Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 1 Jul 1948

Vol. 35 No. 6

Finance Bill, 1948—Committee Stage.

Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill."

Liam Ó Buachalla

Baineann Alt a h-aon anseo le cáin ioncaim agus is é brí an Ailt seo an cháin ioncaim a mhéadú do réir réal sa phunt. Níl a fhios agam an bhfuil aon mhaith anois a iarraidh ar an Aire cuimhniú ar faoiseamh éigin a thabhairt don phobal i geás cháin ioncaim. Nuair a bhí an Dara Léamh ar siúl againn, do chuir roinnt Sheanadóirí i gcoinne an ráta cánach ioncaim. Cuid de chairde an Aire, is iad ba threise a bhí ina choinne.

Nuair a bhí an tAire ag caint, an lá deireannach, rinne sé aon tagairt amháin do cháin ioncaim—chomh maith agus is cuimhin liom—agus is é an tagairt é sin ná go raibh sé ag méadú an ráta de bhrí go raibh sé beartaithe ag an Aire Airgeadais a bhí ann roimhe. Is fíor é gur bheartaigh an tAire Airgeadais a bhí ann roimhe an cháin ioncaim a mhéadú réal i mbliana, ach na fátha a bhí aige leis an cháin ioncaim a mhéadú, níl siad ann anois, mar tá a lán de na scéimeanna a bhí beartaithe ag an Rialtas a bhí ann agus gur theastaigh an t-airgead breise ina gcóir, ar lár. Cheapfadh duine nach bhfuil gá leis an mbreis cánach seo anois, mar gheall air sin.

D'fhéadfadh an tAire a rá go bhfuil údar aige an bhreis airgid seo d'fháil. Má chruthaíonn sé go bhfuil an t-údar sin ann, ní bheimíd mí-shásta. Dúirt cuid dá chairde go bhfuil aicme áirithe ann agus go bhfuil tuilleadh airgid le fáil uathu-san. Má théann an tAire ar an slí sin, ní bheidh aon locht air. Mura maith leis an cháin ioncaim a laghdú go díreach, d'iarrfhainn air smaoineamh ar ar féidir leis faoiseamh a thabhairt do na daoine a bhfuil an faoiseamh ag teastáil—agus ag teastáil go géar—uathu. Níl aon amhras nach bhfuil an costas maireachtála imithe i méid, agus níl aon mhaith bheith ag caint thairis sin. Tá costas a lán de na riachtanaisí sa ghnáththeaghlach, imithe i méid. Is é an rud a mholfainn don Aire ná smaoineamh ar na daoine ar féidir leo breis chánach d'íoc agus an bhreis sin a bhaint díobh. Ach na daoine a bhfuil faoiseamh ag teastáil uathu, ba cheart go bhfaighdís é. Is é an tslí a mholfainn don Aire an faoiseamh sin a thabhairt dóibh ná an liúntas pearsanta d'ardú agus go háirithe i gcásanna daoine pósta, daoine a bhfuil muirín orthu.

Rinne an tAire féin argóint ar a shon so go minic cheana. Má bhí brí leis an argóint ag an am sin, is láidre go mór fós an argóint seo indiu, mar gheall ar an gcostas maireachtála a bheith imithe suas. D'iarrfainn air cuimhniú, in éindigh leis an liúntas pearsanta a mhéadú, ar an mcladh a rinne an Seanadóir Ó Briain an lá deireannach. Is é an rud é sin, go dtabharfadh sé a thuilleadh faoisimh mar gheall ar ioncam tuillte. Ba cheart dó, i gcás ioncaim tuillte, breis a thabhairt do na daoine ar an slí sin, mar a mhínigh an Seanadóir Ó Briain. Is léir dúinn ar fad é, an fhaid atá ar dhaoine cáin icncaim d'íoc ar an mbealach atá siad á íoc, táimid ag cur cúl nó srian le méadú ioncaim náisiúnta. Ba mhaith liom go dtabharfadh an tAire aird speisialta ar na rudaí seo —an liúntas pearsanta a mhéadú— agus tuilleadh faoisimh a thabhairt do dhaoine mar gheall ar an ioncam tuillte.

Ba mhaith liom a iarraidh air, freisin, tuilleadh faoisimh a thabhairt do dhaoine, agus is é an tslí a bhféadfad sé é a dhéanamh, ná faoiseamh a thabhairt tríd an liúntas le h-aghaidh lucht scoile a mhéadú. Rinne ar tAire argóint ar a shon sin cheana; agus ní gá dhomsa ach é a lua arseo.

I gcás na bpointí eile, má bhí brí leis na h-argóintí sin ins an am atá caite, is mó an bhrí atá leo faoi láthair, mar gheall ar an méadú aiá tagaithe ar gach costas agus go mór-mór ar chostaisí a bhaineann le gasúir scoile.

Mar phointe dheireannach, ba mhaith liom iarraidh ar an Aire an bhféadfadh sé an liúntas linbh a mhéadú. Tá 2s. 6d. don pháiste le fáil ag na daoine i gcásanna áirithe. Níl acn amhras nach bhfuil an costas maidir le páistí imithe suas go mór agus ba cheart don Aire féachaint an féidir leis faciseamh a thabhairt do na dacine trí na liúntaisí leanaí le go mbeidh cúiteamh acu sna hathruithe atá tagaithe ar an gcostas maireachtála. Nilimid in aghaidh ardú ar an gcáin ioncaim, má chruthaíonn sé go bhfuil sé riachtanach, ach ní mheasaim go bhfuil sé riachtanach, go mór mór mar gheall ar a oiread san de na scéimeanna a bhí ar bun ag an Rialtas deiridh a bheith leagaithe ar lár. Más féidir an chabhair sin a thabhairt do dhaoine, ba cheart go bhfaighidis é mar gheall ar an mí-ádh atá orthu de bharr costas maireachtála bheith imithe suas leis na 3 nó 4 mí atá caite.

Mr. Hawkins

The Minister in presenting this proposal to increase income-tax to the House gave as one of his reasons or excuses that it was forecast by the former Minister in the Supplementary Budget of last November but in the statement presented to the House last night the Minister claimed to have made certain savings which he estimated as being in the region of £6,000,000. He put before the House his reason for increasing income-tax to 7/-, which will bring him in £670,000 this year, and at the same time claimed that he has saved the taxpayers the sum of £6,000,000. I find it hard to reconcile both statements. It is true, of course, that the former Minister forecast that for the coming year income-tax would be increased but that was based on the assumption that the policy and programme that were then prepared would be put into operation. We see that programme curtailed in the many respects it has been curtailed, but it is not necessary to go into that at this stage.

Mr. McGilligan

I would like details.

Mr. Hawkins

The Minister has mentioned the word detail.

Mr. McGilligan

A detail or two.

Mr. Hawkins

On the Second Reading I asked the Minister for more detailed information as to what the savings were to be under the various headings. We got a long, varied statement last night from the Minister but we got no positive declaration of policy, and the Minister tried to present the case to the House that the former Minister forecast that it would be necessary to increase income-tax in order to maintain services as they were then proposed to be maintained and extended. But quite a number of these services have been put in abeyance since then.

Mr. McGilligan

Like what?

Mr. Hawkins

Like the saving of £85,000 on mineral exploration which the Minister referred to last night. I am sure our friends on the Government Benches who, during the short and strenuous period of the election campaign, were so vocal in condemning the then Government for their lack of interest and lack of foresight in connection with our mineral resources, must have listened with mixed feelings to the Minister last night, in particular when he said that the exploration of the mineral resources of Avoca is now complete and that to develop them on the lines of the recommendations of those who carried out the research would entail expenditure in the region of £1,000,000; that he felt there was no private enterprise prepared to invest that £1,000,000 and that, as far as he and his Government were concerned, he would not recommend such expenditure. They are few, of course, but still they are there. Those representatives that we have here of the Clann na Poblachta Party must have heard the glad tidings and must have taken it to heart.

In regard to the question before the House, namely, income-tax, the Minister, in what one might describe as inexcusable form, presented to the House last night the proposition that, because the former Minister for Finance proposed to increase income-tax, he could not do otherwise. At the same time, his suggestion to the House that by increasing income-tax and taking from those who pay income-tax an additional £670,000 a year, he is reducing the cost of living, or reducing taxation, is beyond my imagination and beyond the imagination of income-tax payers in general.

Mr. Duffy

I should like to make two points in reference to this section. In regard to the point that has been made by Senator Hawkins concerning the discontinuance of the grant for mineral exploration, I would like to recall to the House that last year we had a very extended discussion on this subject and I think the Senator will recall that I opposed the expenditure of public money on exploration of mineral resources if, when the resources were discovered, they were to be exploited by private capitalists.

Mr. Hawkins

I will oppose the same.

Mr. Duffy

The Senator, unfortunately, voted for it last year.

Mr. Hawkins

Oh, no.

Mr. Duffy

The records of the House are there.

Mr. Hawkins

I have them here, if you like.

Mr. Duffy

There will be another opportunity of using them.

Mr. Hawkins

I have them here.

Mr. Duffy

All right.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

If this continues, we will be very far away from income-tax.

Mr. Duffy

The point is made that there is no justification for imposing in this Finance Bill the additional 6d. by way of income-tax which was provided for in the Supplementary Budget last year. Senator Hawkins made a point, which might be regarded perhaps as a good point, that the additional taxation should not be levied unless it were used in a particular way. I think he felt that some of us here were placed at a disadvantage because this expenditure was discontinued. Personally, I am in favour of the expenditure of such moneys as may be needed for the purpose of exploration, if that exploration is intended to enable the State to develop its resources in the interest of the community but I am opposed to the spending of public money on purposes of exploration which are merely going to facilitate the gentlemen who want to get in on the ground floor to make 6, 10 or 20 per cent. profit on the industry which springs from this exploration.

I made that point last year in opposition to the Bill then promoted by the Minister for Industry and Commerce in the last Government. I repeat it now. I have not changed my mind about it.

The point I want to raise strictly in relation to this section is the level at which surtax is imposed. Sub-section (2) of Section 1 provides that surtax for the year beginning 6th April shall be charged in respect of the income of any individual the total of which from all sources exceeds £1,500. I am satisfied that that is a reasonable proposal but I think the Minister should go further and provide a new method and a new rate of surtax where the income from all sources exceeds, let us say, £10,000 a year. When I hear people complaining about the level at which taxation is imposed here on wealthy classes, I am utterly dumbfounded. I read a statement the other day showing that a person in Great Britain having an income of £15,000 a year has left in his pocket, after the taxes are paid, the sum of £6,000.

Mr. Douglas

How much would he have here?

Mr. Duffy

He has considerably more, at least double what he has in Great Britain. Taxation here in respect of the poorer sections of the community is more pressing than in Great Britain but very much more favourable to those with very large incomes. We mentioned last night, incidentally, the fact that a person who buys his house, if it is subject to income-tax, pays taxation in respect of the property, not at the value of the property, but at that value inflated by 25 per cent. It may be reasonable to increase for taxation purposes the valuation of property, if it is house property which was built, say, 50 years ago, but it is utterly unjust that the valuation of a house built in 1946 or 1947 should be increased by 25 per cent. for income-tax purposes. I mentioned this point last year. I made a plea for revision of this method of levying income-tax on property.

