asked the Minister for Supplies if he will state under what authority it is proposed to impose a tax of 10/- by way of licence fee on retailers of tea.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Licence Fee for Tea Retailers.
The licence fee of 10/- payable on every tea retailer's licence issued under Article 11 of the Emergency Powers (Distribution of Tea) Order, 1941, is being charged on the authority of a direction given by the Minister for Finance in accordance with Section 8 (1) of the Emergency Powers Act, 1939.
Is the Minister aware that a specific undertaking was given to the House that the Emergency Powers Act would not be used for the purpose of imposing taxation?
Can the Minister say if this tax concerns small shops, known as hucksters' shops, in side streets? If so, it will be a very great hardship on them, as they may sell only a few pounds of tea per week.
I stated in the course of the debate on September 2nd, 1939, that such fees, chargeable for licences, would be merely for the purpose of recouping administrative expenses, and would not be for the purpose of securing revenue for the Exchequer or meeting the more general charges that would arise. In answer to Deputy Corish the licence fee will be payable by everyone engaged in the business of selling tea.
Is there any chance of exempting small shopkeepers? There would not be many concerned, who sell only a few pounds of tea in the week and who would not be big retailers. Will the Minister reconsider the matter?
Will the Minister say whether in the statement of the Minister for Finance, and the discussion that ranged around this matter, there was any suggestion that such a wholesale tax was going to be imposed by way of licence fee, as taxation on a large number of people retailing tea?
The question of imposing fees for licensing under the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, was discussed here at length, and it was clearly stated then that it was proposed to arrange for fees upon licences issued under orders based upon that Act, and the circumstances upon which such fees would be charged were discussed. This fee does not represent a tax. It is being charged for services rendered.
The fee will be only charged to those handling tea. Will the Minister reconsider the amount and make it 2/6 or 5/- to cover expenses, as 10/- seems a large amount?
Will the Minister reconsider the cases I mentioned? Could the fee be fixed on the maximum amount of tea sold? Otherwise, it will be very heavy on small shops which are a great convenience to the poor.
Would the Minister not consider the imposition of a fee of this particular kind as being nothing but general taxation and entirely contrary to the whole spirit in which the Government accepted from us an amendment to the Emergency Powers Bill, that the Act would not be used for the purpose of imposing taxation?
The Deputy's accusation that this fee is imposed contrary to an undertaking that was given by the Government cannot be sustained. If the Deputy will read the discussion that took place between myself and himself on the question of licence fees, he will find that it was made perfectly clear that there could not be any misunderstanding as to the power to charge this fee. With regard to Deputy O'Neill's remarks, it is not possible to have a differential fee between one class of retailer and another. If there is a registration scheme for traders in other classes of goods I have arranged that traders who have already paid a licence fee as retailers of tea will be required to pay only a reduced fee to register for the sale of other commodities.
Does the Minister suggest that it will cost 10/- to issue licences to retailers?
I have not suggested that.
Surely the Minister said that the fee was only to cover administrative expenses?
Of a tea rationing scheme.
Does the Minister suggest that in any discussions that took place on the Emergency Powers Act he suggested that rationing might take place and that the cost of such rationing would be raised by licence fees of this kind?
Certainly. At that particular time we contemplated that rationing might only have to be applied to petrol, and that in that particular instance, a fee might be attached to licences.
Has such a fee been charged?
No.
Why do you discriminate between petrol and tea?
Because there is a different system of rationing.
Will that 10/- cover all the costs attendant on the rationing of tea, or will there be any further taxation imposed for that purpose?
It is impossible to say at this stage what the entire cost of the scheme will be.