Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 10 May 1928

Vol. 23 No. 11

IN COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. - SUPPLEMENTAL FINANCIAL RESOLUTION—DOUBLE INCOME TAX.

Mr. BLYTHE

I desire to move the following:—

That the Agreement made the 25th day of April, 1928, between the Government of Saorstát Eireann and the Government of Great Britain amending the Agreement made on the 14th day of April, 1926, between the said Governments in respect of double income tax shall be confirmed.

This new agreement, as I explained already in the Dáil, is necessary because of the substitution of sur-tax for super-tax. It does not in any way alter the principles or the procedure on which relief from double taxation was given. The agreement of 1926 fixed the principle of relief from double taxation so far as income tax is concerned on the basis that had been recommended by the Financial Committee of the League of Nations. Briefly, the principle on which relief is and has been given since 1926 is that residents in Saorstát Éireann are exempt from British tax, that residents in Great Britain are exempt from Saorstátax, and that people who are doubly resident are relieved to the extent of the lower of the two taxes. Before 1926 relief from double taxation was given on another basis. A person resident in Saorstát Eireann, part of whose income arose in Great Britain, was subject to Saorstát income tax on all his income, and was subject to Saorstát tax and to British tax on the part of his income which arose in Great Britain. On that part of the income which was doubly taxed he was entitled to relief from the two Governments—relief from the Saorstát to the extent of half of the lower of the two taxes, and relief from the British Government to the same extent. That meant that the claiming of repayment and the securing of relief was a very complicated and difficult business, and led to a great deal of annoyance and delay.

The new arrangement is very much simpler. As I have said, it is not quite simple in the case of people doubly resident, but there is no way of making things entirely simple for them. So far as the ordinary resident here is concerned, if he has been charged British tax he can reclaim payment on the whole on satisfying the British authorities that he is resident here. From the Exchequer point of view, the arrangement entered into in 1926 proved to be a good arrangement and gave us additional income-tax. It would be very difficult to fix a figure on it, but actually it was more beneficial to the Exchequer than the old system. So long as we continue the principle of giving relief from double taxation, I think the present arrangement is as good as can possibly be devised. I see no way in our circumstances of avoiding the giving of relief because the number of people, many of them in fairly modest circumstances, who have incomes that would be doubly taxed is very great. If there was no system of relief from double taxation many of the people from whom we get very large sums of income-tax would entirely keep out of this country and great sums would be lost. There are many people who have residences in the two countries, people with very large incomes. At present we get half the income-tax they pay. If there was no system of relief and they had to pay a double tax they would take steps to see that they were not liable to our tax at all.

Then there is the question of charities. There are great numbers of charities that are now, because they are resident here, exempt from British tax under the existing arrangement and because they are charities in the Saorstát, are exempt from our taxation. If there were no system of relief from double taxation they would be liable to British tax and they would find it impossible in any reasonable time to change their investments and escape the double taxation. There are not many countries which have the same need for a scheme of relief from double taxation as this country has.

The history of the country is the cause of that, and the very close interlocking that exists. As I have already said, the League of Nations in 1923 appointed a committee of economists who prepared a scheme of relief from double income tax and from other forms of direct taxation. We, with Great Britain, then adopted so far as income tax is concerned the scheme that is there recommended. As I have said, it is the most workable scheme that could be got. It is the simplest and most convenient scheme that there could be for taxpayers, and one which, so far as our Exchequer is concerned, is more satisfactory than the scheme which was in existence before.

Captain REDMOND

Might I say at the outset that I heartily welcome the proposal which has now materialised and has been made by the Minister in regard to double taxation. He has been approached upon this matter for a good many years from various quarters. I think he has now arrived at a fairly satisfactory solution, but as far as I can gather it is only satisfactory between Great Britain and the Free State. I understood the Minister to say that this was under discussion during the proceedings in connection with the League of Nations. I would like him to tell the House if, during these discussions, the question of relief from double taxation as between the component parts of the British Commonwealth of Nations was also discussed, because I think that is a question that demands immediate attention. As between Great Britain and ourselves, there now seems to be a fairly satisfactory solution, but the matter is quite different where the other Dominions are concerned.