I quote two cases in a small town in County Dublin. One was an old property, a house built 60 to 80 years ago, containing 12 rooms. The poor law valuation was £4 10s. 0d. Another house, constructed in 1942 or 1943, contained five rooms. The poor law valuation was £20. In both cases the valuation is increased by 25 per cent. for the purpose of income-tax. I consider that to be wholly wrong. I cannot imagine any Minister for Finance justifying it, except as a temporary expedient. It was a temporary expedient eight or ten years ago when first instituted. The then Minister for Finance followed up that imposition by introducing a Valuation Bill but found that the Bill did not prove popular amongst the supporters of his Party. The Bill was dropped and the expedient continued, to the detriment of very large numbers of people.

Mr. Hawkins

Will the inter-Party Government introduce the Valuation Bill now?

Mr. Duffy

The inter-Party Government, with all its genius and with all its energy, cannot undo in four months the crimes of the previous 16 years.

Mr. Hawkins

That is only a simple Bill.

Mr. Duffy

It is not a simple Bill. The Senator does not know what he is talking about.

Mr. M. Hayes

He must be a simple Senator.

Mr. Duffy

The Senator must be in dreamland. Has he ever looked at the Bill that was introduced by Deputy MacEntee when he was Minister for Finance—a most complicated Bill?

Mr. Hawkins

I was so innocent that I did not think the Senator had any interest in property.

Mr. Duffy

I have great interest in the unfortunate poor people who are forced to buy houses because they cannot rent them. Every tradesman in the City of Dublin, unless he has a very large family, is paying income-tax, and paying income-tax, as I pointed out last year, on a house he gets.

Mr. Colgan

He is going to pay another 6d.

Mr. Duffy

Imposed last September by the Fianna Fáil Government.

Mr. Hawkins

No.

Mr. Duffy

Imposed by the people Senator Colgan is now supporting.

Mr. Colgan

Why is Senator Duffy shedding crocodile tears for the tradesmen in Dublin when he is supporting this?

Mr. Duffy

If Senator Colgan's crocodile tears were dried we would get progress here. It is great fun to come here as a Senator and to draw a Senator's allowance and then go and cod the people outside and tell them you are doing something for them. You will not get away with that kind of thing here.

Mr. Hawkins

I think no Senator should be allowed to make that remark about a colleague in the House, and that he should be compelled to withdraw it.

Mr. Colgan

We know Senator Duffy and we can appreciate what he says.

Mr. Duffy

I am making the case that there are huge numbers of working-class people who, during the last three or four years particularly, have come under the income-tax code and who previously did not come under it. I gave a calculation on the Finance Bill of last year showing where people had been brought in who previously were not income-tax payers—carpenters, plumbers, tradesmen of various kinds. Not only were a number of them brought in for the first time under the income-tax code in respect of their incomes, but they were also brought in in respect of the houses which they had to buy because there are no houses for letting. There are thousands of shop assistants and clerks in this city who have to go to banks, loan societies and insurance societies——

Mr. Hawkins

And the rate of interest in their case has now been increased.

Mr. Hearne

They can stay at home now and need not apply.

Mr. Duffy

They did apply in the past and Senator Hearne knows, probably better than I do, that there are thousands of such people in this city who have bought their houses out of loans given to them by insurance societies, loan societies or banks. They have now become unwilling owners of house property and are very much affected by the income-tax which is levied on their property. My suggestion is that a remission should be made in their cases, and that the amount which is lost to the Exchequer by making a remission should be recovered by increasing substantially the surtax on incomes of over, let us say, £4,000 or £5,000 a year. That would be one way of getting some of the excess profits which were remitted under other sections of legislation over the last few years.

I am not putting down an amendment to the section at this stage, and no other member of the Seanad has put down an amendment to it. I did put down amendments last year. I suggest that what is being said here on this occasion must be taken into account when the Finance Bill for next year is being framed. I hope that the Minister for Finance will have regard to these hardships to which attention has been directed and to the other sources for increased revenue which I have just mentioned.

Mr. Douglas

It was not my intention to take part in this debate on income-tax, but in view of the remarks made by the last two speakers it seems to me that if we are going to be perfectly honest about it we ought to face the facts. The fact is that we are having a 7/- income-tax and that we are all sharing responsibility for it. It was proposed by the late Government. Provision was made that, from 1st April, income-tax should be deducted at the rate of 7/- in the £. That clearly indicated that the last Government were in favour of accepting this proposal. We are supporting it with a considerable amount of reluctance. I think that to debate this question from the Party point of view is going to achieve very little.

I have a great deal of sympathy with Senator Duffy with regard to the five-fourths impost. I have opposed that on every possible occasion. I am satisfied that not only is it a bad form of tax, but that it is peculiarly inequitable because it does not operate at all fairly. The way it works out is fundamentally bad. I never had the slightest hope that either from the late Government or the present Government are we going to get any substantial change in the method of the collection of income-tax which, I think, is inequitable. A Budget is always based on the existing method of taxation, and until some Minister is prepared to have a revision of the whole matter, a thing which I have again and again advocated, I see no hope of securing a remedy for that by way of amendment to a Finance Bill. It is practically impossible to make changes, even though you convince the Minister, largely for the reason that before one Budget is finished the officials are virtually engaged in preparing the next Budget, and the figures on which a Budget is based are part of the income-tax law as it stands. It would probably take a year or two to make any kind of amendments in the income-tax laws. Those amendments would have to be so devised that if you gave benefits in order to make the tax equitable in certain directions you would have to make it much heavier in other directions in order to get the same yield.

I think that an income-tax of 7/- is too high, particularly on married people with incomes of £500 or £600 a year. The first £100, after the marriage allowance, is paid at half-rate, and the rest is liable to the full rate of 7/-. A friend of mine, part of whose business is to supervise returns for a very large company with a very large number of employees, a good many of whom received increases under an award not very long ago, told me he was amazed when he realised the number of them who now have to pay income-tax because of the increased pay they are receiving. Even though people make demands for bigger increases, they find that, when they get them, they go in income-tax. I do not think that any of these matters can be remedied in this Budget. It is a matter that would require a great deal of consideration.

I do not agree with Senator Hawkins that a Revaluation Bill would be the simple thing that he thinks. Personally, although it may not be perfect in every respect, I think the time has come when a revaluation of the City of Dublin will have to be faced. You could not solve that problem by changing the five-fourths impost. The present position is very inequitable. It is particularly hard on business people. Even where moderate improvements are carried out, there is a whole revaluation of the premises. I would again urge on the Minister, as soon as he gets settled, to consider seriously the appointment of a committee which, I think, would have to meet for about a year, to take evidence from all sources with regard to what seem to be the inequities in the operation of income-tax.

Mr. Hearne

Income-tax is assessed by one section of the Department of the Revenue Commissioners, but the whole paraphernalia of the Department is used in collecting it. Surtax is collected by an entirely different Department. I suggest that one big economy could be effected if income-tax and surtax were collected by the same section instead of having the duplication there is at present. At present we have the system of collecting income-tax by collectors. I think it would be very much more simple if the collection were undertaken by the inspectors or officials of the Department.

Minister for Finance (Mr. McGilligan)

I intend to refer briefly to a number of the points which have been raised. Senator Duffy raised a point about the person who has an investment income of £10,000 a year. That is taxed to the extent of 50 per cent. of it. If the Senator thinks that is not enough we can discuss it further on the appropriate section of the Bill on some other occasion. Senator Hawkins astonished me by saying that revaluation was a simple matter. It is so simple that a Bill that was introduced about 1938 or 1939 was left stewing for eight or nine years because the people in charge would not face up to the difficulties, and after four months' experience of office the present Government is expected to deal with that very difficult matter immediately.

Mr. Hawkins

That was the suggestion made by Senator Duffy.

Mr. McGilligan

I do not care where the suggestion comes from. I am stating the facts. The Bill was brought in and it was left there because of the difficulty of carrying it out. Senator Hawkins professes to be unable to reconcile the claim I make that taxation has been reduced with the fact that income-tax is increased. He would be in the same difficulty suppose I cut the bill of £70,000,000 by £35,000,000 and put on one tax to raise a new £20,000. The Senator would still have the same difficulty. I make the claim that taxation generally has been reduced. There was a gap of £7,750,000, and that gap has been bridged by one tax of a major type bringing in £900,000 and by my taking advantage of the situation which my predecessor left in regard to the increase of sixpence in the rate of income-tax. There is no doubt that the last Minister did forecast that. Speaking on the 15th October, 1947, the Minister said:—

"In next year's Budget it is proposed to raise the standard rate of income-tax by 6d. in the £ and a Resolution will now be introduced to make the increase effective as regards deductions of tax for the period from 6th April, 1948, until the date of the Budget."

Therefore, that increase was clearly outlined and I am accepting it. I have been asked to give alleviation particularly to married people. That is a kind of alleviation that I would like to give. One of the difficulties that we have to face is that over a period in office Fianna Fáil so operated that the purchasing value of the £ declined from say 20/- when they came in in 1932. My calculation of the decline used to be 10/- at the end of the war. Certain Fianna Fáil Deputies since they went into opposition have convinced me that the pound is now worth 8/-. That is their present valuation. That works hard upon a number of people.

A claim has been made with regard to personal allowances. The remissions that we have made, more or less with subsistence in the background, have greatly altered to the detriment of the taxpayer. We are all familiar with the view expressed in the phrase that "a fool can start a forest fire in five counties, but that it takes years to put it out." We are dealing with the whole destruction caused over 16 years of government, and it is not possible to do the whole thing in four months. We have taken people in a certain order of priority—widows and orphans, old age pensioners, and certain civil servants in the lower grades. We will come up along the line and reach the personal allowance, which possibly affects the middle-class more than any other, but everything cannot be done in four months.

As regards the cost of living and its effect on the married man, I would like to point out that the present rates of allowance for married people were fixed in the 1947 Budget, and there was no alleviation given to those people when it came to October although the pivot upon which the October Budget turned was that the cost of living had increased enormously. Notwithstanding that, the old points in regard to allowances for married people were still allowed to remain. At the moment I do not find it possible to do anything for those people. The other argument, as far as I could understand it, was that my predecessor forecast a 6d. increase in income-tax in the light of certain projects that were going to be carried out and have been now dropped. I have queried this in Dáil Éireann and I have queried it here, and the only answer I got was that £85,000 was to be spent on mineral deposits.

Mr. Hawkins

Now, now.

Mr. McGilligan

I asked for an example and that was the only one I got. If the Senator has got any others I will yield to him now.

Mr. Hawkins

There are quite a number.

Mr. McGilligan

Can the Senator tell me what they are?

Mr. Hawkins

Yes, you have stated in your Budget speech that you proposed to save by adjustments of subsidies, a sum of, I think, £3,050,000. I hold, and I think the House will hold with me, that this saving on subsidies may be a saving to the central organisation but it is transferring the burden to the consumer which is one and the same thing.

Mr. McGilligan

All this shows how thoroughly a plain statement can be misunderstood. I am averaging over a period of four years. There will be the same subsidies paid this year as before.

