, when he comes to deal with this point—which has been canvassed publicly in a disreputable way, and in a way not creditable to the country—does not trouble to be accurate, but trots out any old, what he himself would call, "hog wash." I say this is disreputable to the country because it is all a question of the jealousy of the person who could not pass the civil service examination. The person who is always denouncing the big salaries is the person who hung about the pavement in Merrion Street trying to get a job and who did not get it. He thinks the salaries are scandalous. Having regard to their responsibilities, the salaries of men like the heads of the civil service departments are certainly not excessive. They are certainly less than men of equal ability and equal responsibilities get in the professions or in commerce. That is a fact that I would defy anybody who has thought about it or who knows anything about it to challenge. It is really not creditable to have Deputies simply imitating the sort of slavish, jealous and envious spirit that you find amongst persons in the country who would never say a word if you had English people receiving these salaries.
I have had a large share of responsibility for reducing salaries and scales, and I do think that we must continually aim at more modest scales and a more modest expenditure here than would have been in existence if we had continued under the British regime, but the whole thing should be faced up to in an intelligent and business-like way. The kind of criticism that one hears at meetings in the country, with some of which I think Deputy Heffernan was associated, and the passing of resolutions that no official should get more than £500 a year, would suit, perhaps, if you had society organised in a certain way, and there would be a great deal of fundamental truth in it. But we have competitive conditions and we have market rates, and if you are to get decent service you must pay some consideration to market rates. The kind of propaganda that you hear is really penny wise and pound foolish.
I think it was Deputy Sir James Craig asked with reference to tariffs what had been the falling off in boots imported. It is very difficult to extract any information from the Customs figures. In the first place the returns were very much affected by the forestalling that took place before the tariffs became effective. Then there were delays after the tariff became effective in having fresh importations, and, generally, the fluctuations have been such that one cannot learn anything until the curb has been reduced a bit further from the Customs figures. There are figures available that were given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce with regard to employment which show a very substantial increase. They show an increase calculated on the basis of fulltime employment of some 760 hands in January last.
It is suggested that tariffs cost the country nothing. I must really disagree with that. Not only do they cost the administrative charges which are necessary, but they do involve what might be called the development costs of the industry. At any rate, in regard to boots it may be, and I am willing to accept it fully—I had not intended to refer to this and I have not looked at the figures—that the prices of boots here have not gone up in any way. In the case of certain firms I am satisfied they did not. I do not know about all firms, but I am ready to accept, if we take all firms into account, that there has been no increase in the prices. I do think, however, that boots here are undoubtedly dearer as a result of the tariff. The matter comes under my notice in one way. Tenders are asked for boots for the Army, and firms both at home and in England tender. Of course, the English firms put in their tender on the basis of f.o.b. At any rate, there is no calculation in their tender for Customs entrance. In the ordinary way, if the tender of the Irish manufacturer is only fifteen per cent. above that of the British manufacturer, the Irish manufacturer would get the contract automatically. If the Irish manufacturer's price was 7s. 8d. per pair and the English manufacturer's 6s. 8d., then when the Customs duty was added to the English price, it would be equal to the Irish price, and the Irish manufacturer would get the contract. But if the Irish price was more than fifteen per cent. above the English price, the special sanction of the Minister for Finance would have to be obtained in order to give the contract to the Irish manufacturer. On several occasions within the last year or two I have actually had the papers before me applying for sanction to pay an extra penny or three-halfpence to an Irish manufacturer. There may have been cases where contracts were given to an Irish manufacturer because the price was less than fifteen per cent. above other tenders and they did not come to my notice. In the other cases I referred to, however, it meant that as far as that class of boots was concerned the Irish price was, at any rate, fifteen per cent. above the English price.
I dislike this whole business of dealing with doctrinaire free trade and protection. I believe that the method of protection can be used for the development of industry, but I would not be prepared simply to say that I am a protectionist and that that is the angle from which I view every proposal. I would be as little prepared to do that as to say that I was a free trader. I would like that these things should, as much as possible, in each individual instance, be examined on their merits. We have come to the conclusion that there might easily be cases where, on broad grounds of policy, either from the point of view of development, or of national interest or safety, we might simply go ahead with the tariff, but that in general a case should be made.
We have in the past examined proposals for tariffs informally. We have generally appointed committees of two or three or more civil servants from different departments representing different angles to examine them and report either to the Executive Council or each of them to his individual Minister and let the Ministers then discuss the whole position. That has all been done rather informally. It has been done to some extent hurriedly, because the pressure for tariffs comes at the end of the year. What we intend now is that a group of at least three civil servants be set up, with power to call for witnesses and compel attendance, to examine the proposals or applications for tariffs which may be transmitted to them. We are satisfied that in this country it would be practically impossible to get satisfactory or impartial separate committees to examine each proposal or each class of proposals. We believe that the only way we can get, with any certainly, an impartial board that will really have no interest in any of the proposals, for or against, will be by having a body of permanent civil servants dealing with the matter in the ordinary way. The Tariff Commission will consist of a representative of the Department of Finance, a representative of the Department of Industry and Commerce, and a representative of the Department of Agriculture.
