Menu
-HOME
Baile
-DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí
-DÁIL DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Dála
-SEANAD DEBATES
Díospóireachtaí Seanaid
-SEARCH
Cuardach
-ABOUT THIS SITE
Faoin Suíomh Seo
-LINKS
Nascanna
Previous - Lch. Roimhe Seo Up - Suas Next - Ar Aghaidh

Dáil Éireann - Volume 30 - 12 June, 1929

Public Business. - Finance Bill, 1929—Second Stage.

Mr. Blythe: I move the Second Reading of the Finance Bill, 1929, This Bill proposes to give legislative effect to the matters that have already been dealt with by the Dáil by way of resolutions in Committee on Finance and on Report. In addition to the matters that have been dealt with by resolution, there are one or two other matters of importance in the Bill. In the first place, there are two sections which confer certain exemptions on debentures and debenture stock and certificates of charge issued by the Agricultural Credit Corporation. It is felt these exemptions are necessary in order to make it possible for the Agricultural Credit Corporation to carry out its financial operations with reasonable ease. Then there are sections which carry out a small change in regard to the making of assessments. They are rather in the way of changes for administrative convenience. The sections are 3, 4 and 6. At present, with certain exceptions, and those exceptions still remain, assessments are made by the district inspectors of taxes. They then have to be signed and allowed by the special commissioners. The process of signing and allowing by the special commissioners is an empty formula—I am sorry; I meant an empty formality.

Mr. Anthony: Force of habit.

Mr. Blythe: The process of signing and allowing caused a good deal of trouble and it is entirely useless because it is impossible for the special commissioners to examine the assessments in any way and they have no option but simply to sign on the back of the books the statement that all the assessments contained are signed and allowed by the [1176] special commissioners. The fact that that formality has to be carried out causes a certain amount of administrative inconvenience. It also causes inconvenience in certain other directions. It is necessary to make a slight change in connection with the granting of allowances and deductions. Personal allowances and all that sort of thing are supposed now to be made by the special commissioners and they are made by the special commissioners in the signing and allowing of assessments. It is necessary to have Section 6 going with Sections 3 and 4. The formality of signing and allowing by the special commissioners is really the carrying over of an English practice. In England there are local unpaid income tax commissioners who carry out the functions carried out here by officials. There are seven local commissioners in an area and it is a very easy matter to have assessments signed and allowed by them. Here we have only two special commissioners doing not only commissioners' work but also the work of the local commissioners of England. It is not an easy matter to make arrangements for signing and allowing. If you had a number of commissioners, each dealing with a certain number of assessments, they might then actually look at the assessments before signing and allowing. Here it is quite an impossible thing.

There is one other change proposed and it is also for greater administrative convenience. It is in Section 5 (5). It provides that the hearing of an appeal against an assessment may take place before one special commissioner. At present appeals are heard before two special commissioners. The effect of that is that in certain districts the hearing of appeals has to be begun before the inspector has time to conduct correspondence with the taxpayer which might enable them to arrive at agreement. On the other hand, in some of the districts in which appeals are heard, the hearing is so delayed that it is impossible to get out the duplicates to the collector of taxes in reasonable time.

It is proposed that in future instead of having one circuit in the [1177] country there will be two circuits and that will enable the hearing of appeals to be begun later and it will give a greater opportunity to inspectors of taxes, not merely to complete assessments, but also to correspond with the taxpayers on matters of dispute before appeals begin. It will also enable appeal sittings to be ended at an earlier date and it will prevent delay in the work of collection at the proper time. There are certain matters which are determined by the special commissioners other than the hearing of appeals against assessments. There are applications for relief. These will continue to be heard by two special commissioners. In these cases there is no appeal from the special commissioners. In such cases it is proposed to let matters stand as at present. In the case of appeals against assessments there is a further appeal from the special commissioners to the Circuit Judge and there is a further appeal on a matter of law to the High Court. The provision for the hearing of all appeals by the two special commissioners was merely an application to Ireland of the legislation which was framed for British conditions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.