Take a case that I am particularly intimate with. I knew a person living in this country who derived most of his income from Australia. He was taxed for income tax as well as other taxes in Australia, and was also taxed for income tax in the Saorstát, so much so that he actually had to leave this country. He is now living abroad practically on the amount that he would have had to pay in income tax here. I know that the matter is one of considerable difficulty. I am not minimising the difficulty in any way, but still the problem is there, and certainly it is one that calls for attention and immediate action. There are many people in this country who derive their income from other portions of the British Commonwealth of Nations. They are, therefore, in a worse position to-day than if they derived their income from Great Britain itself. I do not know whether this matter came up during the discussions at the League of Nations, but I think it is one that should have been discussed. I would like to hear from the Minister whether any steps have been taken in connection with it, or whether any consideration has been given to the question. The question is one of very great importance owing, as the Minister himself said, to the circumstances in which we are placed here, and due to the fact that so many of our people derive their income from elsewhere.

Mr. MacENTEE

Before the House assents to this Resolution, I think we ought to have some further information from the Minister in regard to the amendments covered by the new agreement. I would like for instance if the Minister would explain to me personally and also to the House the exact effect and meaning of Section 2 in the new agreement which it is proposed to substitute for Section 2 in the old agreement. I do not know if it would make my difficulty clearer to the House if I were to attempt to read one of the paragraphs in the new agreement, which states the manner in which the appropriate rate of tax is to be paid. Paragraph c of sub-section (1) of Section 2 reads:—

(c) the appropriate rate of British income tax for any year shall in the case of a person whose income is chargeable to British income tax at the standard rate only be a rate ascertained by dividing the amount of tax payable by him for that year in respect of his total income (before deduction of any relief granted in respect of life assurance premiums or any relief granted under the provisions of Section 27 of the Finance Act, 1920, as amended by this Article) by the amount of his total income, and shall in the case of a person part of whose total income is chargeable to British income tax at a rate or rates in excess of the standard rate be the sum of the following rates:—

(i) the rate which would have been the appropriate rate in the case of that person if his income had been chargeable at the standard rate only, and

(ii) the rate ascertained by dividing the amount of the British sur-tax payable by that person for that year by the amount of his total income for that year.

I confess frankly that I do not understand what that paragraph is intended to convey, but surely it could have been worded in a plainer and more lucid fashion so that we would know what is proposed. No doubt the Minister will be able to construe the new sub-section. At all events, I think it is a sub-section that we should have some idea of before we pass it. In regard to the general question, undoubtedly the question of double income tax is one that does cause a considerable amount of inconvenience to residents in the Free State, particularly to those who happen to have investments in England. We should like, if possible, to have that inconvenience mitigated. At the same time we would like to have some further proof, than the opinion of the Minister, that the new arrangement is to the advantage of the Saorstát. The Minister stated that it was difficult to give a figure. If it is, upon what grounds does he come to the conclusion that the agreement is beneficial to us?

It seems to me that there is one aspect of the problem which the Minister did not touch upon and which is a very serious one for this country: that is the position of joint stock companies doing a large part of their business here but which are registered in England—companies, for instance, such as Messrs. Guinness, the National Bank and practically all the principal shipping companies. They pay no income tax in the Saorstát, not even under Schedule A. It seems to me that the advantage of this new agreement would want to be very considerable indeed in order to counterbalance the disadvantage which we are under in respect of these companies.

There is another point I would like the House to consider. It is whether it would not be advisable for the Minister to endeavour to remove from the scope of this agreement people who are living on pensions or superannuation allowances that are being paid by the people of the Saorstát and who are residing in England. I think that a person drawing a pension from the Irish people could very well afford to pay income tax to the Irish people particularly in a case such as the very flagrant one which occurred some time ago where a gentleman who is drawing a pension of, I think, £3,400 a year from the people of this country wrote a book vilifying this country and vilifying his countrymen. Though he was not very complimentary to the people who represent Republican principles in Ireland, I do not think it can be said that he was any more complimentary to the people who oppose us in that regard. It seems to me that it is a scandal that we should have to pay very considerable sums of money in pensions, judicial pensions and others, to people who do not live in this country and who do not spend one penny piece here. I think that, in equity at any rate, a very good case could be made for excluding these people from the operations of an agreement of the kind that we are now considering.