Will they be permanent or have any other duties?
I would not say that they will not have other duties. They would be, at least, semi-permanent on the Commission. That is, we will not have one civil servant on it this week and another civil servant next week. When the Act is passed setting up the Commission we would appoint the members. The appointments will be gazetted and they would remain to do the Commission's work. If it was intended to substitute or remove an individual in place of one on the Commission, or in the case of a resignation or retirement, that would be gazetted and also the appointment of one in his place. We would not have simply a shifting body that would not be in any way consistent as regards personnel. There must be some little guidance, and the whole question of the exact Terms of Reference, so far as they will be Terms of Reference in the Act, must be carefully gone into. There are points in regard to that not yet determined. Of course, it would not be confined in scope in the way that the committees set up in Great Britain with regard to the Safeguarding of Industries Act are confined. These committees, of course, can only recommend tariffs in cases of dumping which is defined or in the cases of currency depreciation—
Will the Minister say whether it is suggested that the Committee will have power to make propositions other than tariffs such as bounties or subsidies for instance? Is it purely with tariff issues they will be expected to deal?
Certainly, that was the proposal. The other question has not been discussed in any way. I think it would present greater difficulties. If a peculiar case were presented I do not suppose it would be impossible for the Committee at any rate to say informally that here was a case where something ought to be done, where they could not recommend a tariff, and where they submitted for consideration some other proposition. In any case it is from the tariff angle they will, in the ordinary way, have to view the proposition and make any suggestions. As I said in my statement on Wednesday, we could not bind ourselves to accept and act on the report of the Commission because, there is no doubt, especially in a small country like this, that the question of tariffs is a very big question of policy. Except some very trifling ones there can hardly be a tariff that would not have to be a matter of responsibility for the Executive. What we hope we will get from this Commission is that tariffs will not be supported by some people because they mean more protection, and be opposed by other people for the same reason, but that there will be some examination of the merits and of the case that can be made, and some definite statement of the results other than the results on the particular industry before the Government, the Dáil and the country, in regard to the matter.
Arising out of that point, may I ask the Minister if this Committee can consider the question of protection by way of subsidy or bounty on exports? Would it be within the province of the Commission to consider what may be necessary and expedient to recommend.
As I stated already, the business of the Commission will be to deal with tariffs. Certainly I would not encourage nor allow them to recommend bounties on exports. Deputy Tierney stated that one would think from some of the discussion that the cry for tariffs came from inefficient and dishonest people. I did not say that. I do not think that there are many who would go so far as that, but it is a fact that inefficient people will be amongst the first to call for tariffs because they do not see any other way out. Sometimes there are other ways out of the difficulties of manufacturers. There is also the fact that people who apply for tariffs have made up their minds to try and get them. They try to make the best case they can. Without being charged with dishonesty, one can be sure that the arguments that exist against a tariff in their particular case are not stressed by them.
I agree with Deputies who have spoken about the difficulty, or the impossibility of protecting agriculture by tariffs. A great deal of consideration has been given to that during the last year, and except in the one small instance which has already been dealt with we did not see that there would be a benefit to the farmer as a result of tariffs. On the other hand I do not think it is right to say that protective tariffs are merely a handicap to the farmer. It is not necessarily true to say that in each individual instance a tariff increases the cost of living. The tendency of tariffs is to increase the cost of living. A group of tariffs would increase the cost of living. Some particular one may not do so. Even assuming that a group of tariffs when imposed increases the cost of living it does not follow, in the long run that that is not going to be of any benefit to the farmer. A growth of industries in the country would be of benefit to the farmer.
How long will the growth take?
It is pretty rapid in some instances. I believe that after 6 or 7 years the tariffs we have imposed will show very considerable results. There is no doubt that the absence of industry and a sparsity of population mean a burden on the farmer. We are losing half a million yearly on the Post Office with postage at 2d. instead of 1½d. That is due to sparsity of population and to the fact that we have not more towns.
It is the same with railway receipts.
If you raise a barrier against all imports and if we are to produce everything we require at home can the Minister give an estimate of how much that would increase the population of this country?
