Has the Minister considered the representations put up to him in connection with this section? This is the case of the £13,000 which the Minister proposes to rob charities of during the next 12 months and, as a matter of fact, for the future. There is a very simple way of getting even more than £13,000 if the Minister wants to; that is, to reduce the allowance from one-fifth to one-sixth. Some people benefited last year by that provision. The extraordinary thing is this, that during a period when the Minister is short £1,000,000, and has to impose extra taxation in order to get it, some people, as a result of the impositions and concessions he (the Minister) makes, have actually secured a remission of the amount they are supposed to pay in income-tax. I expect, however, that, while this conspiracy goes on between the Minister and the Revenue Commissioners, he will not take this particular tax off.
Institute for Advanced Studies Bill, 1939—From the Seanad. - Finance Bill, 1940—Committee and Final Stages.
I heard a deputation on this matter, and, having, gone into it and examined it carefully, I see no reason for changing the attitude I adopted in the beginning in regard to it.
I move amendment No. 1:—
Before Section 4, page 4, to insert a new section as follows:—
Section 21 of the Finance Act, 1920, shall be construed and have effect as if the words "at the commencement of the year of assessment" in sub-section (1) were deleted, and the words "at any time within the year of assessment" inserted in lieu thereof.
As the law stands, the concession made to people by way of reduction in income-tax in respect of children up to the age of 16 years, does not apply in the year in which a child is born. The obvious hardship of that has been recognised during the last 12 years in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The object of my amendment is to secure that the allowance, given in respect of children up to 16 years of age, would apply in the year in which a child is born.
The amendment, if adopted, would mean that the allowance, instead of being given over a period of 16 years, would be given for an additional year: in other words, that the period would be 17 years instead of 16 in which allowances in respect of income-tax would apply. I accept the Deputy's figures with regard to the period during which the concession he speaks of has been in operation in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In answer to that, I want to say that we are giving more now per child than they are giving in Great Britain. I think that what we are giving is fair, especially nowadays with the tightness that there is of money. It is as much as we can afford. As the Deputy has pointed out, the allowance here is not given in the year in which the child is born, but in the following year. The case has been put up to me in correspondence that the expenses on parents in the year in which a child is born are greater than they are in subsequent years. This allowance, I would like to point out, is not given by way of contribution towards meeting the expenses of bringing a child into the world. The allowance is intended for the maintenance of the child. Under present conditions, I certainly could not agree to accept the amendment.
I quite recognise that the allowance is not given by way of contribution towards the expenses incurred in connection with the birth of a child, but I do want to suggest to the Minister that, when reliefs are given, they should be given at a time when personal expenses are such that they will be most welcome. In the same way, when taxation is being imposed, it should be so arranged that it will fall at a time when people best can bear it. I am not prepared to argue whether, in various cases, the expenses on parents are heavier in respect of a child 16 years of age, or in the year in which the child was born. In the earlier years of a child's life, I would think that the expenses on parents are greater than they are in the year in which the child is born. I do ask the Minister to further investigate the matter, and see whether some relief of this kind could not be extended to that particular year. Would the Minister say what it would cost to give the relief sought in the amendment?
In a full year it would be £40,000.
Is the Deputy pressing the amendment?
I do not think I can. I would be glad if I could get from the Minister an assurance that the matter would be further considered.
It was considered, as a matter of fact, prior to its coming before me. It was gone into on many previous occasions, both in the period of the last Government and during the period of office of my predecessor. It has been raised over and over again by different interested parties. Some Ministers, I understand, had a disposition to adopt it. I, too, would like to adopt the suggestion in principle—that is, if it was a question of giving the allowance in the year of the child's birth and taking it off the 16th year. That would reduce the cost considerably, but, even to do that would cause difficulties. As things stand at present, I can see no hope of doing what the Deputy has asked.
I am not pressing the amendment.
I move amendment No. 2:—
Before Section 8 to insert a new section as follows:—
Section 3 of the Finance Act, 1935 (No. 28 of 1935) shall not apply to tenements and rateable hereditaments which have been valued for the first time or revalued subsequent to the 1st day of April, 1926.
This new method of assessing income-tax on house property was adopted in the year 1935. Sub-section (8) of Section 3 of the Finance Act of 1935—the Act which introduced this imposition— provided:—
This section shall not apply to or have effect in the County Borough of Waterford, and accordingly tax under Schedule A of the Income-Tax Act, 1918, shall be assessed and charged on tenements and rateable hereditaments situate in the County Borough of Waterford as if this Section had not been enacted.