Mr. GOULDING

Is the Minister aware, as a result of the confusion that existed prior to the introduction of the Bill, that a considerable number of comparatively poor people in the country who had Guinness shares are under the impression that they have been done out of the dividends due to them for the three years prior to the introduction of the measure? I am informed that when they make representations they cannot get any satisfactory explanation from the authorities. Many of them have spoken to Deputies here asking if we could get any information for them. They state that they got the refund from the British side, but failed to get any refund from this side.

Mr. BLYTHE

With reference to what Deputy Goulding has said, I am afraid that the pre-1926 arrangement was not completely satisfactory. As a matter of fact, it did not entirely cover the cases of some persons of whom the Deputy speaks. That is to say, they were not given as much relief I think as they should have been given if the arrangement had been more carefully thought out. They have some grounds for grievance, but I do not know that anything can be done about it. The present arrangement makes their position satisfactory, except as regards the three years under which the first arrangement worked.

Mr. GOULDING

Many of these people are in very poor circumstances, and is it fair to deprive them of the amount legally due to them?

Mr. BLYTHE

The difficulty was that it was not legally due, and if it had been it would have been paid. The Deputy might say that it was equitably due, but it was not legally due, and that was the difficulty. With reference to what Deputy Redmond said, of course the League of Nations discussed the matter simply in general and recommended relief from double taxation as a general thing among the countries. There was no reference to a particular country. As to making an arrangement with Canada and countries like that, we have not taken that up. It is doubtful whether those countries would agree to the only arrangement that would be practicable —that is, the present one, for they would derive no advantages under it, and we would derive such advantages as were to be obtained. It is a matter which, while important to a certain small number of people, is not important to the Exchequer. That is one of the reasons it has not been gone into. I acknowledge it is a matter that, when we have time, we should completely explore, but until we had come to this agreement with the British and found it possible to adopt this system recommended by the League of Nations nothing could be done. Except the two codes were similar the relief would not work at all.

The only thing that would work amongst the countries that have dissimilar codes of income tax is the simple exemption on resident basis, but no attempt at relief by giving back half the income tax would work. This system would work with Canada, United States, or any country, provided we found it possible to enter into an agreement with them. As a matter of fact, very few people living in these countries derive their incomes from the Free State. So far as they are concerned, it would not be worth their while doing anything about it, but it would be worth our while, for we may have people here drawing income tax from them. The position might be that we would be anxious to enter into an agreement, but they would feel there was no inducement to do so. The matter is one that might be explored.

Captain REDMOND

Now that the general principle has been adopted by the League of Nations, perhaps the Minister will have his hands strengthened.

Mr. BLYTHE

Some might agree, as a matter of principle, but it would be of no practical importance to those countries. Deputy MacEntee asked for an explanation of sub-section (c). I do not know whether I could make it much clearer to him. The matter depends not on the standard rate of income tax or on the standard rate of super-tax. Leaving out the question of sur-tax or super-tax altogether for the moment, if a person has an income of £500, and after deducting the various reliefs he gets to which he is entitled, he pays £5 in income tax, that is 100 shillings. You divide by five his appropriate rate of tax, that tax is one-fifth of a shilling in the £, and he is given relief on his whole income to that extent. Relief is based on the appropriate tax, and not on the standard rate of tax. The section only deals with double residents and not with the ordinary citizens who live in one country, or another, but the people who are residents in two countries. They are given relief by being returned half their appropriate rate of tax. The appropriate rate is ascertained by dividing the total income tax paid by the amount of income, and then you will find that a man is not paying three or four shillings in the £ but 1/6 in the £ or some other rate, and then he is given relief to that extent.

Mr. MacENTEE

In paragraph (c) it is stated:

Before deduction of any relief granted in respect of life assurance premiums or any relief granted under the provisions of Section 27 of the Finance Act.

Mr. BLYTHE

For instance, he is entitled to his earned income allowance and to various things. You get the appropriate tax that way and give relief to half the extent. Sur-tax is separate. It is not payable until the next year, and you compute the two appropriate rates separately and add them together to get the sum to which he is entitled. It is provided in sub- sections (e) and (f) that he gets these two reliefs in the two bites. With reference to the point about Messrs. Guinness, under the old arrangement we would have got one-half the income tax payable by the firm. It is a British firm registered in England. The British would be entitled to charge income tax and we would be entitled to do so. We would have to give relief on half the tax, and the British would have to give relief on half, that is, we would have to get one half of the income tax on the whole of Guinness's profits. The present position is that we get all the income tax on the dividends received by people resident here. The person who lives here pays no British tax. He is refunded by the British Government the amount of the tax deducted at source when the Company paid in tax to the British revenue authorities. Some of the biggest shareholders, however, are doubly resident, and we get one half of their income tax. I have not gone into the firm of Guinness alone, but my opinion is that we are better off taking Guinness's alone than under the old arrangement, and that would apply to other companies of the same sort.

