I move that the Dáil agree with the Committee in Resolution No. 1. This is the usual Resolution specifying the rate of income-tax and surtax and continuing the existing statutory provision in relation to these taxes.
Financial Resolutions—Report Stage. - Resolution No. 1—Income-tax and Surtax.
It would be helpful to me and probably to other Deputies to refresh our memories on the procedure at this stage. The Minister informed us in his Budget speech that he was going to carry out some alterations in regard to the collection of arrears. Would that arise on the Finance Bill or by way of Resolution?
The Resolution dealing with that is Resolution No. 3, which will be reported in the House to-day, I hope. There will be a further opportunity of discussing it on the Finance Bill, when it will appear in the form of a statutory provision.
The preliminary steps are taken by way of Resolution to-day.
Yes.
The Minister for Finance on Thursday night spent from 9.10 until 10.30 pretending that he was dealing with the general Budget resolution but, instead of that, as I said, he was dealing with the personal habits, appearances and antecedents of certain Deputies who spoke from this side of the House. He particularly took up some of Deputy McGilligan's remarks on the income-tax. The Minister made no attempt on that occasion to analyse the figures or statements made by Deputy McGilligan indicating that the condition of the country was such that the receipts from income-tax had fallen substantially, when we take into consideration the rise in the rate from 3/- to 4/6, compared with the yield from income-tax before the Fianna Fáil policy fell on this country. The Minister, as I say, made no attempt to deal either with the figures or statements of Deputy McGilligan. The Minister surely had an opportunity in moving this resolution of stating what the position is from his point of view and indicating clearly if the yield from income-tax is increasing, and if the yield that we are getting from income-tax shows that income-tax payers are able to bear the burden they are bearing at present. The Minister suggested that the statements of Deputy McGilligan were injurious to the credit of the country. He is the person on whom the safeguarding of the credit of the country primarily rests, more particularly in respect of matters in respect of which he thinks the credit of the country is being injured. In moving that this House should accept a rate of income-tax of 4/6 in the £, it is the duty of the Minister to deal in a systematic way with the statements that he has already referred to only in an oblique way and answered only by personal reflections on the Deputy.
There is one matter upon which I should like to have some further information from the Minister than he saw fit to give to the House when speaking on Thursday night last, bearing in mind that a further opportunity will arise for discussing this question more fully on the Finance Bill which is coming along. It escapes the memory of a good many people in this country that the fixing of the income-tax at the standard rate at present is not unconnected with the alteration of the basis of valuation which was made last year for the purpose of assessing income-tax on house property. My information from a number of persons who are householders is that that tax is bearing very heavily upon them. I heard that complaint from a number of persons of the class whom the Minister professes to be peculiarly solicitous about, that is, young married men with a growing family. I would be interested to know from the Minister if any complaint of that character reached him, because, as I pointed out on more than one occasion, I believe that hypocrisy on a matter of this kind is peculiarly damaging to the State as a whole. It ill becomes the Minister to get up and profess his great solicitude for the young married men with a rising family, when he alters the incidence of the income-tax, at the same time that he is increasing the burden of income-tax upon these very people substantially by his alteration in the basis of valuation. I feel that the five-fourths valuation provision is a great hardship. I believe that the maintenance of the present standard rate of income-tax, bearing that in mind, is pressing very heavily on a considerable number of people who are ill able to afford it. I cannot imagine that representations have not reached the Minister in that regard and I would be glad to know if the Minister is prepared to extend his solicitude for the young married man from that class of person who has no income-tax to pay at all to the other type of person who is struggling to pay whatever assessment is proper, but who now finds, under this new arrangement, that a substantial addition has been made to the burden he is required to carry.
There is one point to which I should like to call the attention of the Minister in the hope that between now and the introduction of the Finance Bill he might find it possible to look into the matter and to do something to remedy what I think would be regarded by most persons as a hardship in many respects and an unfair burden on a certain class of income-tax payers. At the present time it is possible for an income-tax payer, whose child is receiving fulltime instruction in school, to claim the children's allowance until the child reaches 16 years of age. It is possible to claim that children's allowance up to a much later stage if the child happens to be attending a University. But, it is not possible to claim an allowance of that kind in the case of a man who apprentices his son to a trade and is possibly required to pay a fee to secure that apprenticeship.