The reason for giving that concession in the case of Waterford was that there had been a revaluation of house property in the Borough of Waterford in, I think, the year 1926. In any case, it was not at an earlier date than the date I have put down in the amendment. What I am asking is that there should be given to other areas, and to other persons who have had property revalued, or valued for the first time, a concession similar to that given in the case of Waterford. During those last 15 or 20 years efforts have had to be made to stimulate to some extent the building industry. That found some support here in this House by reason of the concessions given in respect to valuation for local authorities. Generally speaking, the concessions formed one of two different kinds of reductions in the rates that were to be paid. In some cases there is a reduction of two-thirds of the valuation given for some six or seven years. In the other case, there was a gradual reduction starting, I think, in the first year with the concession of 19/20ths and tapering down to 1/20th at the end of the 20-year period when the whole assessment in respect of rates had to be paid.
Just at the moment building costs are high. They have been increasing in their steepness until we have now reached the peak point. Apart altogether from the question of helping to stimulate the building industry, the question of equity arises. There is no reason why concessions of this sort should have been given to the County Borough of Waterford unless there was a particular reason for it. The reason for the imposition of this new tax was that so long as there had been a valuation of the County Borough of Waterford in 1926 one had to admit the facts of the case. The only allegation that could be made against this proposal is that the cadastre or whatever word the Valuation Office uses has been lessened in certain cases by reason of the other property not having been valued in recent years. Personally I do not believe that. It is one of those Civil Service excuses made to help the Minister out of a difficult position. I have had experience of valuation personally, and I know in the case of the City of Cork and the City of Dublin where the revaluation of property was carried out, property that was destroyed in the two disturbances, that valuation was imposed on the only basis upon which it could possibly be fixed. Consequently, I do not think that a consideration of that character should arise.
What the Deputy says about the revaluation of Waterford is correct. Waterford got special consideration when these principles of valuation were first adopted. There were special reasons in the case of Waterford. There the valuation increase was so high compared with the valuations made elsewhere and it brought such a very heavy additional impost on the ratepayers of the city that it was thought only fair that they should get special consideration. I think I have the figures here. The total valuation of Waterford was raised from £51,732 to £76,944 or an increase of almost 50 per cent. When there was added to that the one-fifth addition put on elsewhere, the result was that most of the valuations of Waterford would have been found to be out of proportion to the rest of the country. As the Deputy says there have been revaluations in Cork, Dublin and elsewhere all over the country but I am advised that all of these revaluations or any valuations that have taken place in recent years have been based on the principles adopted prior to 1913-1914. In adopting these principles the commissioners have taken into account the value of the property in the immediate neighbourhood and the annual value also. If there had been a revaluation in the rest of the country on new principles of valuation in all these places, even though valued in the last three or four or five years there would in all probability in most cases be an increase. In the City of Dublin there was a revaluation too but the proportionate increase in Dublin was not anything like the increase that was brought about in the City of Waterford. In no cases in which I have made inquiries and in no county can it be claimed that the tax put on the valuation of the house, as increased, is anything like the tax on the real annual letting value of the property. If there is a case to be made that would go to show that the tax now put on building in the case of new valuations, is excessive, there is an appeal. That right of appeal has been in existence and could be used any time for the last 12 or 15 years. But the number of appeals that have come up has been infinitesimal. There has not been one I think for years.
The Minister says that the revaluation of Waterford went up by 50 per cent. The valuation of Dublin and Cork has gone up by over 100 per cent. So far as appeals are concerned I understand that in some cases that came before the courts, the judges simply dismissed the cases with costs against the plaintiffs; that stopped all other cases being brought on.
Probably there would be in Waterford individual houses as high, but I am speaking of the valuation as a whole.
Look up the cases of Cork and if the increases do not beat the 50 per cent. in Waterford I will be astonished.
Amendment No. 2 put and negatived.
I move amendment No. 6:—
In sub-section (1), page 16, line 22, after the word "modifications" to insert in brackets the words "(including in particular the substitution, where appropriate, of the Minister for Finance for the National Debt Commissioners)".
This is merely a drafting amendment.
I move amendment No. 7:—
In sub-section (3) (c), page 17, line 48, after the word "witnesses" to insert the words "to summon withnesses".
This is a slight extension of what is in the original section. The section gives the registrar of friendly societies power to receive evidence and administer oaths to withnesses, but it does not empower him to summon witnesses. The amendment is to repair that omission.
