The Minister, to conclude.
Finance Bill, 1954 (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I want first to express my appreciation to those Senators who, in their speeches here to-day, welcomed me back again to this House. I am very grateful indeed to them for their remarks. We had a discussion to-day that I feel quite sure will be of great assistance to me in the task that I am going to have between this and next year. I am referring particularly to the speech that was made by Senator George O'Brien. On that point, I will give the remarks that he has made the most careful consideration and they will be of use to me in the basis of approach for the future.
I am afraid, however, that Senator O'Brien was misled in one part of his statement, by certain figures that have been put before him. He referred to the amount that was paid towards the general collection of income-tax by Schedule E taxpayers. Initially, of course—obviously in a clerical slip—he referred to the total figure of tax collected as being £10,000,000. Of course, it is more than double that—in 1952-53 it was £21.78 millions—but that was quite obviously a clerical slip. In the figures which he gave—which had been taken by him from a memorandum submitted by the Irish Conference of Professional and Service Associations and which he made the basis for some parts of his case—it was suggested that the amount of tax which had been paid under Schedule E was £9.6 millions, representing 52 per cent. of the total income-tax revenue.
As a matter of fact, I had asked for certain figures rather on those lines before and I have some figures which show that the basis of computation which that conference had made was not quite accurate. It was a very different picture that was put before me, that instead of some £9.6 million, the amount collected under Schedule E is, in fact, much more in the region of £5,500,000 and the percentage collected under Schedule E would be much nearer the 25 per cent. mark than the over 50 per cent. mark suggested in the memorandum which was quoted by the Senator. I do not propose to go into the details of that, but I think it is desirable that, as the figures were given some publicity on the one side, the more accurate one on the other side should also have publicity. Of course, even that Schedule E figure, which is taken by reason of the assessment under that heading in the Income Tax Acts, is one that is not solely restricted to what one might term the white-collar worker: it would include certain other assessments of people with larger incomes—directors' fees, for example, and so forth.
The general principle that everybody seems to have—when they are suggesting that the incidence of taxation falls heavily upon any one section—is, of course, that they want a revision in the whole code. What they do not say but what they mean is that they want a revision in the code in so far as it affects the personal case in which they are interested. I do not mean that in so far as it affects their own personal pockets, but the particular class in which they are interested. All of us rather naturally are inclined to do that when we consider any system of taxation. What we want to do is to revise that system of taxation in such a way that it will not press quite so heavily on the class that we have in mind at the time. Ultimately the effect of that, if one were to accept all the suggestions, would be that the amount which would come into the revenue would be very substantially less.
The Senator made some very interesting suggestions which I will be able to consider in due course when the task comes of setting out to frame new proposals for next year. Another matter that was raised by him of a technical nature, that I might perhaps refer to very briefly, was the question of the number of taxpayers. I think the exact figures are—before the Financial Statement, 205,000 and now, 165,000 approximately. Part of the consideration that any Minister must give—and obviously part of the consideration that was given by my predecessor—is to the cost of collecting the tax. It is not for me to suggest what was particularly weighing on his mind at the time, but part of the consideration that must have been before him was the undue proportionate cost of collecting a small amount, of tax at the bottom of the scale.
In the remarks that were made by Senator O'Brien, perhaps sufficient weight was not given to that aspect of it. He also mentioned the level at which surtax commenced. I think that level was not, as he suggested, £1,500 when the State was established but was much larger then and has come down since in a series of changes—at least two, I think.
With the exception of the case for industrial taxation, which is being dealt with in a special way by the commission, the other matters that were raised were more of a political nature. I think it would be unwise for me to attempt to prejudice the report of the commission on the industrial taxation point. It seems to be a clear case in which we should wait at least until some of the very valuable information they are collecting will be available to us.
The other speeches were more of a political nature and I am afraid I apparently misjudged one or two Senators on the other side.
I assumed they had read what had been stated in the Dáil on the Financial Motions and on this Bill. If they had not read it there, I assumed they had read it in the newspapers, but Senators Hawkins and Loughman quite clearly had not because both of them came back to ask whether there would be further reductions in taxation during the current year. I do not think anything could have been clearer than my statement in the Dáil in that respect. I feel I must repeat it now because there has been a similar suggestion to that made by those two Senators made elsewhere which might very easily prejudice the inflow of revenue and, therefore, the efficiency of the Government during the current year.