The child who goes to a trade is receiving education in the same sense as the child going to a school or to a University, except that the education, instead of being, perhaps, of a literary character, is of a vocational and technical character. The person who apprentices his son or daughter to some trade should, I think, be entitled to claim in respect of that child the same allowances as can be claimed by that person if the child happens to go to a secondary school or a University. Most of the income-tax payers who apprentice their children to trades may be said to be in the category of ordinary working-class folk. A well-to-do person can send his child to a University and get an allowance because of that fact, or can send his child to a secondary school and get an allowance because of that fact, but the working man in constant employment cannot afford to send his children to a University or some of the more costly secondary schools, and thinks he is doing better for the child by apprenticing that child to a trade. He is not able to claim the same allowance that the more wealthy income-tax payer is entitled to claim in respect of his child. As I said, it can be argued that both children are receiving education, although in a somewhat diverse direction, and I think a strong case can be made for regarding the workman whose child is apprenticed to a trade as eligible to receive the same kind of allowances as are paid to wealthy income-tax payers whose children get education in a somewhat different sense. I should like if the Minister would look into this matter between now and the introduction of the Finance Bill.
Perhaps the Minister would answer the question I put to him a few days ago as to why he has estimated a drop in the yield from surtax and supertax in the ensuing year?
The Minister to conclude.
I think we can all congratulate Deputy Mulcahy in appearing in the role of Leonidas trying to fight a new Thermopylae—a classic example of the delaying action.
If the Minister would appear here in the role of the Minister for Finance, and tell us about the subject he is dealing with, we could get on with the work.
I will tell the Deputy this: the one thing that Deputy McGilligan did not deal with in the course of his speech on the general Resolution was this question of income-tax. As to what may have been said on Resolution No. 14—and we are now discussing Resolution No. 1, Sir—I hope that I shall be able to deal with that on Resolution No. 14 when it comes before the House on Report, or possibly on the debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
Why not deal with income-tax on the Income-tax Resolution?
Because there will be an opportunity of dealing with it more adequately in the Committee discussion on Section 1 of the proposed Finance Bill. Then I hope that Deputy McGilligan and Deputy Mulcahy and Deputy Dillon, if they have anything pertinent to observe on that section of the Bill, will be here to make those observations. With regard to what Deputy Dillon said, so far as the class of whom he speaks is concerned—the class, I assume, in which members of the Labour Party were keenly interested in last year's Budget—if I am challenged in the proper place and at the proper stage, that is, on the debate on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill or on the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill, I think I can say that that particular class is at least no worse off in the year 1936 than it was in the year 1931.
With regard to the point raised by Deputy Norton, I will deal with it at length on the Finance Bill. I may say that this matter was raised by Deputy Keyes last year, and I promised to look into it. I have looked into it very carefully and with every desire to meet the point of view expressed by Deputy Keyes, but I am sorry to say that the practical difficulties in the way are such that we cannot do more than do as we have done this year, that is, to increase the rate of allowance in respect of children who are not earning and who are at school.
Would the Minister answer the question which I put to him?
It is not, I suppose, strictly in accordance with the rules, but if I may be permitted to answer the question put by Deputy MacDermot I may say that the fact that we are estimating the yield from surtax as slightly less than last year is due to the fact that there is an element of arrears which recurs from year to year in regard to the collection of surtax, and that last year that element was rather above the normal proportion to the total collection. We do not anticipate that this year the amount to be brought in in respect of arrears collected will be as much as last year, and that would account for the difference. It is purely a casual variation.
Does the Minister call a 20 per cent. drop a slight increase?
In regard to surtax, yes.
Are we to take it, then, Sir, that this debate on the Report Stage of the Financial Resolutions is going to be continued on the basis that the Minister for Finance declines to answer any questions, bluntly announces his intention of ignoring the House and its procedure, and is postponing any observations he has to make to the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill? If that is the attitude of the Minister, the sooner we wind up the House the better, because our proceedings have become the greatest farce. As I understand the procedure of this House, it is designed to afford representatives of the minority an opportunity to put the Minister on his proof, at certain stages, as to legislation or alterations in legislation. If the Minister blandly says, "I am not going to reply, and I defy the authority of the House to ask any questions," it is waste of our time, waste of money, and waste of your time, Sir, to remain here any longer. We should wind up the proceedings. We should proceed in regard to the Dáil as we proceeded yesterday in regard to the Seanad— wind it up.
I am afraid the Deputy, in his inexperience, does not appreciate the essential difference between the Report and Committee Stages.
I put that question to the Chair. There is a series of amendments standing on this Paper to delete certain references.
They do not apply to Resolution No. 1.
If the Minister declines to give any information whatever at this stage, and bluntly says "I will give no information until the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill," these proceedings are a farce. That is bringing Dáil Eireann into disrepute and contempt, and I submit that that is something which ought not to be done.
The Chair cannot compel a Minister or Deputy to reply. If the Minister decides to postpone replies to certain questions until the Committee Stage or the Second Stage of the Finance Bill is reached, the Chair has no power to alter that decision. On the Committee Stage, I may point out, Deputies would have a better opportunity for discussion, not being limited as now to one speech.