Mr. Hawkins

In relation to flour, yes, but I do not hold that in regard to oatenmeal.

Mr. McGilligan

We are back again now to oatenmeal.

Mr. Hayes

On a point of order, I would like to suggest that while the Minister says that we are back again to oatenmeal, we should get back to income-tax. I suggest that if we allow the discussion on this section to cover subsidies, mineral development and turf, why not go back to a Second Reading altogether. I suggest we should keep the discussion confined to income-tax, even though I know that the Minister is full of information on all the other matters.

An Cathaoirleach

We will deal with income-tax.

Mr. McGilligan

There are no subsidies being withdrawn that have any effect on people who pay income-tax.

Mr. Hawkins

Only to the extent of £3,050,000.

Mr. McGilligan

I am averaging out over a four-year period. There is not and there cannot be a fraction of a farthing increase in the price of bread because of anything I am doing in regard to subsidies. I want to correct one last statement and I hope that I will be allowed to do so, in view of the fact that a Senator was allowed to make the statement. He said that colleagues of mine in the inter-Party Government would welcome a phrase used by me yesterday that the Avoca situation now reached a stage where it could be developed. I made no such statement. I stated that certain information had been received on which a decision would have to be taken. Such a decision involves three big issues (a) are there enough minerals there that can be got out; (b) can they be got out at an economic price, and (c) when they have been got out can they be sold at an economic price? If there are affirmative answers given to all these questions then this development will cost £1,250,000.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Ní féidir liom a rá go bhfuil mé sásta leis an bhfreagra atá tugtha ag an Aire. Sheachnaigh sé na pointí tabhachtacha agus tharraing sé cúpla scadán dearg isteach. Deirsé gurb iad Fianna Fáil ba chontach leis an laghdú a tháinig ar an bpunt. An fíor sin? Ní leor don Aire é sin a rá gan cruthú éigin a thabhairt air. Má abrann duine éigin de lucht leanúna an Aire ag crosbhóthar éigin thoís faoin tuaith a leitheide, is cuma. Ach féadaimid bheith ag súil le rud éigin níos fearr ón Aire. Cén chaoí ar laghdaigh Fianna Fáil an punt? Cén moladh a bhí ag an Aire le fiúchas an phuinta a choinneál slán?

Deir an tAire go raibh Fianna Fáil ciontach le mórán "destruction" le linn dóibh a bheith i réim. Céard é an "destruction" atá i gceist aige? An dtugann sé "destruction" ar an méid a rinneadar ar son na seirbhísí sóisialacha; pinsin sean-aoise d'ardu, pinsin do bhaintreacha agus do dhílleachtaí a thabhairt isteach? An dtugann sé "destruction" ar na tithe a thógadar, ar na hospaidéil agus ar na seirbhísí sláinte poiblí a chuireadar ar fáil? An dtugann sé "destruction" ar na dlithe a ritheadh le coinníollacha fostaíochta lucht oibre d'fheabhsú? An obair scriosach é an Chúirt Sacthair a chur ar bun? An dtugann sé "destruction" ar an obair a rinneadh le talmhaíochc na tíre a shabháil le tionscail agus scéimeanna tionscalta a bhunú? An dtugann sé "destruction" ar an mbeartas a chuir obair nua ar fáil do 100,000 oibrithe breise? An dtugann sé "destruction" ar an mbeartas a shabháil an tír le linn an chogaidh? Ní misde liom an tAire a bheith searbh agus áiféiseach, ach má tá an tAire le obair daoine eile ionsaí bíodh sé réasúnach agus fírinneach.

Níl mé ag iarraidh ar an Aire freagra a thabhairt ar na ceisteanna seo anois ach tá súil agam, go míneoidh sé dhúinn cén chaoi is féidir leis focla d'úsáid ar an dóigh d'úsáid sé anseo iad agus ag an am céanna a bheith cothrom macánta.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.

SECTION 3.

Question proposed: "That Section 3 stand part of the Bill."

Liam Ó Buachalla

Nuair a bhí mé ag caint ar an mBille an lá cheana, d'iarr mé ar an Aire iarracht a dhéanamh faoiseamh éigin a thabhairt d'aicmí áirithe faoin mír seo. Méadaíonn an cháin seo ar "phetrol" an costas maireachtála ar a lán daoine. Má tá daoine ann atá i ndon an cháin d'íoc, agus nach bhfuil an gluaisteán riachtanach dóibh ina gcuid gnóthaí, bain an cháin amach orthu go cinnte. Más dóigh leis an Aire go bhfuil daoine ag úsáid a gcarranna an iomarca le dul chuig na coimhlint mhadraí nó ag rásaí eile baineadh sé an cháin amach orthu. Ach tá daoine ann agus tá an carr riachtannach dóibh, agus cuireann an cháin seo as dóibh go mór. Mealladh cuid de na múinteoirí scoile chun cuidiú le Fine Gael—mar níl ann ach iad—le gealltanais go bhfaighdís buntáistí nach raibh le fáil acu faoi Fhianna Fáil. Mealladh iad le lear mór airgid a chaitheamh le Fianna Fáil a bhualadh. Ar comhlíonadh an gealladh? Do hardaíodh a gcostas maireachtála orthú agus hardaíodh an costas taistil orthu go háirithe. Ar an gcaoi chéanna tá a lán dochtuírí, sagart agus seirbhíseach poiblí agus cuireann an cháin seo as dóibh. Gealladh faoiseamh áirithe do roinnt feilméaraí. Is maith linn é sin. Ach táimid ag iarraidh cabhair éigin anois do dhaoine eile a bhfuil an chabhair uathu go géar. Gearr an cháin ar thuartóirí, nó "tourists" mar tugtar orthu agus gearr í ar lucht an phléisiúir más rud é go gcaithfidh tú í a ghearradh. Ach tá an ceart chun faoisimh ag na haicmí atá luaite agam. Ná déanadh an tAire dearmad go bhfuil an cháin méadaithe cheana féin ar na daoine seo mar cuimhníodh gur hardaíodh an cháin bhóthair an bhliain seo caite.

Is cinnte go n-ardóidh an cháin na costais ar lucht gnótha, ar dhéantóirí agus ar sheirbhísí iompair paisnéirí. Tá daoine ar an taobh eile thall ar cuma leo faoi seo. Níl fhics acu céard tá siad a rá. Abair nach bhfuil cead ag, abair, Córas Iompair Éireann, na táillí d'árdú. Tá an Cólucht ag cailliúnt cheana ach ná déantar dearmad air seo, má cailltear rachmas an Chóluchta sin, nó rachmas Cóluchta ar bith eile, is cailliúint náisiúnta sé, agus beidh ar an bpobal a gcuid den chailliúint sin a sheasamh chomh maith.

Déarfaidh an tAire go mbeadh sé deachair slí a cheapadh leis an bhfaoiseamh d'iarr mé do na dochtúirí, na sagairt agus na múinteoirí a chur ar fáil. B'fhurasta dó "overprint" a dhéanamh ar chuid de na cupóin ionas go bhfuigheadh lucht seilbhe na gcupón sin an "petrol" ar luach fá leith.

Ar ndóigh mar dúirt mé cheana, ní ceart an cháin seo a bheith i gceist beag ná mór go háirithe ó gheall an tAire go laghdóadh sé costais maireachtála na ndaoine agus fós ó tá stop curtha aige leis an oiread sin de na dea-oibreacha a bhí ar bun ag Rialtas Fhianna Fáil.

Mr. Douglas

I did not put down an amendment to this section or the following section, as I accept this tax as part of the Budget. However, I regard it as a tax which is open to very considerable objection. If it were a tax on petrol to be used in private cars, although I use a private car myself, I would not think it should be seriously opposed under present circumstances. The Minister seemed to be under the impression that this would not cause an increase in the cost of production and in that impression he is quite wrong. It could always be argued that you cannot have production without transportation and distribution and obviously a tax on petrol will increase the cost. The Minister was probably specifically referring to the more direct cost of production. When you had a high cost of oil under the old Government, it was undoubtedly a factor in the cost of production, but since 1946 quite a few manufacturers, after consultation with the then Government, and having regard to the various difficulties, have gone over to fuel oil for the purpose of running their factories. The increased tax in their case is unquestionably a direct increase in the cost of production. I was informed by one fair-sized company, which has always done an export trade and which about two years ago went on to fuel oil and found it reasonably satisfactory, that it would cost them about £2,000. I am accepting this as an undesirable tax in a Budget which is too high.

I am glad the Minister has been able to make arrangements which will reduce the hardships on the agricultural community, but I would not like him to have the idea that the continuation of the tax on fuel oil, either light or heavy, which is used for running plant, is not an increase in the cost of production. When this is being reconsidered, if it is found desirable to keep the tax on petrol, I hope the Minister will consider some easement in the case of manufacturers. I hope it will be more serious in a year's time than it is now. At the moment, it is very difficult to do any export trade, as most of our manufacturers cannot export to England and it is difficult to get into other markets. I hope that in 12 months' time it will be possible to increase the export trade after this year. In the case of textiles, a market margin of a farthing per yard in the cost of production might make all the difference.

I am not trying to exaggerate this point, but so many Deputies in the Dáil drew attention to the difficulties of farmers that I thought it right that the Bill should not pass through this House without my drawing attention to the fact that in the case of manufacturers who use petrol for plant it is definitely an increase in the cost of production.

Mr. Hawkins

On the various occasions when the Minister has made statements in this House or in the other House or in public, he has appealed to the producers and distributors to reduce costs and lower prices, but at the same time he thinks it well to place on distributors a sum of £910,000. He has stated that there were times in recent history when the tax on petrol and oils was much greater than it is now, but surely that is a poor excuse when an appeal is being made to reduce costs of production and distribution.

Senator Ó Buachalla has already made an appeal for the teachers, doctors and other professional people who of necessity have a car and use petrol and oil not for pleasure purposes, but as part of their business. The increased cost to those people will increase their cost of living. In the Dáil, the Minister promised to make a small concession in relation to tractors and some other agricultural implements. That is not sufficient. Our milk and vegetables are delivered in most parts of the country now to the market in motor vehicles, so this increase means an increase to the consumer.

Last night, the Minister informed us that an inquiry was about to be held into the state of Córas Iompair Eireann. I wonder if the Minister could give us a figure for the increased cost of those oils to that company. Such a big transport concern must be gravely concerned about this additional taxation. If the services are to be maintained, surely they must be permitted to increase their charges? If the policy of the present Government is not to allow the company to increase charges and pass the taxation on to the public, the Government may hold on the one hand that they are refusing to give that permission to Córas Iompair Eireann but, in the long run, the public will have to pay, since the nation as a whole are the guarantors for Córas Iompair Eireann. It is a narrow policy on the part of the Government not to try to do everything possible to maintain these services. Then, if it is by an action of the Government that the increased charges have brought about such a condition of affairs as to make the cost of transport greater on the company, they should be allowed to recoup themselves from the people who use the transport, rather than from the nation as a whole.