Mr. Blythe: The decision of the commissioners in England is final on the question of an assessment and therefore it is a very proper thing there should be the precaution of having two special commissioners for the hearing of appeals. In this country in the case of appeals against assessments with which we are dealing there is an appeal from the decision of the Commissioners, so that it is felt that a considerable administrative advantage will result from the change and that the taxpayer will not be prejudiced. There is in sub-section (7) of Section 5 one change to make it clear that the special commissioners may allow an extension of the statutory time for giving notice of appeal in cases of sickness, absence or other reasonable cause. It has been the practice of the special commissioners to allow an extension of time but the section under which [1178] they work is so obscurely worded that there is some doubt as to whether they were right in doing so. Then there are a considerable number of sections, from eight to twenty, the effect of which and almost the only effect of which is to change the various bases of assessment for which a person may claim.

The sections from the point of view from which they are drafted are very complicated. That is unavoidable because the income tax code which we are administering is a very complicated code. It is impossible to make changes in that code by any form of simple drafting amendment. I might say here that we have from the commencement of the Saorstát been convinced that it would be desirable to have a code of our own which might be very much simpler in many respects. But the preparation of a new Income Tax Act is one which has not been possible for staff reasons so far to undertake. It is estimated that the preparation of a comprehensive Income Tax Act of our own would require the services of three or four senior officials for anything from a year to eighteen months. We have not yet found it advisable to contemplate sparing the services of senior officials from the day to day work of tax collection for such a purpose.

The various sections, 8 to 20, which I have mentioned contain a number of provisions for such matters as the discontinuance of trades, changes in partnership, special provision for what is happening in the first year of a new business and special provision for what is happening in the final years of a business that is being wound up, also for what is happening in the cases of changes in partnerships, a complete change or a change where one partner goes out and another partner takes his place.

Then there are provisions with regard to losses. Where a loss is sustained in a business at present the operation of the three years' average principle tends to the relief of the taxpayer. It is proposed that the loss under the new system should be carried forward for a period of six years. If there is a loss in a particular year, say this year, that is carried [1179] forward to 1935 and set against any net profits that may remain in the next year following the loss and against the year following that and so on for a period of six years. If any part of the loss has not been wiped off at the end of the six years there is no further relief with regard to it. That on the whole is more advantageous to the taxpayer than the present arrangement for a three years' average. There are arrangements for the computation of the profits over broken periods where the accounts are made up for a longer period than a year.

Then the next section of the Act deals with Customs and Excise matters. They have been the subject of resolutions already in the Dáil. Section 24 corrects a typographical error which was made in last year's Finance Bill. Section 25 deals with the increase of duties on certain mechanically-propelled vehicles. Section 26 deals with the duty on game dealers' licences.

Section 27 is a change for the benefit of the wholesale spirit dealers. At present wholesale spirit dealers cannot sell a lesser quantity of spirits than two gallons of any particular denomination. With the decreased demand for spirits that has become irksome. The position has arisen by which traders are less frequently able to receive orders for two gallons of a particular denomination. For instance, if a wholesale dealer were sending out gin, brandy or whiskey there should be two gallons of each denomination. Now a trader may sell a quantity of spirits consisting of two gallons made up in any proportion of the various drinks. Section 28 enables wine to be bottled in bond. It appears that a certain class of wine can be satisfactorily bottled in bond. To that extent there will be some advantage to wine dealers who have suffered in recent years as a result of the decline in consumption.

Section 29 is inserted because of the great increase of automatic machines for the sale of tobacco in boarding-houses and even in private houses where there may be people [1180] other than members of the family living. It has been found difficult so far to enforce payment of licence duty on these machines, for the sale of tobacco especially, and it is impossible to exercise the ordinary revenue supervision in regard to the goods sold. It is the duty of the Revenue Commissioners to see where anything purporting to be tobacco is being sold that it does not contain any adulterant which might reduce the consumption of the tobacco and also result in a loss to the Revenue. For instance, there might be an excess of moisture.

Sections 30 and 31 deal with a doubt which has lately risen in regard to the powers of the officers of the Revenue Commissioners actually to remove certain documents which they are entitled to inspect. In certain cases, in fact in most cases, it would be impossible to detect frauds or to conduct prosecutions if there were no powers to remove documents. That is particularly so in the case of betting transactions. If documents were asked for and partly examined, and then the officer found that he had to leave for the night, it may be taken for granted that any parts of the documents which were of an incriminating nature would not be found on the next day.