No. The Deputy must not try to make out of my argument more than I am arguing. I am not suggesting any such thing, but I put it to the farmers that they suffer just as other people do through the absence of industries in the country, and not merely in the way Deputy Sears so often refers to through the lack of opportunities for their children. Farmers as well as industrialists suffer because things like railway charges are higher than they need be, or higher than they would be, if we had development in the country. They must be higher as long as the country is undeveloped and sparsely populated. Similarly the cost of upkeep of the roads is higher than it would be if we had a more thickly populated country on which the cost of the support of the roads would fall. There are many more services that are dearer to the farmers because the country is undeveloped. Those who will not look further than next week or next month, and who say that because some little handicap is imposed on the farmers by tariffs that these tariffs ought to be tackled and broken down are, to my mind, extremely short-sighted, indeed. I am adverse, because of the conditions of agriculture, to putting on tariff after tariff having regard to the burden they mean to the farmers, but, on the other hand, I think that the attitude of the farmer who says that even the smallest burden or inconvenience will not be borne, although it would mean helping the development of the industries of the country and increasing the population, is not a far-seeing one in any way.
That is only one additional burden on the farmers.
At any rate there are certain ways of looking at the thing. There is either the way of regarding the general position as without any hope of being remedied, or there is the way of thinking that development can take place, and that the general economy of the country, not suddenly but in time, can be changed to the benefit of everybody, and being prepared within reasonable limits to bear some burden in the hope of having the economy of the country radically improved. We know that in countries like Denmark there is an enormous non-agricultural population, and I do not think that we ought to be satisfied to let everything else go out of this country and have merely a purely agricultural economy. Not only the people engaged in agriculture but agriculture itself will benefit by development. Everyone knows what an advantage it is to the farmer who lives near a city or within reasonable reach of markets.
Are we going to have cities all over the country?
I would certainly like to see a considerable number more, and I see no reason why we should not have them. With regard to drivers' licences the question of whether a case could be made for a cheaper licence in the case of members of a family, is one that can be gone into. The only point about it is that if concessions are given in that direction it is a loss of so much money to the Road Fund. It certainly seems to me to be preferable that motor users, motor drivers, or motor owners should contribute substantially more to the Road Fund than that the general taxpayer, the local ratepayer, should contribute, who has no interest in motoring, and no interest in the class of road that is necessary because of the development of motoring.
With regard to the Tobacco Committee, which Deputy Egan refers to, my view was that the report the Committee produced would be quite justified and quite an excellent report if their terms of reference had definitely included a suggestion that the tobacco industry was to be kept going, and that they were to produce a report to that effect, such a report as would enable it to be kept going. I rather gathered from Deputy Egan that the notion of keeping this industry, if it could be called an industry, going at all costs was in their minds, but it seems to me perfectly clear that the industry if, as I say, it can be called an industry, is entirely uneconomic and is not worth keeping going and that we could not justify even the present rate of preference if it were to be permanent, because the fundamental fact there is that the Irish grower can produce at ? tobacco that is not as good as the tobacco grown elsewhere and that can be sold here at 7d. Suppose that the most favourable conditions existed in regard to purchase, which they do not, we would still be asked to pay nearly 1/- a lb. to get from other taxpayers nearly a shilling per pound for every pound of tobacco grown. The quantity that can be grown is 800 to 1,000 pounds per acre. That means that even on their figures, to keep this so-called industry alive, the cost would be £40 an acre in perpetuity. I think it is a waste of money to spend anything more on it, and the one thing to do, however one may regret the money already spent, is to stop throwing good money after bad. As the Minister for Lands and Agriculture said yesterday, we could grow tea in this country if we spent enough money on it, and it would be just as sensible, I think, to try to grow tea here as tobacco.
In regard to the £650,000 that is mentioned as overestimation, is that another way of putting down the earning on the new coinage?
Oh, no. That earning should go against abnormal expenditure because it would be abnormal earning.
Can the Minister give us any encouragement about the reduction of cider tax?
If the Deputy would like both the Customs and the Excise duties taken off it would be considered. It is a trifling thing. It would, perhaps, pay for itself by reducing the amount of Dáil printing occasioned by the amount of discussion that takes place on it.
Motion put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 57; Níl, 18.
Tá.
- Earnán Altún.
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seán Buitléir.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- James Dwyer.
- Séamus Eabhróid.
- Michael Egan.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- John Hennigan.
- Patrick Leonard
- Donnchadh Mac Con Uladh.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Seán MacCurtain.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- John T. Nolan.
- Michael K. Noonan.
- William Norton.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Parthalán O Conchubhair.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Seán O Raghallaigh.
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Andrew O'Shaughnessy.
- Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
- Caoimhghín O h Uigín.
- William A. Redmond.
- Liam Thrift.
Níl.
- Pádraig Baxter.
- John Conlan.
- Connor Hogan.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Patrick McKenna.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Tadhg O Donnabháin.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Donnchadh O Guaire.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Pádraic O Máille.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (Luimneach).
- Nicholas Wall.
Tellers.—Tá: Deputies Dolan and Sears. Níl: Deputies Baxter and Heffernan.
Motion declared carried.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Ordered—That Resolutions be reported on Tuesday, May 3rd.
The Dáil adjourned at 4 o'clock to Tuesday, 27th April.