I move amendment No. 8:—
In sub-section (3), page 18, to delete paragraph (d) and substitute a new paragraph as follows:—
(d) there shall be paid to the trustees of every trustee savings bank interest at such rate (not exceeding 2? per cent. per annum) as the Minister shall think proper on the moneys paid by such trustees into the said special account;".
This is also a drafting amendment. The opening words of the paragraph are too restrictive and we propose to leave them out.
What interest is being paid at present?
Two and seven-eighths per cent. That is the maximum.
I move amendment No. 9:—
To add at the end of the section two new sub-sections as follows:—
(4) Regulations made by the Minister under the next preceeding sub-section of this section in relation to the special account mentioned in that sub-section may provide that investments of moneys to the credit of the said special account may be made by way of deposit in the Post Office Savings Bank and if such regulations so provide they may further make such provisions as shall be requisite for the payment by the Post Office Savings Bank of interest on moneys so deposited at such rate and over such periods as may, in the opinion of the Minister, be necessary or expedient for the effective administration of the relevant provisions of this section and the regulations made thereunder.
(5) Provisions inserted under the next preceding sub-section of this section in the regulations mentioned in that sub-section shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary or inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment applied by this Act to the Post Office Savings Bank.
Although we can all understand this section, which, I think, was recommended by the Banking Commission, it would have a certain psychological effect in other places, and I wonder if the Minister, in view of the small amount that will probably be produced at the present time, might not think it better to postpone this section for another year.
We had, as I think the Deputy knows, a good deal of consultation and discussion with the authorities of certain of these banks, and I think our proposition has been generally acceptable to the directors of these banks. We are making certain alterations and bringing them into the body of our law and we thought it might be as well to complete the job now as far as we can.
That was not the aspect that was occuring to me, but merely the question as to the way it would be interpreted in other places when they are looking so particularly for money. However, if the Minister does not feel that, it is not for me to suggest anything.
We have also been in consultation with the people referred to on the matter.
I move amendment No. 10:—
At reference No. 4, column 3, to delete the existing words in the column and substitute the following words: "75 per cent. ad valorem on invoice”.
In looking at this duty, the first thing that strikes one is its foolishness. I do not think it brings about the idea that the Government have in view. Taking this question of tiles, which also possibly with the name altered would apply to other commodities, what is the position? The Government are anxious to encourage the manufacture of glazed tiles in this country. That is all to the good. They have got a company which is doing its best. There is another aspect of the matter, and that is, that glazed tiles are used in two ways First of all, there are glazed tiles which are used on a domestic hearth in front of a fire. Those are purchased somewhere and sent into this country and they are laid down by a contractor. The other purpose for which tiles are used, and which has been a gradual evolution or development, is this. In the old days there used to be very heavy iron, wooden, or marble mantelpieces. These have been gradually superseded in many cases by what are called slab panels. These are part of the side of the fireplace or what is called the surround which goes into the opening in the metal or wooden grate, and in some cases it is built of these tiles on panels. The Minister and the Government are anxious to promote industry that will give as much work as possible here, and a start was made by putting a duty on tiles, imported slab panels and surrounds. That was to encourage the manufacture of slab panels and surrounds here. The effect of that duty was that the importation of slab panels and surrounds ceased, except in the case of those of very artistic or peculiar manufacture which could not be made here.
When the tile company started to manufacture they made a range of about 50 colours. I think that was all to the good, and was a very wise decision on their part, because if they went in for producing all sorts and colours it would not be very long until they would find themselves in the bankruptcy court. The trade think that they were right in confining themselves to a range of about 50 colours. Some people now find that the 50 colours do not meet their requirements, perhaps not matching grates or some furnishings in rooms. Why should people who find that the tiles manufactured here do not provide them with the same range as the industry established in other countries makes available, not be accommodated? Why should they be scalped? I do not mind subjecting them to a duty.
At present the proposed duty amounts to 75 per cent., or 4½d. a tile. That has produced a most extraordinary state of affairs. In the 6 × 6 tiles the duty represents 9/- per square yard, being 55 per cent. In the 6×3 it represents 18/- per square, yard, or 112½ per cent.; in the 4×4 it represents 20/3 per square yard, or 127½ per cent.; in the 4×2, 40/6 per square yard, or 255 per cent.; in the 6×1, 54/-, or 140 per cent.; in 1×1, that is a dot tile, the duty is £16 4s. per square yard; in the 4×1, the duty is 81/-. Why should the duty of 4½d. per tile be put on the 1×1 or the 6×6? What is the idea? How can that protect the local manufacturer? It creates the greatest confusion, because when some business people are asked by customers to give the cost they are unable to do so. No one knows how a manufacturer will send in tiles to fill a particular space. He may send them inch by inch, which means a duty of £16 4/- per square yard, or he may send them 6×6, when the duty is only 55 per cent.