When I was speaking on the 15th June in the other House, I made it quite clear that the Government had decided to make the very substantial concession they made in regard to the price of butter. I made it equally clear on that occasion the Government felt that was the only concession they could make for this financial year. Senator Hawkins, when opening this debate for the Opposition, adopted the well-known pretext and political tactic of endeavouring to put into the mouths of his opponents things they could not say and then wrongly castigating them for having said them. That attitude was adopted in another place but I understand that it is not proper for me to refer in this Chamber to all that transpired in another Chamber. It was, as I saw, a device that was adopted in another place. When the Senator considers more carefully what he stated and when he considers it in a calmer light after the election now pending for this House has terminated, I think he will realise that what he attempted to put in our mouths was not what was said.
I do not want in this allegedly vocational Chamber to go into too much politics but I feel, having regard to their speeches, that I must say this. Senators on the other side of the House do not appear to realise why they were defeated in the general election. They were defeated for a very simple reason in that election. The shop in Clonmel which Senator Loughman mentioned—there were others of a similar nature in other parts of the country—merely served to emphasise the feeling of the people. It was perfectly clear to the mind of the electorate that the previous Government got into office in 1951 because in the election of 1951 they campaigned on the high cost of living under what they termed the Coalition Government of that time. They got into office because they held out to the people that if they were elected there would be an immediate reduction in the cost of living.
They campaigned on the basis that the prices which were in operation in 1951 were more than the people could bear and the leaflet, the shop window and the feeling of the people were quite clear in this election. The people realised that the campaign which had taken place in 1951 was a dishonest campaign. That leaflet and that shop window served to emphasise that the promises and the protests made by Fianna Fáil were not, to use two of the Senator's own words, "honest politics."
I do not think that in so far as the recent election was concerned it would have made very much difference what any people on this side of the House said. What the electors had made their mind up to do was to have a change of Government because they felt they had been duped in 1951 and were going to take revenge for that duping. The Senators asked me for various declarations. I am afraid that were I to go into them at all to any great length I would have to hold up the House unduly.
We made it quite clear in the other House in so far as the subsidy on butter was concerned that it was to cover creamery butter only and not farmers' butter. Again, in that respect, Senator Hawkins attempted to put into the mouth of the present Minister for Agriculture a statement about farmers' butter which he never made. Senator Hawkins alleged the present Minister for Agriculture said that all farmers' butter was only fit for cart grease. Of course, the present Minister for Agriculture said nothing of the sort. What the Minister for Agriculture said was that there was good farmers' butter and bad farmers' butter and that the bad butter was only fit for this purpose. That is an entirely different story. It is, as I said in the beginning, just an instance of the way in which it is very easy tactics to put into the mouths of your opponents something they did not say and then castigate them soundly for having said it.
We were also told that the achievement of the previous Government in regard to credit was a satisfactory achievement. I must confess that I never under any circumstances understood the great hullabaloo, the apparent boast about the interview and the statement made following the interview between the former Taoiseach and the banks. It amounted to this —that the banks undertook to give credit to any person who was credit-worthy. It seems astonishing to me that that should have been regarded as a noteworthy stride forward. Surely the task of the banks is to carry on their business on the basis of giving credit to credit-worthy people? Why it should be suggested that that was an amazing advance is something I find impossible to understand. There was, too, another suggestion that there had been an immediate promise——
I do not like interrupting the Minister but I should like to have from him a statement at this stage as to what provision is now being made to facilitate those people who are not credit-worthy.
The Senator must assume that I am really very naïve indeed. At the moment we are dealing with what he was trying to call a wonderful achievement, that credit-worthy people would get credit. That was the sum total of the statement issued. There is one thing the Senator, every member on this side of the House, and the public, must clearly understand and that is that so far as this Government is concerned whatever facilities are required for proper productive development will be made available. So far as we are concerned we will shape our policy more along the utilisation of money and materials towards things that will make real productive expansion rather than towards some of the things the previous administration had in mind.
At what rate of interest?
If the Senator has only a little patience he may be able to understand the goal at which we are aiming. The previous Government apparently made up their mind that it was the bigness of the thing they wanted to plan which was of operative effect. I do not take that view and neither do my colleagues. The manner in which they had proposals before them dealing with the National Development Fund indicated their minds were operating in that direction rather than according to the lines that most of us, I think, would agree was a better course.
Senator Loughman referred particularly to the question of roads. If there is to be any choice on whether money is to be utilised for the building of autobahns or utilised for the proper drainage and development of the land of this country, we shall come down quite clearly in favour of the drainage and development of our land. I do not accept that the easing of corners, the taking away of dangerous turns and dealing with dangerous spots in villages is at all the same thing as building large double-track roads for road users which would mean that, at the same time, the limited resources that are in this country—and I think we are agreed on both sides of the House that there are limited resources in this country—would be utilised for that purpose rather than for the extension of the land project or the extension of arterial drainage or the extension of other drainage works, thus ensuring that our agricultural production would be expanded in the way we should like to see it expanded. I do not propose to go into any great detail to-night on those lines or those plans because I feel it would be undesirable to do so at this stage.