Captain Orpen

There seems to be a slight misunderstanding as to the coneam cession the Minister has said he will investigate as regards agricultural tractors. A tax on fuel may be easy to collect and it may be necessary, as it is all canalised coming in, and one can see a justification for making that tax in the short time the Minister has had to deal with the Budget. In essence, however, it is a bad tax, especially on the agricultural community, where it falls early in the stage of production and therefore has the psychological effect of impeding production. The Minister has to get the money and agriculture must pay its share, but I would rather see agriculture taxed on its output rather than at the early stage of the productive machine. The Minister undertook to investigate the concession——

Mr. McGilligan

I am granting it, not investigating it.

Captain Orpen

——in regard to registered tractors. I understand the Minister is granting a remission for unregistered tractors, which form a small part in the effective agricultural community, being the ones that legally cannot cross the road. I take it that the 5/- licence one is a registered tractor which can cross the road and move about from field to field, but is limited to purely tillage work. The £6 licence tractor is really the one that nowadays has increased substantially. Quite a large number of the recent tractors are entirely petrol driven. There are some 1,500 Fergusons in operation and I think about 500 on order. Taking the average figure for the hours worked per year of a tractor, the survey shows about 800 to 1,000 hours. At, say, .75 of a gallon per hour full load—or call it half a gallon on the average—that means he is paying a tax of £15 additionally. While that is not so serious, it is not the £15 that matters nearly so much as the fact that he is paying that tax before the crop is sold, which has a bad psychological effect.

There is another reason why I dislike taxes on fuel. I think it should be the job of the engineer to design a tractor or any prime mover, but unfortunately we have makeshift appliances designed jointly by the engineer and Revenue Commissioners. I do not think that idea is sound. Let us call one type of tractor the "tax evasion tractor", the one that runs on T.V.O., with all its attendant idle running and additional repairs. That is forced on us by the Revenue Commissioners. The Minister should give consideration to the difficulties of the agricultural community in buying these makeshift appliances and might consider the possibility of collecting their taxes off the sale of the final product— from exports, if possible, as it is a canalised method. I, as a farmer, do not like to see a tax falling on any part of the productive machine until the goods have been produced. Once you have the goods, then a levy on exports may be a way of doing it—I do not know, as I am not a taxing authority —but I do not like to be forced to use machines designed by engineers and the Revenue Commissioners jointly.

Mr. Duffy

Would it be possible for the Minister to make clear the number of tractors using petrol and the number using T.V.O.? It has been stated to me by practical farmers and by people in the business generally that T.V.O. is a very much more popular product, irrespective of price, than petrol, and much more generally used than seems to be indicated by Senator Orpen's statement.

Mr. S. O'Farrell

I do not own a farm, a factory or a motor car, and so, if I have any prejudice, it would be a prejudice in favour of a tax on petrol. It is not alone an easy tax to collect but it is a fair form of taxation. I do not believe the statement made by those who contend that this tax is going to increase either production or distribution costs. I know that the average motor car—even the very worst car on the road—will do about 20 miles to the gallon, so that the tax cannot mean any more than one farthing a mile and that means a farthing a mile on its haul, whether passengers or goods. I should like to see the shopkeeper who can justify to me putting up his price for delivery of goods by a penny or twopence, when it merely costs him one farthing a mile to haul the goods of 20 or 30 householders for delivery, although one firm in the city has already, with a certain amount of glee, announced that this tax will give them an excuse for making a delivery charge. Some of the people who make statements of this kind that this is a tax on industry are inclined to exaggerate.

I am not quite clear as to what Senator Orpen meant when he said that the tax is a tax on the wrong end and that the farmer has to pay the tax before he produces his crop. The tax is paid only in very small instalments; it is paid as you buy the gallon of petrol and not in a lump sum. I know that the Minister promised in the other House to make a remission in respect of the use of Ferguson tractors. Had he not made that concession, we would have asked for it —I would have asked for it here—because I think that a machine designed purely for production purposes ought not to be taxed, but a machine which is mainly used for amusement, as most of the motor cars in this country are, ought to bear a certain amount of taxation.

Apart from the people I have referred to who have third and fourth-hand cars, worn-out cars—and they are mostly the farmers and poorer sections of the community—anybody who has bought a car recently, or has put in a request for a car, is getting a car which will produce far more miles to the gallon than ever in the past, so that, if petrol is a little dearer, transport is cheapened by a more efficient machine. One other point is that many of the people who are protesting most loudly about having to pay 5d. extra for a gallon of petrol cheerfully, to my knowledge, paid 2/6d. for a petrol coupon during the war and said nothing about it.

Mr. McGilligan

Senator O'Farrell has dealt with the main point which weighed with us when investigation was made as to what taxes would have to be imposed to bring in the required revenue. It was well known that there was a very big and very lucrative black market in petrol. People were willing to pay, and were paying, and we thought we might as well get some part of that money. It will not be so easy to black market petrol and the revenue will get some of what would otherwise have gone into other hands.

Senator Douglas set the ball rolling on this matter by speaking of a tax on heavy fuel oil used by manufacturers and he went so far as to tell me about some friend of his who told him that the tax would mean £2,000. I do not know that can happen because fuel oil used by manufacturers is not taxed at all. I can only assume that the Senator's friend must have been an excess profit gatherer who was giving it back by way of conscience money.

Senator Hawkins asked me about Córas Iompair Éireann. I do not pretend that my figures are absolutely accurate. We felt that the tax might cost Córas Iompair Éireann £100,000 or £120,000 in the year and we had their situation very definitely before us, but, on the other hand, we knew that there had been a remission to Córas Iompair Éireann of the duty which ordinarily would have been charged against them in respect of certain buses which they were importing, and our calculation was that, as far as this year was concerned, the reduction which we had made in their favour—what otherwise would have been some revenue accruing to the State—came within measurable distance of equalling the tax, so that Córas Iompair Éireann ought not to be any worse off, for the year, in any event, and that remission lasts only for a year. This tax may last longer; I am not saying it will, but it may have to.

The general complaint which Córas Iompair Éireann make is that their revenue is being eaten into by people who use their own method of haulage —the private individual in his own car who eats into the passenger receipts, or the private haulier who hauls goods in opposition to them, in certain limited ways, and who eats into their freight receipts. We felt that we did not unduly disturb the rather precarious position of Córas Iompair Éireann, whereas we were definitely disturbing the position of their rivals, so that, so far as that is concerned, Córas Iompair Éireann ought not to have any real cause for complaint. In the case of the Great Northern Railway, they also are getting the remission in connection with buses imported, so that we have at least met their case in some degree.

Senator Hawkins says I am increasing the cost of transport and that that means an increase in the cost of production. Senator Ó Buachalla asks for a remission in connection with people like teachers, doctors and other selected people. I do not like to fall back again on arguments about what was done in the past, but I am amazed that these considerations did not occur to the Senators who are now so eloquent about them. Between 1941 and 1946, when this tax was imposed, it was 1d. higher.

Liam Ó Buachalla

The war was on.

Mr. McGilligan

Remissions were not then granted to selected people. I am giving certain remissions to the agricultural community. There is also the notable fact that when the tax was dropped—I refer this in particular to the main transport companies—fares did not come down because the price of petrol dropped.

Mr. Hawkins

Wages went up.

Mr. McGilligan

Maybe, but increased charges were also permitted and operated, as an offset against that. Over and above, however, there was a reduction in the price of petrol by a reduction in the tax from 1/3 to 9d. and there was no difference that one could see, so far as the benefiting of the people was concerned.

Mr. Hearne

Was that reduction not taken into account?

Mr. McGilligan

In what?

Mr. Hearne

In arriving at the increased charges?

Mr. McGilligan

No, not so far as I know. When increased charges were sought—this is not a matter particularly for my Department, but I have met it—I understood they were regarded always as an offset to increased wages. Certainly the great claim made was: increased wages and therefore increased charges.

With regard to the agricultural aspect of the matter, Senator O'Farrell has referred to the promise made in Dáil Eireann. I think Senator Orpen will find his point entirely met. I am not sure if it is, and, if not, I should like to hear what else there is, although we do not want to deplete the revenue derived from the tax. The remissions given are from the month of August and relate to various agricultural tractors and agricultural engines, so long as the machines are in operation for agricultural purposes and so long as they are of certain descriptions. The first group consists of tractors used solely on the farm and not liable to excise duty—the tractor which works only on land and does not go out on a road. There is then the tractor which is liable to the 5/- tax—the tractor which is ordinarily used on land, but occasionally crosses the road to an adjoining farm, a tractor which carries its own gear and equipment, and also may carry farm implements and whatever is required for the purpose of the vehicle or the use to which the vehicle is to be put. There are, thirdly, the tractors liable to the £6 and the £10 tax. These are used for haulage in connection with agriculture, and I am giving the remission in the case of these also. Finally, there are stationary engines, so long as they are used solely on a farm for power and light.

Senator Duffy asked what was the number of T.V.O. tractors and petrol tractors. I cannot say that these figures are precise, but the information we have is that there are about 2,500 petrol driven tractors and 7,500 tractors using T.V.O.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 4 agreed to.

SECTION 5.

Question proposed: "That Section 5 stand part of the Bill."

Liam Ó Buachalla

Ba mhaith liom ceist a chur ar an Aire i dtaca leis an alt seo. Faoin alt, tá athrú á dhéanamh ar an gcáin atá dá baint amach ar fhíonta. Níl mórán lucht agam ar an athrú atá beartaithe má ceaptar gur maith an rud é. Má chreideann daoine go bhfuil dlú-bhaint ag fíon leis an gcostas maireachtála, má chreideann daoine gur abhar bídh agus beatha fíon, íslíodh an tAire an cháin air agus sin í an cheist ba mhaith liom a chur air. Nuair a bhí sé ag caint sa Dáil, thug sé comhairle don phobal agus sé an chomhairle a thug sé dhóibh go mba cheart dóibh eírigh as bheith ag ceannach an oiread agus a bhíodar. Bhí sé ag iarraidh ar na daoine a gcuid airgid a shábháil. Níl fhios agam an ar an bhfíon ba mhaith leis a shábhálfadh na daoine a gcuid airgid. Is ar éigin é. Mar dúirt sé féin, teastaíonn breis airgid uaidh ón bhfíon agus an bealach a bhí aige an bhreis sin d'fháil, an cháin a laghdú ionas go n-ólfadh daoine i bhfad níos mó fíona agus ionas go bhfaigheadh sé nícs mó airgid. Ar mhisde leis an Aire inseacht dúinn anois mura b'é an fíon a bhí i gceist aige a sábhálfadh na daoine a gcuid airgid air, céard iad na habhar atá ar intinn aige go mba cheart do na daoine gan iad a cheannach agus go sábhálfaidis a gcuid airgid de bharr sin agus go gcuirfidís cose leis an mborrthás "inflation." Ba mhaith linn ar fad a fhíos a bheith againn céard iad na nithe a gceapann sé nach cheart dóibh a cheannach. Cheap mé fhéin go mb'fhéidir go mba mhaith leis nach gceannódh na dacine fíonta ach do réir chosúlachta ní mar sin atá. Anois an t-am don Aire inseacht don tír céard iad na rudaí ar cheart dóibh éirigh as bheith á gceannach ar mhaithe le geilleagair na tíre.