Mr. MacENTEE

What about the shipping companies?

Mr. BLYTHE

I do not say it operates better in every case. The Revenue authorities are satisfied that on the whole we do better under this arrangement. The only thing that might make the arrangement unsatisfactory to us would be if people who are doubly resident ceased in large numbers to be doubly resident; we might then have to reconsider the whole agreement. Matters being as they are, the arrangement works out satisfactorily. What the Deputy said about pensioners living out of the country is all right taken by itself. It takes two parties to make an agreement, and we can only make an agreement to cover everybody. We adopted the general principle of taxing residents and exempting non-residents, and we could not have certain classes exempted from these general provisions.

If we wanted to do that it would simply mean that we would have to scrap that arrangement and probably fall back on the old system. I mentioned the other night that to some extent the thing works both ways with us. Take the case of the Great Northern Railway Company. It is treated here as a Saorstát Company, and we get all the tax, but we have to give relief to shareholders who are not residents. Previously the Company's profits had to be segregated. There had to be an estimate arrived at. It was a very difficult thing and, perhaps, the figures may not have been very conclusive; but an agreement had to be arrived at as to how much of the profits of the Company were earned in Northern Ireland and how much in the Free State. The part that was earned in Northern Ireland was, of course, doubly taxed, the Company being a company resident here.

Mr. LITTLE

Might I ask the Minister whether this agreement will prevent us at a later date putting a higher rate of income tax upon people who have investments outside, say, in England?

Mr. BLYTHE

No, it would not. As long as this arrangement lasts we can tax our residents here in any way we like. So far as the people who are doubly resident are concerned, they would probably cease to be doubly resident immediately that came into operation. In any case, the agreement can be set aside at any time. It is only just as long as the legislation of both Parliaments confirming it remains in effect that the agreement stands.

Captain REDMOND

I suppose it would be just as possible for us to have an absentee tax as Australia?

Mr. BLYTHE

Yes.

Mr. MOORE

Are we to take it as definite that as long as this agreement lasts there can be no attempt to differentiate in regard to people enjoying pensions from Saorstát Eireann?

Mr. BLYTHE

No, that really cuts at the root of this agreement. I would say that there would be no possibility of having this agreement amended in such a way as to give effect to that and still have it continued as regards the main portion of the taxpayers. That is contrary to the principle of this.

Mr. LITTLE

The rate of income tax would make no difference. Suppose there was a tax of 6s. in the £ to be deducted theoretically at the source before you paid these pensions to the individuals, you could then make your calculations based on this principle. The principle in this would hold good all the time. Is not that so?

Mr. BLYTHE

The principle of the whole thing is that if the man resides in England we get no tax from him. If he resides here, the British get no tax, no matter how his income arises. If he has a house in each country the tax is divided.

Mr. LITTLE

You could do it this way: by making him within the meaning of the Act a double resident.

Mr. MacENTEE

The Minister stated that the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, who examined this agreement, was that it was satisfactory to this country. Could the Minister give any figures upon which that opinion is based? Has any attempt been made to estimate in terms of money the advantages and the disadvantages?

Mr. BLYTHE

There has been.

Mr. MacENTEE

I have again to refer to sub-section (c). I had an idea as to what the sub-section was intended to express. I mean I knew as to how the appropriate tax was to be calculated, but it seems to me that that is not what is done here. There are in several places possible ambiguities in that sub-section which I think ought to be cleared up by better drafting. The amount, for instance, "ascertained by dividing the amount of tax payable"—it does not say payable to whom and it ought to I think—"by him for that year in respect of his total income." One would consider that the amount "ascertained by dividing the amount of tax payable" would be both British and Irish income tax. It could be construed like that, because there is no specific reference to British income tax payable, which, I take it, is what is meant there.

Mr. FLINN

rose.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Does the Deputy want to ask a question?