There is always the difficulty in regard to this House—the difficulty which, I must confess quite frankly, I felt when I was sitting on a seat over there on the far side of the House— that whatever Minister is here on a Finance Bill or the Appropriation Bill is generally in the position of having to deal not merely with matters purely financial but also with matters referring to other ministerial Departments because the Finance Bill and the Appropriation Bill, just as the Central Fund Bill, are perhaps some of the ways in which members of this House can deal with things which would be dealt with in the other House by way of question across the House to the responsible Minister. The members of the House will find in due course that the Government will announce their plans. I am quite satisfied from my contacts throughout the country that not merely the people in business who support this Government but very many of the people who did not support it, and who still say quite unashamedly that they are not supporting it, maintain that it is only right that the members of this Government should get an opportunity to develop their plans and that they should not be badgered and pestered by an endeavour to get them to bring out details before they have got warm in their new seats of office. That is a thing that is not restricted at all to people outside who support the Government itself. Many of the people who support the Opposition are somewhat resentful, to put it mildly, of the line being taken by the Opposition generally in regard to the Government and to the plans that will ultimately be put into operation.
The Senator also referred to the question of the amount of money that would be available and referred to the criticisms that were made at the time of the 1952 Budget. We must remember that, at the time of the 1952 Budget, the expenditure that was visualised was £94.8 million. To-day, we are dealing with an expenditure of about £105,000,000: I am talking about current account. If one had only got to deal with the problem that there was in relation to the figure of expenditure in the financial year 1952-53, my task would be a very much easier one indeed and it would be much easier to deal with the matter on lines which have been suggested. It is entirely wrong and fallacious and, I suggest, politically dishonest, for people to attempt to attribute to us statements as regards the 1954 position which, in fact, were made in regard to the 1952 position which was, as I say, different to the extent of approximately £10,000,000 as regards expenditure.
There has been a suggestion, by way of interjection, from Senator Yeats on the subject of borrowing. May I repeat quietly certain figures which I gave the other House? In 1950-51 the amount required for the service of debt was some £7.2 million. In the year 1953-54—not the current year but last year—after the three years during which the previous Government were in office, that amount was £12.6 million. I was asked in the other House, and I had not the exact figure available, how much of that figure was attributable to Marshall Aid repayment: it is £1.14 million. Therefore, it means that, so far as service of debt is concerned—excluding Marshall Aid, to which I shall refer in a moment—the figure rose during the three years of the previous Government by something over £4,000,000 a year.
I want just to mention that for the purpose, I hope, of killing the argument that has been made time and time again that the inter-Party Administration of 1948 to 1951 borrowed more than the Fianna Fáil Administration of 1951 to 1954. It is not true and, in fact, the reverse is the truth if one takes account of the liabilities on the one side and the assets on the other and of the fact that my predecessor in office, when he went into office in June, 1951, had there available for him in Marshall Aid money a sum of £22,500,000. If you take from the liabilities of the State that were created in the two three-year periods in each case the amount of the assets that were created during each period you will find that, in fact, the excess of liabilities over assets in the three-year term of Fianna Fáil is approximately £10,000,000 more than the excess in the previous three-year period.
The figures are available on the records of the other House for anybody who wishes to see them. They are undeniable. They are facts—not merely a construction on facts—and they speak for themselves.
They should, by anybody who wishes to understand them and who wishes to get down to them, terminate the political propaganda that has been made that the previous inter-Party Government went in more for capital indebtedness than the Government that immediately preceded us.
Senator Johnston took apparently great exception to certain references that had been made throughout the country and in the other House the other day to a statement that he had made here in this House on the 19th June, 1952. The Senator suggested that he had been quoted in those statements on the lines that what he advocated one day the previous Government did the next. There was no such suggestion at all. The suggestion was quite clear, that Senator Johnston had advocated a certain course of conduct and that when the Senator had advocated that the leader of the Government Party in this House had then supported that advocacy.
Do you know that it was in a jovial type of way that the Senator passed his comment on it?
Senator Johnston suggested a somewhat different line to the line that I find in the debates of the 19th June. He did to-day, as then, suggest very properly that part of his anxiety was to stress his point of view that in his opinion it was desirable to shift the trend somewhat from cattle towards other types of agricultural production. The Senator suggested to-day that it was not fair at all to attribute any portion of his remarks on that occasion to a desire for revenue collection, and that it was because such a suggestion had been made in the country that he felt very disappointed, very displeased and very dissatisfied with the references that were made.