Mr. Colgan

The Minister has stated that the reason for the reduction in the tax on wine was that when the tax was higher the yield of revenue decreased, and he was reducing the tax so that the revenue would increase. That may be all very well from the Minister's point of view, but there is another aspect which I should like to mention. Social reformers and many others are much perturbed by the increased and excessive drinking among young women and girls. It has become a sort of scandal throughout the country, and it is notorious that women of that calibre generally drink wine. I am a teetotaller and I am not too sure about these things, but I have seen young girls at dances, respectable girls, the daughters of respectable people, lying drunk, absolutely incapable, under tables. Apparently it is considered respectable for a lady to drink wine rather than something else. I feel this effort of the Minister to increase drinking so that the yield from the tax will be greater is a retrograde step, and I personally want to protest against it. There was enough drinking in the country—too much of it many of us think—without encouraging an increase in drink by giving further facilities. I suggest the Minister should seriously consider the propriety of reducing the tax on wine for the purpose of getting an increased yield without regard to the effect of that tax on the drinking propensities of the women of this country.

Mr. J.T. O'Farrell

Senator Colgan may be an authority on drinking women but my opinion is that these young women about whom he expresses so much anxiety, would as soon drink dirty water as wine. What they drink is gin—gin and it, gin and tonic, and so on. So, far from encouraging intemperance by reducing this tax, I think the Minister is rather encouraging the drinking of a milder form of intoxicant than that normally drunk by young women who drink too much. In any case, I should think it would be an exceedingly bad principle of finance that, in order to reform certain wayward young women who must constitute an exceedingly small minority of the community, everyone who wants to drink wine instead of beer should have to pay a special tax. I do not think there would be any justification for establishing our financial system on the basis of a few ill-conducted young women whom Senator Colgan seems to have in mind.

Mr. Hawkins

I do not wish to enter into a competition between both Labour Parties as to which of them has the interest of temperance most at heart or has the greatest experience to know what is good or bad in that line.

Mr. J.T. O'Farrell

Senator Colgan is a member of your own Party.

Mr. Colgan

I am not ashamed of that. I am proud of that.

Mr. J.T. O'Farrell

There you are. Why call him a member of the Labour Party?

Mr. Hawkins

We are all aware that this reduction in taxation on wine has been forced on the Minister, first because of election promises and, secondly, because of support received from a particular section. This particular section were not satisfied at the removal of the duties imposed by the Supplementary Budget of last November. Those of us who read the daily papers can remember seeing a very elaborate publicity campaign carried on. This campaign resulted in the provision contained in Section 5 of this Bill, making a reduction in the wine tax.

As to whether there will be more or less wine drunk as a result of this reduction, the Minister himself has informed us that he proposes or hopes to get something like £250,000 increased revenue. While the Minister is appealing to our people at home to lay up on the purchase of what might be called luxury goods, he is making available to the wine importers of this country sufficient finance to purchase the wines to enable this tax to be gathered. I put it that that is the most serious aspect of this provision.

There are other organisations, I am sure, that will look after the moral effects of the encouragement this will give to increased wine drinking. It is very difficult, I am sure, for the Minister to convince this House and the public that he is sincere, that he is honest, in his appeal for more saving. He has told us last night that he is going to engage in a widespread national savings appeal, an appeal to our people to purchase less in order that prices may come down. I am, sure he would be anxious that, if purchases must be made, they should be purchases of commodities and food and drink manufactured and produced in this country. He has been coerced, he has been forced, as a result of a mighty and influential organisation, and as a result of a campaign that was carried on, to make available foreign exchange that could very well be put to better use in getting fertilisers and other things for the farmer that I am sure Senator Baxter would like should be got.

Mr. Baxter

One is always in a difficulty in dealing with the Senator who has spoken, because you never know just how earnest he is about the case he makes. Taking him on the argument he has presented to the House, one would believe that the Senator was an ascetic sort of person who, like his leader, believed that the doom was at hand and that we should all prepare as quickly as possible for the last journey. He has told the whole world about the dangers of war abroad and the catastrophies that are coming upon us and the doom that is to descend upon us. Most of his followers seem to be obsessed with the same idea. Yet, for all that, the Senator is quite a genial person. He does not believe at all in asceticism and he would not want to deny to others what he would like to enjoy himself.

Mr. Hawkins

Not in the least.

Mr. Baxter

We must make up our minds to have it one of two ways. If we are to lead normal lives we must try to behave like normal people and we will have to appreciate that the people for whom we are trying to make laws want to live like normal people. If you are going to conscript people to be sober, there is a defeatist attitude about the future of the country. It is on that basis the Senator and some of his colleagues have built up their conception of the future of the country, that you have to dragoon the people somehow——

Mr. Hawkins

Not at all.

Mr. Baxter

That yon have to adopt the attitude that the people cannot be trusted, that the light of reason has left them. The case he has tried to make is not based on reason. He tells the House that the Minister was intimidated.

Mr. Hawkins

I do not think I went that far exactly.

Mr. McGilligan

Coerced, he said.

Mr. Baxter

"Coerced" is even stronger, I think, than "intimidation." He said the Minister was coerced by this powerful organisation. What is wrong with the Senator and his Party, and especially their leaders, is that they failed to realise that reason enters into men's decisions in this world. The Minister and his colleagues are susceptible to public opinion, and it was because the Fianna Fáil Party have lost touch with public opinion that they are where they are now. Had they been more responsive, they might have held on, if only by the skin of their teeth. They failed. Let them not lament too loudly or too long. Let them be warned by their experience now. Let the Minister be warned by it, because if he follows their line, he will be where they are and they will be back here. It is terribly important to be responsive to public opinion. We all know that public opinion rebelled against this decision of Deputy Aiken and his colleagues, and would rebel again to-morrow if the same taxation were imposed by this Minister.

I do not think the Senator made any case at all. He wants to pretend that some powerful organisation influenced the Minister, the organisation of publicans, as if there were no organisation in the country backing any politicians except those people. These people were brought together, they were crushed together, by Fianna Fáil and if they burst out, having been long suffering and patient, it was only public opinion expressing itself in a way in which we were glad to see it express itself. The people had been bullied and intimidated and silenced so long, we were beginning to despair that there would ever be a future for the country or that the people would be brave enough to speak out against Fianna Fáil. They did, and that is why you are where you are.

Mr. McGilligan

The point made by Senator Colgan, and answered to a great extent by Senator O'Farrell, was one that was urged early when these matters were being considered. There was quite an amount of representation made to us that a lot of people who used to drink wine, not too heavily and with not too much danger to themselves, had been turned, on account of the price of wine, to drinking whiskey, and it was represented that that was very bad and one had to agree that it was. I do not say that that was what swayed in this, but it was useful to hear that at the time this reduction in tax was being considered. I do not suppose I will ever be lucky enough to have this type of tax offered to me again. By reducing a tax, I get £250,000 extra revenue. It is not often that can be done. It is done because the imposition of the tax was done in such a rushed way and so stupidly that it failed to bring in what it was expected to bring in. I can reduce the amount that is being charged for these various types of wine and still get increased revenue.

The question of allocation of currency to buyers is of no importance at this point, because, again, owing to the way in which the tax was levied before, wine was not sold and the stocks for which my predecessors gave currency, that was required for fertiliser, are now in the country, and since the wine is taken off my shoulders I will have a little more currency to spare for fertilisers, if available. I will not have to spend it on wine.

Mr. Hawkins

The stocks must be replenished.

Mr. McGilligan

They may be replenished, but not this year. Stocks that would have been consumed in the last six or seven months are there and awaiting consumption. There will not be very much in the way of foreign currency required and any required will be, in the main, French currency, and that is an easy currency. I am told that this is contradictory because of my view on savings. The savings that I want and that I ask the people to make are by withholding spending on goods that are in short supply. If all rush in, prices go up. I do not care how many rush in to buy wine, because it will not add to the cost of living and the quicker stocks are exhausted the quicker I will get the revenue.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Would it be unfair to ask the Minister to give us a list of the commodities on which he thinks the people should cut down spending?

Mr. McGilligan

That would take a very long time.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Even so, I think that, in the interests of the national economy, the people should be given an indication of what those commodities are.

Mr. McGilligan

Offhand, I would say that mainly they are the commodities included in the cost-of-living index.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Forty-eight items.

Mr. McGilligan

There would be a big number of items, but they would be grouped under a small number of heads. I do not suppose I need bother about this talk of coercion. We have been criticised for the fact that five or six groups of people have come together to form the Government. Were they all coerced by the same group and by the same advertisement? One remembers bags of gold being chucked about and promises of further gold during elections and they did not do the Senator's Party much good.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Nílimse sásta le caint an Aire. D'iarr sé ar an bpobal gan bheith ag caitheamh a gcuid airgid i riocht go dtiubharfaí sa sacl go dtuitfeadh luachanna. Shíl mise gur fíonta agus a leithéidí a bhí i gceist ag an Aire, ach tá fhios agam anois nach ea. Teastaíonn uaidh go n-ólfaí gach saghas dighe, an oiread agus is féidir! Céard iad, mar sin, na nithe r ceart airgead a sparáil orthu? Caitheann beagán daoine airgead ar shóluistí nó "luxuries." Ach céard air a sábhálfaidh an gnáth-dhuine airgead? Ní chaitheann siadsan a gcuid airgid ach ar na riachtanais.

Mr. McGilligan

Certainly I did not say it in regard to this section.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Is cuma. Is rud an tábhachtach é, ní amháin don ghath-cheannaitheorí ach do lucht na trádála agus lucht talmhaíochta agus lucht déantóireachta. Níl na daoine le héirigh as an ól nó a gcion de a laghdú. Céard air a bhfuil an laghdú le déanamh?

Mr. McGilligan

I am very concerned about a rush on things like stout which the smaller end of the community drink and I relaxed the taxation for that reason.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Ná ceapadh an tAire nó duine ar bith eile go bhfuil mé i gcoinne daoine bheith ag ól—má déantar sin go réasúnach. Sén rud tá mé a iarraidh fháil amach, cé h-iad na rudaí ar féidir do gháth-dhaoine gan a gcuid airgid a chaitheamh orthu.

Mr. McGilligan

I would give the Senator an example. Clothes are a factor in the cost of living and I would give the people the advice that they should refrain from spending on clothes in so far as they can. Once the tourist influx has gone, about the autumn months, I think that clothes will be cheaper. I suggest that those who can afford to do so should refrain from spending on clothes the recent increases in money that they have got, until buying is better.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 6.

Question proposed: "That Section 6 stand part of the Bill."

Liam Ó Buachalla

Deir an tAire go bhfuil sé ag laghdu an chostais mhaireachtála de bhrí go bhfuil breis agus £2,000,000 dleachta ar bheoir á fhágáil ar lár aige. Tá an dleacht á laghdú aige go cinnte; ach na bíodh dul amú ar aon duine faoi. Tá luach na beorach íslithe, ach tá an muireir aistrithe agus méadaithe ar an bpobal i gcoitinne, go háirithe ar na h-oibrithe. Tá £900,000 á bhaint amach orthu as ucht na cánach ar ola agus petrol; caithfidh na hoibrithe dul fán gcostas iomlán.