Mr. FLINN

I wish to speak on what, I take it, is the Second Reading of the Resolution.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

It was understood that the Minister was replying to the debate. If the Deputy wishes to ask a question, I will allow him to do so, or perhaps the Deputy will get an opportunity on Item No. 4, which will follow this.

Mr. FLINN

I understood the Minister was replying to the interjectory questions and the requests for an explanation.

Mr. BLYTHE

No.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The Deputy must not have been in the House. The Minister was replying on the debate.

Mr. GOULDING

As to the people who will be entitled to this refund, will the Minister take steps to see that they get the refund in spite of the legal difficulties?

Mr. BLYTHE

I shall answer the Deputy at another time with regard to that.

Resolution put and agreed to.

The Dáil went out of Committee.

Resolution reported.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

Go bheidh sé mar threoir don Choiste ar an mBille Airgid, 1928, go bhfuil sé dé chomhacht acu socrú do dhéanamh ann do réir an Rúin Nua Airgid.

That it be an instruction to the Committee on the Finance Bill, 1928, that they have power to make provision therein pursuant to the Additional Financial Resolution.

Mr. FLINN

I should like to know what exactly is the ambit of this resolution?

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

The motion arises out of the resolution which has been passed—it is an instruction.

Mr. BLYTHE

The Bill has already been introduced without it, presumably.

Mr. FLINN

In other words, I was quite right.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

No, we are in Committee on the resolution. This is an ordinary motion.

Mr. FLINN

The difference is that technically in Committee I could only speak for ten minutes; now I can speak for three hours.

AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE

Technically in Committee the Deputy can speak many times.

Mr. FLINN

I am not complaining of the latitude given me. The only point I really wanted to raise was a point which had already been raised by the Minister for Finance himself. I merely wanted to emphasise a point which he had, I think, very fairly put. He emphasised the fact that he was looking at this from the Exchequer point of view. He was good enough and fair enough to say that two or three times. From an Exchequer point of view—from the point of view of the unfortunate man who merely has to get in the finance—this double income tax relief scheme is working quite satisfactorily. I think that is the point which he put. When the Minister for Finance is reduced to the condition of an animal that eats its young, which is practically the condition in which he is to-day, his view of what is good from the Exchequer point of view, and what is good from the very much wider point of view of the country, may be different. That is what I want to emphasise.

Broadly speaking, I think everyone who has to pay income-tax, I mean everyone who knows he has to pay income-tax, is glad of the scheme for the relief of double taxation. I am speaking with some experience, and as far as the ordinary person is concerned it is working quite well. If you make an application for a refund you get it without any difficulty. I think the Minister for Finance is entitled to have that stated, but the point which he has in his mind that he gets more than he loses by this transaction is one which, I think, not now, perhaps, but looking forward, he ought to consider. If that proposition is true, I mean of the national as well as the Exchequer point of view, it must be a matter of complete indifference to the State who earns the money in the State. Take now the case which I think was somewhat misunderstood—I am only taking it because it is a case of common knowledge—the case of the creameries that were supposed to be handed over holus bolus to Lovell and Christmas. It is not a matter of indifference to the country in that particular case whether the ownership of property in Ireland is exported. Take the case of some of the chocolate factories built up here, working very satisfactorily, and now transferred to foreign ownership. That is not a matter of indifference to the country. That is the point I want to emphasise. According to the Minister so long as what he gets from the people who invest across on the other side in maintaining labour there and what he gets from people who come over here and buy up the ownership of productive means in Ireland balance in his favour, from the Exchequer point of view, that is all right. But from another point of view it may be entirely different.

I shall give the Minister an example. I do not want to mention the name of any particular representative now, but I shall give the name to the Minister if necessary. One of his own foreign trade representatives was over here in Ireland and he came to Dublin. He came for the purpose of getting samples of goods to bring them to the Continent for the development of trade. By the time he got down to us in Cork I think he had an Irish wolf-dog. The explanation was that he could not get samples of manufactures which he was able or likely to introduce into foreign countries, because he would be bringing them over there to compete with then existing owners. I am emphasising the point which the Minister himself previously put in a debate in this House, that foreign ownership of industry here means as a rule—at any rate branch ownership, that is ownership of branch manufacturing concerns here—that the export trade is practically impossible. We had that case of a trade representative of the Irish Free State anxious to get samples and coming away without them. Suppose, for instance, he had taken some of Barrington's soaps or some other of the Lever commodities and brought them over to Germany he would have been in competition there with Lever's. There is that distinct difference between a firm here with its own ownership.