I ask the Minister to consider whether he could not have a flat duty, such as I suggest in the amendment, so that business people would know the position. It creates discontent when people do not know what the cost is going to be. They are told that they will know that when they get the invoice. What happens then is that they simply do not get the work done. No doubt the Minister is anxious that an industry that was started here should flourish, but in scalping people who want anything that comes from outside he is only preventing those of discriminating taste, who are influenced by fittings in a room, from giving employment.
I turn now to the slabbing section. I described how the Minister, when he imposed the duty, put it on slab surrounds and panels, and created an industry here at which people are employed. That was all to the good. To take the analogy of motor parts these parts come in at a certain duty, which encourages assembly here. The duty on a complete motor-car is higher. That promoted assembly and familiarity with the goods to be handled and gave employment here. I will now give an instance of surrounds which would be brought in under a duty and what the cost would be. Take the cost of tile surrounds; C, 108, 42×47 with raised curb parts. The cost would be £4 1s. 5d., plus 33? per cent., making £5 8s. 7d. That is the imported tile. Supposing a merchant or a builder desired to give employment in the making up of that surround he would order the loose tiles and fittings and at the quays in Dublin the cost would be £2 15s. 5d., duty £3 8s. 6d., cost of assembly £1 18s. 3d., making a total of £8 2s. 2d. That curb and surround could be imported for £5 8s. 7d. That is an absolute reversal of the Minister's policy of starting industries to give work.
I should like to hear what is the underlying idea of getting people to give employment and putting men to work on these surrounds, if with a wave of his wand the Minister is doing away with that arrangement, and making it cheaper to bring parts in from elsewhere. I shall give another instance, but I shall not go into the same detail. It is C.1. 43; the cost at Dublin Quays, plus 33? per cent. import duty, is £7 15s. 5d. The cost of the tiles is £3 15s. 4d., with duty, 3d. per tile, £4 9s. 3d., making a total of £8 4s. 7d. The cost of assembling is £2 5s. 0d. That is £10 9s. 7d. for the raised curb and tile surround made in this country against £7 15s. 5d. for the same article imported. Would anybody outside a lunatic asylum employ an Irishman to make a curb and surround if he could get the imported article a couple of pounds cheaper in here at the quay? What is the extraordinary idea underlying this duty? Will the Minister look into the matter again because I am perfectly certain that, if he uses his influence to pass the duty here, it will not be very long until people come round to him to point out the foolishness of this imposition. Between now and Report Stage, I ask the Minister to look into this matter and see if he cannot stick to the policy which I thought was laid down and which I think is universally approved in this House—that it ought to be cheaper to bring in an article in a semi-finished state and assemble it than to bring in an article finished.
I think that there is a slight inconsistency in the attitude which Deputy Dockrell has taken up in regard to this whole question of tiled hearths and surrounds. Apparently, he considers that the specific duty upon the imported tile is too high but that the duty upon the hearth and surround, imported assembled, is too low. He has endeavoured to convert the House to that point of view by putting an example before it. In giving that example, he expressed the opinion that he would be a very foolish slab merchant who would import tiles to make up a surround which he said could be procured in Dublin, duty paid, at less cost than the tiles could be imported and assembled. I agree that that would appear to be the general opinion of the trade because the fact is that, although there is about £30,000 or £40,000 a year spent on hearths and surrounds made in this country, the total value of those imported is only £1,075. What the Deputy says is, therefore, quite correct. The slab merchant who deals in these things would be very foolish to import the hearth and surround unassembled, pay the duty on the tiles and then start to assemble them here. What the wise and sensible person would do, and what the bulk of the trade do, is to get their tiles from Carrigaline, indicating quite clearly that, so far as the great mass of the people are concerned, the Carrigaline product is entirely satisfactory. When we bear that in mind, we realise at once that the case the Deputy has made for his amendment breaks down, in view of the way in which an ad valorem duty on tiles could be evaded.