Mr. McGilligan

There is only a customs duty of £25,000 loss involved in this section. The next section is the important one. The Senator calls it a loss of £2,350,000, but I say I am giving back to the people £2,355,000. There is £2,375,000 involved in the two sections. He calls it a loss, but I say I am giving it back to the community.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 7.

Question proposed: "That Section 7 stand part of the Bill."

Liam Ó Buachalla

Ionnus go bhféadfadh an tAire é a thabhairt ar ais, caithfidh sé an t-ualach d'aistriú go daoine eile. Caithfidh an gnáthoibrí ualach timpeall £900,000 nó £1,000,000 d'iompar anois mar go gcaithfidh sé costas árachais ar shláinte agus árachais díomhaointis a sheasamh.

Nach fíor go gcaithfidh an pobal— ní h-iad an lucht oibre amháin an pobal, ach is iad an chuid is mó den phobal an lucht oibre—a bheag nó a mhór den £900,000 a sheasamh de bharr na gcánacha ar íle? Nach fíor go gcaithfidh an pobal costas trom a sheasamh mar gheall ar an gcáin ioncaim? Nac fíor go bhfuil a ndeis maireachtála caillte ag na mílte duine sa tír mar gheall ar pholasaí an Aire?

Nach fíor go bhfuil na mílte duine díomhaoin sa Ghaeltacht agus sna ceantracha cúnga mar gheall ar an £900,000 a bhí le caitheamh ar scéimeanna móna a bheith tarraingthe siar. Nach fíor—ó tháinig an Rialtas nua isteach, go bhfuil an luach ar a lán de na príomh-riachtanaisí beatha imithe suas?

Mr. McGilligan

For example?

Liam Ó Buachalla

Feoil—bia—atá imithe suas.

Mr. McGilligan

By anything that was done in the Budget?

Liam Ó Buachalla

Bhí costas an mhargairín——

Mr. McGilligan

It was .04 of 1d.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Bhí ardú ar an siúcra. Ní haon mhaith bheith ag caint ar na .04s.

Mr. McGilligan

There is nothing in the Budget dealing with that.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Is í an fhírinne go bhfuil na praghasanna imithe suas agus ní síos a d'imigh siad. Is tábhachtach an rud é nuair atá a lán des na 04s. ann. Ní ábhar gáire é. Tá luach na rudaí seo imithe suas, agus ní haon mhaith bheith ag rá nach bhfuil.

Ní fheicim gur tairbhe ar bith don phobal—bíodh gur tairbhe do aicme áirithe é—an laghdú atá déanta ar bheoir, agus ar an am céanna bheith ar bhealach eile ag ardú praghasanna eile ar an bpobal. Deirim nach raibh díchéille go dtí é.

Má tá an tAire ábalta an tairgead d'fháil ar shlí, agus ísliú a dhéanamh ar bheoir, déantar sin. Ach níl sé réasúnta a rádh go bhfuilimid ag ísliú an chostais mhaireachtála, de bhrí go bhfuil luach na beorach íslithe, agus ag an am céanna na luachanna ag dul suas agus an muirear á aistriú don ghnáth-oibrí. Ba cheart dúinn an muirear a chur go fírinneach, in áit é d'aistriú mar seo. Is aisteach an rud é go n-abródh aoinne go bhfuil an costas maireachtála imithe síos mar gheall ar go bhfuil luach na beorach imithe síos. Ní dóigh liom gur ní éasúnta, beag ná mór, é sin.

Mr. McGilligan

I understand that, on the Finance Bill, it was not considered relevant to discuss the matters which the Senator has discussed. However, since he has discussed them, I feel that I am entitled to reply. There can be many views held as to the many types of taxation. Some people may say they would like modifications on foodstuffs, while others would like them on other things which are an incentive to the worker to give better work. We took that second view and in taking that view we were swayed, as Senator Baxter said, by the force of public opinion. Everywhere we went, the different Parties that formed the present Government—not one of them more than another—felt the same sway of public opinion, dead against the taxes imposed in the Supplementary Budget of October. Being responsible to public opinion, as expressed to us, we made certain promises with regard to these matters and we carried them out. I am told that the cost of living is up and the Senator instances meat and butter. I have not raised the cost of meat and I doubt if it has been raised. I have not raised the cost of butter and I doubt if it has been raised. Then we come to margarine and oatmeal. I let the Senator have that.

I said, when he was not here yesterday, that the margarine was on a very definite ration and it cannot impose a big tax on single households. The entire increase in the cost-of-living index figure by the new taxes or the shelving of the subsidy on these two matters will have an effect on the new figure of .04 of a point. If you take the old figure, it is less than .05 of a point. That is the whole change in the index figure under the Budget proposals. Apart from the index figure, I understand the cost of living was affected by the cost of tobacco and drink, two things the workers do enjoy and regard as near necessaries. They are certainly now classified as incentives to people to work, and the lack of them is preventing better production from being secured in England. Thrown into the balance against it, we have these increases in respect of margarine and oatmeal, such as they are; and the Senator may make as much out of that as he can. He is not going to weigh that in the balance against the remission of £6,000,000 in other things. There is no change other than in respect of margarine and oatmeal in whatever provision is made for subsidies. Particularly, in regard to foodstuffs, the subsidies are still there. Will the Senator remember that, if his Party were still in power, they would be now operating taxes on beer and tobacco? Probably, there would not be the saving I have made in margarine and oatmeal, but they would have to find £2,750,000 extra—and will the Senator tell me where they could have got it?

Liam Ó Buachalla

Tá súil agam nach gceapann an tAire——

Mr. McGilligan

I do not know if a general debate can take place on this section.

Liam Ó Buachalla

—go bhfuil mise i gecinnibh dacine a bheith ag ól beorach. Tuigim go maith chomh riachtanach agus atá deoch beorach do lucht oibre. Aon duine a mbeadh dúil i ndeoch aige, ba cheart go bhfuigheadh sé an deoch sin, agus ní chun cur ina choinnibh a bhí mé nuair a bhí mé ag cur na hargóna os comhair an tSeanaid. Is é an fáth atá leis an méid ballyhoo atá ar bun ag lucht leanúna an Aire adeir go bhfuil an costas maireachtála íslithe acu agus go bhfuil an saol níos fearr ag na daoine mar gheall ar gur ísligh sé cánach.

Mr. McGilligan

If the Senator met the people I met, he would not call it ballyhoo.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Admhaíonn an tAire go bhfuil sé ag tabhairt ar ais £2¼ milliún d'aicme áirithe, ach ina áit sin, caithfidh an gnáth-dhuine muirir i bhfad níos truime a sheasamh. Seasann siad é ar dhá shlí. Sin é an pointe atá i gceist. Nílim i gcoinnibh na dí a bheith íslithe agus duine a bheith ag ól má theastaíonn deoch uaidh. Ach tá mé i gcoinnibh na díth céille agus dacine a bheith ag rá go ndearnadh laghdú agus go bhfuil an costas maireachtála íslithe. Ní bheidh an £2,000,000 dá chaitheamh ar na daoine sa nGaeltacht agus beidh na daoine sin diamhaoin arís.

Shílfeadh duine ar bith, ón gcaint a rinneadh annseo, gurb é toradh an toghcháin gur briseadh ar Fhianna Fáil, go dtug an pobal breitheamhnas ina gcoinnibh.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Ní fheadar an bhfuil baint aige sin leis an gceist seo.

Mr. McGilligan

It is a very interest ing subject.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Níor briseadh ar Fhianna Fáil, agus tá súil agam go ndéanfaidh an tAire machtnamh ar an rud sin.

Mr. McGilligan

I am sorry the Senator was not here when I replied to the matter about the Gaeltacht and the turf cutting. I do not want to go into that, but he has challenged me on the point. There is no class of the community for whom life has been made harder since the 18th February.

Question put and agreed to.

Question proposed: "That Section 8 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Hawkins

There are a few matters in this section on which I should like to hear the Minister's views. It deals with tobacco. The Minister claims that he and the various Parties in the Government have kept their promise to bring about a reduction of taxation on tobacco and beer. I am sure I am not the only member of the House who thinks that way.

Mr. McGilligan

There is no coercion about this.

Mr. Hawkins

Senators can call attention to the extreme scarcity that has arisen since the reduction in prices, particularly of cigarettes. I have received complaints from all parts of the country from merchants and consumers that they find it impossible to get supplies of cigarettes since the reduction in prices. That state of affairs can have come about either through a curtailment of the purchase of tobacco leaf, a reduction in the amount of tobacco released from bond, or an intensification of the black market. I think the latter is the cause of the complaint. The Minister and the Government should have it investigated. There is a considerable scarcity of tobacco and cigarettes and if it has not been brought about by curtailment in the purchase of leaf, in the amount of tobacco released from bond, or being manufactured, then there is only one source causing the scarcity and that is, owing to the big difference in price that prevails here compared with the Six Counties, a number of people are engaged in blackmarketing activities. I appreciate the difficulty of overcoming a market of that kind. As a matter of fact I heard a few weeks ago that such activities are now so water-tight that no Government and no official can do anything about it. I suggest to the Minister, and through the Minister to those engaged in the manufacture of cigarettes in Éire for which the Government provides facilities in the shape of dollars to purchase leaf—and these dollars are very precious now—that it is not fair that we should be called upon to make sacrifices while others engage in what must be the very remunerative business of taking tobacco and cigarettes across the Border. I suggest that the Minister might ask cigarette manufacturers to have their names stamped on their products, as is done in the case of tobacco. They might have the words "Manufactured in Éire" stamped on cigarettes so that when they enter the Six Counties it would be illegal to offer them for sale. If there is not some control it will be impossible to end the activities in the blackmarketing of cigarettes.

Mr. Baxter

In a general way I wish to support what Senator Hawkins said. It is quite true that it is very difficult to obtain supplies of cigarettes. As the Senator knows, this is not the first time that it has happened. For years while his Party was in power this traffic was going on. Blackmarketing is not a new device and did not suddenly take shape since the change of Government. Those of us who live in Border counties know what has been going on. Complaints are made everywhere that when cigarettes reach some traders the smokers do not get them. I have no suggestion to make as to how this difficulty can be overcome but, as Senator Hawkins said, a water-tight organisation has been built up over a number of years, and those connected with it have grown more prosperous. The exasperation of the smoking public to-day is at boiling point. I do not know if that is the position all over but, in parts that I am acquainted with, people have a very definite grievance. I do not know if the stamping of manufacturers' names on cigarettes would have any effect, seeing that it would be easy to sell cigarettes without offering them publicly. I do not know that that suggestion would be a solution. Perhaps the Minister's fertile imagination could suggest a plan to circumvent those who are doing such an injustice to the community. The matter is one of importance, because whether the reduction in prices has been any factor in affecting the dimension of the black market that market is there and was there before the price went down. It has now, I think, developed more vigour than it had shown for some time. I am afraid that will remain as long as there is a difference of 2d. or 3d. a packet between our cigarettes and the cigarettes across the border. They have money to spend and burn there, and they are quite prepared to burn it in cigarette smoking and to pay the people who build up the organisation which passes on the goods to them. If we have ended the cattle smuggling, perhaps the Minister and his colleagues would try to end the smuggling in cigarettes by some sort of bargain.