The point I am putting to the Minister is: I want him to consider this whole question of income tax or double income tax not from the mere Exchequer point of view, of getting money, which is perfectly legitimate, and which he himself is bound to take into consideration, but is not, and ought not to be the dominant view. Though he may get a greater revenue by this means, it may mean that there is going on an actual transference of the ownership of production here. People do not realise, I think, the significance of that. We make up sometimes rather hypothetical balance sheets of trade in which we have what is known as trade balance. But one thing not being taken into account, the significant thing and vitamin thing of the whole thing, is that one of the invisible exports is ownership of the Irish means of production. If you analyse that out you will find that if an Irish firm is transferred to foreign ownership it creates a credit abroad for this country, and in so doing it does precisely the same thing as the export of goods, and two things that produce precisely the same effect are economically the same thing. The transference of ownership in Ireland of Irish means of production is one of the significant and one of the most important and one of the most dangerous forms of invisible exports to which we are exposed. When from the Exchequer point of view the Minister says he is getting the whole benefit in this matter, I want him to consider very carefully that there is a national point of view, which is somewhat different. We are not suggesting for a moment opposition to this, nor are we suggesting, at any time, in relation to technical financial expedients, critical opposition. In every case there are difficult problems to be solved, and you have to add up all the dangers against the advantages. Very often it may even be that the Minister who is actually contriving these things may not find it desirable to express to the House the whole of the reasons for or against a particular measure. For instance, if we were to adopt an expedient of a particular kind and advertise widely that it was to our advantage against Czecho-Slovakia, you could imagine Czecho-Slovakia might wake up and say, "There is more in this than we thought there was." I say that generally in relation to financial matters. We have another in relation to the increase of the Corporation Profits Tax. There are difficulties there. I am not going to discuss the Corporation Profits Tax except in regard to administration. There are objections which could be pressed critically, but I am taking it that in relation to this case, and in relation to the Corporation Profits Tax, the measures taken by the Minister have tended to balance the evil against the good. The only point I am putting now is that in every financial matter that comes before us we should recognise that there is a distinctly different point of view in relation to taxation, in relation to the getting and the spending of revenue, than the point of view which the Minister for Finance himself is bound to take as the principal point of view.

Mr. BLYTHE

In reply to Deputy Flinn, I recognise that a point might be reached where the transfer of our industries to foreign control would be very serious. It is a problem that we can always deal with. When we reach the position, which I think we must reach fairly soon, of devising some way of getting the equivalent of the death duties in respect of the property of foreign companies here, we know that shareholders of these companies would still have to pay their death duties in England if they are in the English company.

It might well be that that itself would, to some extent, operate to hinder the process of transferring ownership of industries to outside companies. I do not know whether it would be wise very soon to do much in that direction, because I feel that at present the important thing is to get industries started. In quite a number of cases foreign firms have come in and have actually started new industries. That is entirely healthy in our circumstances, in my opinion. Perhaps this is a little wide of what we were discussing. But the coming of foreign firms to take control of existing Irish industries is not in the same category; it is not so healthy. At the same time I do not feel myself that we have reached the stage where we would not do more harm than good by taking action which would really put serious obstacles in the way of people who had the sort of skill and the resources—not merely the financial resources, but the technical resources—that would enable them to start industries here. I admit that the point of view that Deputy Flinn has put has to be kept in mind. There may be a difference of opinion as to how soon or in what circumstances action should be taken. I agree with him to this extent, that while industries may go on very well here, so far as the home market is concerned, under foreign control, they are unlikely to grow in the way, say, that Jacob's or Guinness's grew, or in the way that, in many countries, important industries grew. That is, so far as industries under foreign control are concerned. We are never likely to have the advantage of having an international market. It is a very big question, and I think it is a little wide of this debate.

Mr. FLINN

Perhaps you would allow me to say, sir, that the speech we have heard from the Minister is exactly what we wanted from him. We merely put the point of view which we wanted to be considered, and we are very glad to find that it is the point of view of the Minister.

Question put and agreed to.