The Deputy has given some instances. He told us about this cube, one inch square. The value of that would be less than 1d.; it might be less even than ¼d. A duty of even 50 per cent. upon an article of that description would not suffice to protect the tile-making industry, particularly in view of existing circumstances. As the Deputy knows, there has been a slump in house-building in Great Britain. The probability is that, if we were to remove the specific duty on tiles, surplus stocks in Great Britain would be dumped into this country and 50 or 60 hands would be thrown out of employment at Carrigaline. I am not certain that, if we were to lift the duty on tiles coming in, very much would be left even for the body for whom the Deputy has spoken here—the people engaged in the business of tile-slabbing and tile assembling in this country. In view of the difficult circumstances of the times, I could not accept the Deputy's amendment. I am not without sympathy for the point of view that, if our manufacturers cannot satisfy the public demand, the people who are not so satisfied should have some alternative, but that alternative they can have only at a price. The circumstances in relation to this industry are such that the price must necessarily be high.
The Minister has missed the whole point of my argument and my amendment. I wish to preserve for Carrigaline all the tiles that they can manufacture. What the Minister did not say was that any tiles that are suitable, in the number of colours available, are brought from Carrigaline and made up into slab panels or tile-surrounds. The Minister realises that Carrigaline cannot cover the entire field. They ought to have extensive protection, and I am giving them just as effective protection in my amendment as the Minister is giving them. What happens is that any person who can get the type of goods he requires manufactured by Carrigaline gets them there. I want to be fair to Carrigaline. Nobody contends that they could manufacture the thousand and one colours required for the various shapes, sizes and types of buildings in this country. There is the Carrigaline field. They get the tiles in that and they get the slab panels and tile surrounds. Then, there are the articles which Carrigaline cannot supply. I asked why people should be scalped who cannot get what they require from Carrigaline.
As a further argument I have said that those people, having made up their minds that they cannot get what they require from Carrigaline, it is then cheaper to bring in the tiled surround made up instead of bringing in loose tiles from another country and making them up here. That is what the Minister or anybody else in this country does not want. I suggest that the Minister is mixing up with Carrigaline what they can supply with what they cannot supply. That is the sum and substance of the whole of my argument. If he looks into the matter with Carrigaline and with the trade he will find my statement is correct.
The Deputy must be aware that this matter has already been gone into between the tile slabbers and the Carrigaline people.
That is not my information.
My information is that it was gone into. It was gone into some time back, this question regarding to what extent the import of tiles which could not be got from Carrigaline might be permitted. The position then was that the tile merchants, so far as I understand, were not prepared to meet the Carrigaline people, even to discuss the matter with them.
I would like to deny that. Will the Minister look into the matter between now and the Report Stage?
I will look into it, but I cannot give the Deputy much hope that there will be any change in my attitude, to be quite frank about it.
If the tile slabbers refused to meet the Carrigaline factory, my argument has disappeared. If the Minister can only establish that——
That is a fair proposition.
I stated that the tile slabbers had refused on a previous occasion. I do not know whether they have since changed their minds or not.
Now we are hearing something else.
No. The Deputy must not have heard me clearly. I did say the tile slabbers had refused to meet the Carrigaline people to discuss this question with them. If the Deputy now indicates that the tile merchants have changed their attitude, perhaps we may be able to get accommodation.
If that occurred, it is not the situation to-day.
I suppose God is on the side of the big battalions over there.
The Deputy is not deifying me?
With regard to reference No. 8 of the First Schedule, in the explanatory memorandum issued with the Financial Resolutions it was explained that the reason for the alteration in this duty was to include sulphonated fatty alcohols, and the reason advanced for including these was that they were being utilised as soap substitutes. I am quite aware that there are a lot of queer people in this country, but I find it hard even to imagine anyone so queer as to use a product at 1/- by way of a substitute for one at 4d. Apparently that is what the Minister seriously suggested is being done. Sulphonated fatty alcohols are not manufactured in this country, and I think that if the Minister will look further into this matter he will find that sulphonated fatty alcohols are not and never will be used as a soap substitute. I should like the Minister to investigate this matter from that aspect. Just as in so many other cases, I think the Department is inclined to consult only one side before coming to a decision, and it seldom if ever asks for the views of the other side in order to get a true picture of the situation. If the Department would only consult users they would easily ascertain that this could never be used as a soap substitute.
I will look into that matter. We have had technical advice to the effect that these preparations are now being adopted for general use and are beginning to take the place of ordinary soaps and can now be regarded as soap substitutes. In the light of what the Deputy has said, I shall look into the matter again.
First, Second, Third and Fourth Schedules and the title agreed to.
If Deputies have no objection, I should like to take the remaining stages to-day. If the members of the Seanad sit to-morrow, they could deal with the Bill.
Perhaps the Minister will look into the case I have made, in a sympathetic way? If he does so, I shall be quite satisfied.
I shall certainly do that, and I shall try to meet the Deputy, if I can.
This is a Money Bill within the meaning of Article 22 of the Constitution.