We can only take the Senator as reported. It may be, perhaps, that he did not exactly express what was in his mind, but if the Senator would again look at column 1574 of his speech of the 19th June, 1952, he will see there that he was speaking of this tax that was to be, in his advocacy, on cattle that were exported on the hoof, but he will see that he was advocating it also as an addition towards my predecessor, as "a nice little contribution for the Minister towards balancing his Budget".
That is the statement there, and that is not at all the case that was made to-day here by the Senator, that the sole case made by him in advocating that suggestion was that it was going to be by way of a levy, to transfer it from one type of agricultural production to the other. The whole tone of me Senator's remarks on that occasion meant, as far as I can understand his words, that he was considering it partly from the angle of transferring from one type of agriculture to another but partly, as I say, in his own words, "as a nice little contribution towards balancing the Budget". It was on that line that great exception was taken to it down the country.
Senator Fitzsimons has suggested just now that the comment of Senator Quirke as leader of the House was a jovial suggestion, not to be taken seriously. Far be it from me to suggest that any member of this august assembly should never be jovial. It would be disastrous if we could not be jovial on occasion, and may I say in passing that I hope that many members of this House will feel extremely jovial when the results of their election are announced at the end of the coming week. That, of course, would be a case when they would be entitled to feel somewhat jovial.
But I do suggest that for the leader of a Government Party in this House to treat a suggestion that was put forward as part of a long case by Senator Professor Johnston, that was put forward by Senator Johnston as a method of finding "a nice little contribution towards the Minister's balancing the Budget"—for the leader of the House, of the Government Party in the House and the spokesman, therefore, of the Government in the House to treat that purely in a jovial way, if it was so treated, would not, in my humble opinion, be a fair construction to put on any person's remarks speaking in that capacity. Therefore, with all due respect to the Senator, I find it difficult, to accept the explanation that was put forward by him at this stage.
You find it easy to misrepresent the Senator.
I am quite prepared, if the Senator would like, to quote exactly what Senator Quirke said on that occasion and to leave it to posterity to judge whether it was right or wrong. I suggest that it would be better for anybody who wishes to make the case, on the one hand, that the Senator's suggestion was serious, or for anybody, on the other hand, who wishes to make the case that the suggestion was jovial, to read the whole of Senator Quirke's speech on that occasion and come to their own conclusions. I personally feel that when they do that they can only come to the conclusion that I came to, that a kite was being flown to see how it would go.
The other things that were mentioned in this debate are things, as I say, with which we will deal in our own good time, with which we will deal and put during the term of office of this Government to the people in a serious and responsible way, having worked them out to the best of our ability and having made it clear that we are considering our problems not from the point of view of this year, or this year alone, but from the point of view of five years, from a long-term point of view; because I suggest, with respect, to this House, that it is perfectly clear that this Government is going to run that time and have that time to fulfil and to put its policies into operation.
Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining stages now.
Bill considered in Committee.
Sections 1 to 13, inclusive, agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 14 stand part of the Bill."
I should like to have on this section, which proposes to give remission of the excise duty on beer, information as to whether the Minister has made arrangements that the relief given will be passed on to the consumer or whether it is to be completely a relief for the licensed trade. It is a fairly considerable sum of money— something like £890,000—and when the Budget proposals were going through the other House, Deputy Costello, who is now Taoiseach, asked the same question. I wonder if the Minister has come to a decision as to whether this remission shall be passed on to the consumer at this stage or not.
Would the Senator wish me to answer exactly in the words of my predecessor, words which I can remember, namely, that he was making the remission and it would be for the brewers to decide. I would suggest, however, that the remission of duty provided for here is for the purpose of ensuring that the price will remain the same. Otherwise, as was explained on that occasion—I do not think the Senator is quite aware of it—the price might have had to be increased. This has been met in this way and it is for the purpose of making adjustments vertically down through the trade.
Surely when the present Taoiseach was dissatisfied with that procedure, with the provision the Minister was making, some steps should be taken by him and his Minister for Finance to ensure that what he wished at that stage should follow and that the benefit would be passed on to the consumer.
Did I misunderstand the Senator's figure? The correct figure is £350,000.
It does not matter—it is a considerable sum, anyway.
I wish I was in the happy position of being able to say that a sum of £450,000 does not matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 15 to 31, inclusive, the Schedules and the Title agreed to.
Bill reported without recommendation, received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.