I feel strongly on this matter, because we have a certain right to demand and get information. I admit that that may be an embarrassing thing for the Minister, but I feel that that is the purpose of Parliament. The Minister disagrees with us, and as you very truly say, Sir, it is not your function to make anybody speak or hold his peace except in certain circumstances. I therefore, ask will you accept a motion for the adjournment, and let the President of the Executive Council come in here in order to say what is his view as to the responsibility of the Minister for Finance on an occasion of this kind?
The Chair is not prepared to accept such a motion.
May I, with your permission, intervene to point out that the Deputy asked one question? If the Deputy had really been taking an interest in the business which was done in the House to-day he would have seen that the reply to a Parliamentary Question, put down by a Deputy who is really interested in this matter, gave him all the information which he desires. In any event, Sir, as you know, the regulation is that on Report Stage a Deputy makes only one speech. Merely for the convenience of the Deputy, I stated that I proposed to defer dealing to any extent with the point raised until the Committee Stage of the Bill, when the Deputy would have an opportunity of making more than one speech.
Might I point out that the Minister's explanation makes his conduct even less excusable? He had the information, and would not give it to the House.
It was given.
The Minister is not quite so inexperienced in the affairs of this House as not to know that very many Deputies are not here at Question time, even in the Minister's own Party. I may point out that the Report Stage has some function. One of the functions it ought to have is to afford to the House an opportunity of getting some information which may be useful to them on the Finance Bill. The Minister is already in the privileged position that he has or ought to have that information, and he should put that information at the disposal of the House at the earliest opportunity.
And it is at the disposal of the House.
I wish the Minister would not interrupt. The Minister refused, until he was prompted, to give any information, and took up the line that he would not give it because it had been already given.
Is that a proper expression to use, Sir?
It is quite proper. As I was saying, the Minister refused to give the information when he was asked to give it. He did not then allege that it had already been given. It was only when he found that it had been already given that he took up that attitude. We wanted the information so as to be in a position to discuss the matter when it came up on another stage. We recognise your purpose quite well, Sir, but we consider that the Minister's attitude is a breach of the privileges of the House.
Sir, is a Deputy entitled to address the Chair sitting down?
Mr. Dillon rose.
If the Deputy rises to put a new point of order, he is entitled to do so; but he has already spoken twice on one point.
Yes, Sir; this is a point of order. I now ask you, Sir, with all respect, if you will request the Minister to say whether or not he is prepared to give categorical answers to questions arising on these Resolutions, on the ground that these categorical answers are required in order to enable us to discuss properly matters in connection with these Resolution on the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill?
That is a matter for the Minister.
Yes, Sir. Is the Minister prepared to reply?
No, because I submit, Sir, with all respect, that the proper stage to interrogate the Minister is not the Report Stage of the Resolutions. A special time is provided by the rules of the House for interrogating the Minister, and one Deputy availed of that already to-day. Of course, Deputy O'Sullivan was not here in his place to hear the answer I gave, but the information is available to the Deputy, just as it is to other Deputies, and surely Deputy O'Sullivan does not claim that he is entitled to suit his own convenience, to disregard the rules of the House, and come in here and put questions at a most untimely stage of the business of the House and hold up the business of the House merely because it has not suited him to be in his proper place at the opening of business? I gave the information in reply to a question by a Deputy who is interested in this matter. I gave all the information that was asked for. If Deputies require information, in order to enable them to discuss adequately proposals before this House, the House has provided a certain procedure for the purpose of eliciting that information. That procedure is the procedure of putting down a Parliamentary Question, but, of course, Deputies have to think out a Parliamentary Question; Parliamentary Questions cannot be just put on the spur of the moment; they involve a certain amount of preparation. All that information has already been given, in so far as it was asked for, by the procedure of Parliamentary Question, and I do not think, Sir, with all respect, that the Report Stage of a Resolution is the proper place to ask for that information.
Perhaps I might be permitted, Sir, to comment on the Minister's statement. It will only take one sentence. What I object to, Sir, is the general principle laid down by the Minister that, on the Report Stage of these Resolutions, he will give no information. It is the enunciation of that principle by the Minister that I object to, and I object to it as a breach of the privileges of the House.
Will you be good enough, Sir, to give us a guide as to what is the purpose of the Report Stage of Financial Resolutions? Is it for fun? If we are to get no information at this stage, then what is this farce for? I understood that we came here to-day for the purpose of getting information, and now the Minister says that he will not give the information required. What is the purpose of the Report Stage, if we are not to be provided with the information we require? Is the procedure to be something in the nature of a Chinese prayer-wheel? Surely we are here for some purpose. I take it that the purpose we are here for is to get information, but if the Minister will not give the information, we might just as well set up a prayer-wheel and give it a twist for one stage, and then turn it around again for the next stage, and then, at the end of that, proceed to our next business.
On the Report Stage of the Resolutions the House decides whether or not the House agrees with the Committee on Finance in its report on the Resolutions.
It is for the purpose of redacting the fruits of the discussions on the Resolutions in Committee Stage.
Question put and declared carried.