Mr. McCrea

As one who is engaged in business I have experience in the sale of cigarettes and tobacco. In the first instance, owing to the scarcity of tobacco during the war, quite a number of people went on to cigarettes. These people may go back to tobacco again now that it is available. At the present time the manufacturers are supplying a quota of 110 per cent. of cigarettes based on sales in a specified year. I think that the scarcity of cigarettes is due not so much to the black market as to the fact that so many young people, and particularly girls, are now smoking them. The demand for them is so great at the present time that instead of the present quota you would want one of 500 per cent. We have plenty of tobacco lying on our hands, but everyone seems to be turning to the cigarettes. In my experience that is the reason for the scarcity. When you get your quota of cigarettes, which is expected to last you four or five weeks, they would be gone in a week if you were to put them on the shelves.

Mr. McGilligan

There was a question addressed to me in the Dáil to-day on this very point. In the reply that was given there was a certain amount of statistical information which would appear to bear out what Senator McCrea has said. The quantity cleared up to the 1st June runs to 116 per cent. of what was cleared in the corresponding period of 1940. There is certainly not any deficiency in the quantity of tobacco that is going out from the manufacturers. The suggestion made is that it is not getting into the hands of the smokers in the country. I would be glad if the Senators who raised it could let me have a summary of the complaints they have received from the areas spoken of.

The question that was addressed to me came from a Deputy in Mayo. I do not know why this smuggling should have hit the West more than any other part of the country. There are very definite precautions taken. I know that one cannot defeat the black market entirely—but these precautions are taken, and manufacturers are very careful about those to whom they send out manufactured goods. The traders who are in receipt of quotas are very definitely all the time under investigation, and if complaints come in that traders in particular areas are not supplying their usual customers we can take these up with the manufacturers. They are working in the closest cooperation. They will remove a quota from a trader if they find that he is not distributing it in the ordinary way. That is the best we can do.

Very special attention is being paid to the border counties. That is recognised as being more or less the danger spot. The precautions taken there are more intensive than elsewhere. If Senators or their friends will let my officials have complaints we can have them attended to. If we get any substantial complaint that may put us on the track of people who are trying to get rid of tobacco across the border. One must not neglect the fact that at the present moment we have a big number of tourists in the country who are eating into the tobacco stocks that are there for our own people. They are, to a certain extent, a necessary evil.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 9.

Question proposed: "That Section 9 stand part of the Bill."

Liam Ó Buachalla

Baineann an tAlt so le siúcra a thabhairt is each, le húdarás an Aire, saor ó cháin no diúité. Ba mhaith liom, mar sin fhéin, tagairt a dhéanamh do phointe áirithe a bhaineas leis an siúcra. Tá socruithe ag an Aire breis siúcra a chur ar fáil le haghaidh prointeach a tithe ósta agus cásanna áirithe do dhaoine a nícs subh. Geobhaidh siad sin an siúcra breise ar an luach árd. Ní féidir a rá nach n-ardaíonn sé seo an maireachtála chomh maith. Déarfidh an tAire nach n-ardaíonn. Abair go bhfuil 3d. an punt ar shiúcra agus go gceannaíonn an duine trí púint, sin 9d. Abair go bhfuil an ceathrú punt le fáil ar 6d., sin 1s. 3d. ar fad. Isé méan luach an tsiúcra sin ná 3¾d. an punt. Déarfaidh an tAire nach gceadócadh sé do na tithe ósta luach na mbéile d'árdú, ach tá níos mó ná slí amháin le cat a thachtadh seachas é thachtadh le h-im. Duine ar bith a théas isteach sna tithe ósta, tugann sé fá deara ná bhfaigheann sé a ciread ar a chuid airgid agus a gheibheadh sé roimhe seo. Níl an luach ardaithe ar bhealach, ach, déanta na fírinne tá sé ardaithe. Isé an rud ba cheart den Aire a dhéanamh, ó thárla go bhfuil siúcra le spáráil aige, é a thabhairt do na dacine—dacine bochta chomh maith le gach duine eile—agus é a thabhairt dóibh ar an luach íseal. Déarfaidh sé go gcosnóidh sé sin airgead air, mar go gcaithfidh sé an cúnamh airgid a chur ar fáil chuige. Is cuma liom. Faghadh sé an t-airgead leis an gcúnamh airgid pé ar bith áit a bhfaighidh sé é. Tá ceart ag na dacine chun an tsiúcra— agus, go háirithe, na dacine bochta.

Mr. McGilligan

I do not know the relevancy of what the Senator has been saying. The licensing provision in Section 9 has not, I think, anything at all to do with it. The assertion is now repeated that the cost of living has been advanced as regards certain things that have been done in the case of sugar. I have not interfered with the cost of sugar. It is still being sold at the subsidised level. I am giving a certain amount off the ration and I am charging more for that. If people do not want it they need not buy it. I do not consider that that is adding to the cost of living. This sugar that is now being released is for jam making, and has nothing to do with the sugar ration. I do not consider that is increasing the cost of living.

Mr. Hawkins

The Minister, of course, is correct when he says he is not interfering and that the subsidy is still being maintained on sugar that is on the ration. The point I made before and which I want to repeat here on this Bill is that if we have a supply of sugar sufficient to enable us to give to the catering establishments in this country an increase of 100 per cent., and to give extra sugar to any or every individual who merely makes application for it to his or her grocer's shop, provided they are prepared to pay the cost price of it, namely, 7½d. a pound, we should put it on the ration. Sugar, it will be agreed, is a very essential commodity of food, especially for our young people, and that being so we are depriving them of it by not making it available to them at the subsidised price. What we are actually doing is selling this supply of sugar that we have in hands to those who are prepared and able to pay 7½d. per pound for it, regardless of whether it is for catering or jam-making. Senators will remember a discussion we had in this House a few years ago when the former Minister for Industry and Commerce gave an extra supply of sugar to people who had fruit of their own or who bought it for the purpose of making that fruit into jam.

Mr. Baxter

That was many years ago.

Mr. Hawkins

At that time it was necessary for an application to be sent to the Department of Industry and Commerce and the application had to be signed by a responsible person such as a sergeant of the Gardaí or a superintendent.

Mr. McGilligan

What did the sergeant sign?

Mr. Hawkins

He signed that the applicant had fruit.

Mr. McGilligan

He signed that the person was applying for the sugar for the purposes of making jam. That was all. It did not matter what happened to the sugar afterwards.

Mr. Hawkins

But we have a position brought about now by the Minister in which there is no question of whether you are going to make jam or not. The question is: "Are you in a position to pay 7½d. per pound for 14 lb. of sugar?" Is that not so?

Mr. McGilligan

That is so, and I think it is a good idea.

Mr. Hawkins

And the person need not be even a householder. It applies to rationed consumers, and a person need only be a lodger to get it.

Mr. McGilligan

Do not go beyond the notice. It applies to every householder.

Mr. Hawkins

I have here an advertisement issued by the Department of Industry and Commerce. It sets out that there is 100 per cent. increase on the normal supplies of sugar and an increase of 33? per cent. in supplies of tea for catering establishments in this country. There is a further announcement by the Department of Industry and Commerce in relation to sugar for jam making. The Minister will admit that he would have put all this sugar on the ration were it not for the fact that there is a subsidy involved, and that it would entail an expenditure of an additional £300,000, which, he says, he is saving by withdrawing the subsidy from sugar. The point is that our people down the country, the people with large young growing families for whom Senator Baxter nearly cried on one occasion here when telling us the reasons why those people should have extra sugar, are to be denied it because they cannot afford to pay 7½d. a lb., but the tourists, who were so harmful to the country only a few months ago, are now to get all they want. In fact, it was proposed that a tax should be put on them to keep them out, to keep them from coming in here and eating the food that should be reserved for the Irish people. Now the position is that in order that they may have all the tea and sugar they require the Minister has withdrawn the subsidies and is selling them sugar at 7½d. per pound, butter, 3/3 per pound.

Mr. Baxter

One never knows what Senator Hawkins is trying to come at. He smiles when he sits down as if he was not in earnest.

Mr. Hawkins

What do you want me to do—cry?

Mr. Baxter

If he was serious in this matter he would appreciate the Minister's position. He is complaining of the Minister's decision to give this 14 lb. of sugar extra for jam making. I do not think there is any case for complaint about this matter at all. When the previous Minister went about doing this one year what happened? How many people made dishonest declarations in order to get the sugar? Is that what the Senator wants the Minister to continue? Does he want the present Minister to carry on that humbugging? The ration is not being reduced from what Fianna Fáil made it and if the people want to make jam why not give them the sugar and let them make it? There is a considerable amount of fruit in the country this year. Is it to go to loss? We have currants and gooseberries and lots of other fruit in our gardens and I do not know what the Senator is trying to come at in his remarks unless he really wants to hold up the House. Perhaps his objection is that this decision is going to sweeten public opinion.

Mr. Seamus O'Farrell

In my opinion this sugar rearrangement is one of the best things that the Minister has done, one of the fairest things he has done, notwithstanding the criticism. I did my best to try and agree with Senator Hawkins, but the more he protested the more I liked the new arrangement. He referred to what happened a few years ago when sugar was given, presumably, for making jam. At that time you filled up an application for sugar and all the time there was a possibility that an inspector would call to see if you really had fruit. In some cases an inspector did call. I know that my own wife applied for sugar and a sergeant of the Garda called and asked if she had a garden and if she had fruit, and could he see it. He saw the fruit and certified she was an honest person, possibly more honest than he thought, because she actually made jam. I think the present arrangement is far better, because anyone who wants to get extra sugar can get it. I dislike class distinction, and I do not think that persons with gardens and fruit should get sugar to make jam while persons with no gardens get none. People can buy fruit for jam making. Even in Dublin they can go to the markets where there is a surplus of fruit, particularly of soft fruit, and buy it for jam making. A great many of the women in Dublin have come from the country and they know how to make jam, because they had gardens before coming to Dublin. This provision enables every family to make jam, if they want it, and it enables every other family which does not want to make jam but who want to get a small store of sugar, to get a stone of sugar. I think Senator Hawkins was wrong when he said that anybody with a ration card could get the stone of sugar. I think it applies only to every householder and there are special ration books specially marked for the heads of households, and I assume that it is on these that the sugar will be given.

Reference was made yesterday to the injustice of charging hotels—or was it the justice?——

Mr. McGilligan

Yesterday, it was the injustice.

Mr. S. O'Farrell

The trouble is that what is an injustice one day is justice the next. Reference was made to the fact that hotels are now getting sugar and tea at what, I suppose, is the market price, not the subsidised price. I heard it said here that that also was going to increase the cost of living. Apparently the people who are protesting to-day against the tourists coming in and getting sugar were weeping yesterday because the tourists who come in may have to pay a little more for the sugar in their tea. As a matter of fact, they will not.

Mr. Fitzsimons

More people than tourists drink tea in this country.

Mr. S. O'Farrell

And more people than tourists go to the restaurants. I know, and some of the Senators will bear me out in this, that it is much decenter for the owner of a hotel or restaurant to be able to go to the market and buy the sugar he requires for his customers even at a few halfpence a lb. more than the ordinary householder has to pay, than to be forced to do, as he has been doing for the past few years, that is, go into the black market. I was speaking a few days ago to the owner of one of the biggest hotels in the country, and he said that, in order to keep his business afloat for the past few years, he was forced to go into the black market to buy sugar. He said that he could not keep his hotel going if he did not do so and he had to pay as much as £1 per stone for the sugar. He added: "Thank God, we can now buy the sugar, even if it is 7½d. per lb." The difference, if there is any, ought to bring down the prices, because if he could pay £1 per stone for sugar three or six months ago and serve meals at what he was charging, when he gets his sugar for 7½d., logic suggests to me that this method of the Minister should have the effect of bringing prices down, even in restaurants.

Mr. O'Dwyer

I cannot agree with the arguments of the two previous speakers. It seems that this issue of sugar is not intended for jam-making and that every householder who has the money can apply for and get a stone of sugar.

Mr. S. O'Farrell

He can make toffee with it, if he likes.

Mr. O'Dwyer

In these circumstances, when sugar is available to such an extent, it would have been much fairer if the Minister had increased the ration of sugar to 1 lb. A ration of ¾ lb. is insufficient for most people, and especially for people without large families, and households where there are only a couple of people.

Mr. McGilligan

Does the Senator know how much it would cost?

Mr. O'Dwyer

I am coming to that.

Mr. McGilligan

Would the Senator give me the short-wave station in return for it?

Mr. O'Dwyer

As I say, the ration of ¾ lb. is insufficient for most people. If the Minister were to increase the ration to 1 lb. even if he had to add the extra ¼d. to the whole ration, it would be far more equitable. We must remember that there is a great number of poor families who cannot afford to buy a stone of sugar at once and these people would share in the advantage if the ration were increased by ¼ lb. If the Minister added the increase to the ration, the sugar would be available for these people.

Mr. McGilligan

Would the Senator accuse me afterwards of raising the cost of living?

Mr. O'Dwyer

I suggest that it would be fairer to the poor people.

Mr. McGilligan

I have suggested already that this sugar discussion has nothing to do with Section 9, which deals with licensing of sugar confectionery.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

We will let the Senators discuss it.

Mr. D. Burke

I want to compliment the Minister on making available the 14 lbs. of sugar. I live in the country and I know large numbers of people who had to throw out fruit in the past six or seven years. Many of them do not place much value on it at the moment, but they can make jam of it at 4d. a lb., and, the more of it that is made, the sooner will the cost of living come down. If we had abundance, instead of rationing, we would not be long solving these problems and this is a step in the right direction.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 10.

Question proposed: "That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."

Professor Bigger

I should be grateful if the Minister would explain what appears to me to be a contradiction in two paragraphs in this section. Paragraph (2) specifies the rate of duties payable on the cost of admission to any entertainment, other than an entertainment which consists wholly or partly of a cinematographic exhibition. That would seem to me as indicating that the duty is payable on any entertainment which is entirely a personal performance. In paragraph (5), it is stated:—

"Entertainment duty shall not be charged, levied or paid on any payment for admission, on or after the operative date, to any entertainment which consists wholly of a personal performance."

That seems to me to be a contradiction, but there may be an easy explanation. There may be a catch in it, but I have not been able to find it.

Liam Ó Buachalla

Ní theastuíonn uaim ach iarraidh ar an Aire chó luath agus bhéas ar a chumas, réiteach éigin a dhéanamh i gcás tithe peictúra go bhfuidheadh siad cabhair fé leith má eiríonn leo peictiúirí i nGaeilge, sé sin, peictiúicí go bhfuil an comhrá i nGaeilg ionnta do thaisbeant. Nuair bhí sé sa Dáil, thagair sé do chomh míshásta agus a bhí sé leis na daoine a bhí i bhfeidhil na dtithe peictúra agus an chaoi ar bhain siad úsáid éagcórach as an faoisimh cánach a bhí le fáil as ucht aisteoirí bheith páirteach go pearsanta sa taisbeántas. Níl fhios agam ón eolas atá agam go raibh an scéal chó dona agus dúirt sé. Chonnaic mé peictiúirí i nGaillimh agus chonnaic mé daoine páirteach sa taisbeantas a bhí in éindigh leo, agus nîl le rá agamsa i na dtaobh ach go mbhfiú dul ag éisteacht leo. Ba mhaith liom iarraidh ar an Aire chó luath agus bhéas ar a chumas go ndéanach sé an réiteach atá á iarraidh agam air i gcás peicturlann ar bith atá sásta nó ábalta peictiúirí reatha do thaisbeáint i nGaeilg sé sin a bhfuil an comhrá i nGaeilge ionnta agus go mbeadh faoisimh ar chaoi éigin le fáil ag a leitheidí sin de peictiúrlann.

Mr. Hawkins

As in the case of many other sections, this section is an implementation of election promises. The various Parties composing the Government promised that, together with reducing the price of beer, they would remit the entertainments tax. I have no objection to that, but the provision in this section goes much further than that. Previous to this certain allowances were made in the case of cinematograph shows where there was any personal performance, where a part of the entertainment was a dramatic or personal performance. Now that has been eliminated and the only theatres removed from taxation are the three theatres here in Dublin. The Minister put forward the view that, as a result of the increase in the entertainment duty imposed by the Supplementary Budget last year, there was growing up throughout the country a certain evasion of the tax. That might be so, but there had grown up, side by side with that, something that should be encouraged. In various cinemas throughout the country local entertainers, artistes of various kinds, were being employed. That helped to encourage local talent and it gave employment. In future, as a result of the implementation of this section, that will be no longer possible. The Minister should give some concession, particularly in rural Ireland, whereby the tax would be enforced only in relation to the larger cinemas, if that is desired.

We hear a lot about the flight from the land and rural depopulation. If we are to keep our people content they must be given entertainment to suit their tastes and there is nothing as good as encouraging local talent in every way. The step that had been taken in that direction, whether the intention was to evade the duty or not, was welcome.

There is another aspect of this matter. In rural Ireland there is quite a number of small halls. There is on the market a 16 millimetre film. The Minister proposes to impose the same entertainment tax on admission to a show which is not only entertaining, but educative, as he imposes in respect of the ordinary film. I made a suggestion here last year, speaking on the question of the cinema entertainment tax, and I put it to the Minister now. There is a tax per foot of film entering the country. That tax is the same irrespective of the value of the film. There could be much relief, particularly in relation to the 16 millimetre film, if we investigated the question of imposing a tax, not in relation to the length of the film, but in relation to the value of the film. I put that suggestion to the Minister in the hope that he will accept it.

Mr. McGilligan

It is not in this section.

Mr. Hawkins

It is as well to say those things again.

Mr. Sweetman

In regard to the matter of rural cinemas I made a plea to the Minister last night which I ask him to consider now in reference to this section, that is, that cinemas with a seating accommodation of 300 or under might be allowed to maintain the position which existed in 1946 which, I understand to be, that the tax on a 1/7 seat was 6d, the tax on a 1/4 seat was 4½d. and the tax on a 1/- seat was 3d.

I would put this case to the Minister, that those cinemas are small in number. They fill a need in the rural community and no loss of revenue, or a very minute loss of revenue, would be suffered by giving this small exemption. As I am instructed, the general overheads of a cinema such as this that only runs one show by night, are very much the same as the overheads of cinemas running two and sometimes three shows per day and the position is that the overhead increases from 1946 or 1945 to the present day are nearly double and are likely to increase. Those overhead increases can be borne more easily by the bigger cinemas than by the small. If the Minister allows that concession in the case of the small cinema, I do not think he will suffer any great loss of revenue and it will give a real benefit to the members of the rural community living in small towns.

Mr. Baxter

I would like to support the case made by Senator Sweetman. I made such a case here on another occasion. I have no idea of the number of small cinemas which we can speak of as rural cinemas, but I imagine the total revenue obtained from them must be unimportant relative to the taxation that is taken from cinemas as a whole. In many of these cinemas the halls are small and can only accommodate small numbers and, as Senator Sweetman says, the cost of the hire of the film is probably as high in the case of cinemas having one performance daily as it is where there are three performances, because the film has to be retained overnight. If there were a remission of taxation, to some extent it would enable cinema owners to provide better and more expensive films and thereby give better shows. From the point of view of assisting rural life and making it more acceptable for young people who want the sort of thing they can see on the films, I believe it would be well worth the Minister's while to explore the possibilities. It is a question the country will have to concentrate on—how are we to provide people in the country districts with the kind of thing they seek in the towns and cities? There is a psychology about the desire to get out of the country. They are searching for something, but quite definitely some of the things they go in search of are the pleasures and joys and satisfaction and, perhaps, comfort of cinemas with the variety of entertainment that they give. I believe that a remission of taxation in this case would be very acceptable. It would not be a very large sum and it would do something to brighten rural life.

Mr. J.T. O'Farrell

Apart from the merits of this question, it would seem to me that if Senators want the Minister to make any particular concession or remission they should adopt the ordinary procedure and put down a recommendation. On a point of order, it seems to me, with all due respect, that there is a tremendous amount of time wasted here when Senators get up and suggest to the Minister this remission and that remission, this alteration and that alteration, while they could have gone through the ordinary formula of putting down recommendations that he might consider and accept. I cannot see how the Minister can agree to some of these things. It is not for the Minister to put down recommendations on the Committee Stage. If Senators are serious in their proposals they should adopt the ordinary procedure.

Mr. M. Hayes

Senator O'Farrell may be assured that any recommendation accepted by the Minister would be redrafted by him. The Senator may also be assured that it is not unreasonable for the Minister for Finance to accept a particular point of view and to put it into his own phraseology. That is the phraseology that would be used, anyway.

Mr. O'Farrell

It is laziness on the part of Senators.

Mr. McGilligan

A point has been made that apart from the remission of the tax in rural areas it is possible to get a remission of the full tax by having performances, mainly of a personal nature. Eleven places in the whole country went in for that. They thought it was a good thing to give personal performances, even to the extent of putting them on more than half the programme. Incidentally, Galway was not one of these places. There was never a personal performance in Galway until what I call the evasion period started. There was a time after the Supplementary Budget when cinemas all over the country discovered the easy method of evading taxation. I discussed this matter at length in the Dáil and I gave merely a summary here. The situation was this, to have two hours' cinema show and to open two hours and five minutes ahead of the cinema and to have a girl playing the piano or someone playing an accordion. That lasted for two hours and five minutes and then the cinema started. There was no one in the auditorium or there might be a few stragglers.

Liam Ó Buachalla

The personal performance was carried and only a portion was devoted to pictures. I am not doubting that some people did try to evade the law.

Mr. McGilligan

No cinema in Galway qualified for remission of the tax. They did not put on wholly or mainly a personal performance. When I look at the places where there were cinemas with personal performances it is quite clear that no great employment was given. There was one each in Lucan, Navan, Kilcullen and Kildare. Limerick and Drogheda were the only ones of any substance in the way of cinemas that got a remission of tax by having the performances wholly personal. In regard to the point raised by Senator Bigger, I find it difficult to reconcile the two clauses, but I am sure it will be easy to administer them. As there will be an adjournment now I will have to consider whether the section ought not to be amended by including within the brackets in sub-section (2) words which will catch entertainments which consist wholly of personal performances.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again to-day.