For the purpose of Customs prosecutions it is also necessary that the Revenue Commissioners should be able to retain documents which they are entitled to examine, retain them subject to certain safeguards which enable the person to whom the documents belong to inspect them or to obtain copies. Recent prosecutions have been successfully carried out in connection with Customs frauds which could not have been instituted at all unless there was power to remove the documents. As a matter of fact, documents in Customs cases have always been removed, but quite recently, while the matter was not actually raised in court, certain doubts have been thrown on the state of the law in the matter and it is thought necessary to make it [1181] perfectly clear. Section 33 continues the exemption of railway and other public utility companies from the Corporation Profits Tax. Section 34 makes provision for the accumulation of a fund to meet interest accruing in respect of Savings Certificates. Section 35 proposes to restore what was in practice the position up to last year. Solicitors who were on the register or who were apprentices before the 1st October, 1921, were entitled to practise in the Courts, both of the Saorstát and of Northern Ireland, and they were so permitted to practise until last year on the payment of one stamp duty. As the result of legal opinion given during the year, it was necessary for the Revenue Commissioners to insist that stamped certificates should be issued in the Saorstát as well as in Northern Ireland in the case of solicitors from Northern Ireland practising here. The result of that was that solicitors from the Saorstát practising in Northern Ireland also became liable to double stamp duty. It is proposed to restore by legislation what was, as I have said, the position and practice before last year.

Mr. Flinn: Are there reciprocal arrangements in those cases?

Mr. Blythe: This will be subject to reciprocal arrangement. Section 36 corrects a verbal error in the last Finance Act passed a month or so ago, where the words “debenture or” were left out before the words “debenture stock.” I think these are all the matters of any consequence that are dealt with in the Bill.

Mr. MacEntee: Before addressing myself more closely to the Bill which the Minister has introduced, I should like for a few minutes to refer to the debate on the General Finance Resolution, Resolution No. 5, which took place on the 25th April last. In the course of that debate and arising out of the Minister's financial statement, I had occasion to refer to the fact that the yield from stamp duties, which in 1925-26 had been £506,888, had fallen in 1927-28 to £480,901, and last year to £474,000. I pointed out [1182] to the Minister that stamp duties were generally accepted as economic barometers indicating the general tendency and state of trade, that when the yield from them, other things being equal, was high, trade was good; and when the yield was correspondingly low, trade was bad. I directed the attention of the Minister to the fact that stamp duties were giving a diminishing return, and I tried to impress on him the grave significance of these symptoms of economic distress. The Minister, in dealing with that particular aspect of my speech, said, in column 998, Volume 29, of the Official Debates: “Then in certain dealings in stocks there might be a fall in revenue as a result of prices, which would not indicate any likelihood of a decline in revenue generally.” I should like to consider last year's returns from stamp duties in the light of that statement. I think it is quite in order to do so on a Bill which proposes to continue these stamp duties in operation. I agree with the Minister that one of the elements in stamp duty returns which varies most widely is the amount collected in respect of dealings in stocks, shares and debentures. On looking up the Revenue Commissioners' Report, I find in that that in 1924-25, out of a total of £483,000, the amount received in respect of such dealings was £91,098. In the following year, the return was increased to £506,000 and the amount received in respect of dealings in stocks and shares increased to £108,783. In 1926-27, when the returns from stamp duties diminished, the amount received in respect of dealings in stocks and shares fell to £91,046.

I have not the classification of the net receipts for later years and I am not in a position to say how much was received in 1927-28 and 1928-29, respectively, under the same heads. We may presume that in these years the returns under these heads followed the trend of general returns and were less in 1928-29 than in 1925-26. In the light of the Minister's statement I would like him to consider what has been occurring on the Stock Markets since 1925-26. They have been increasingly active. [1183] Values have been continuously inflating and up to a short time ago, when it became clear that there was going to be a change of Government in England, prices were continually rising. All the financial journals informed us that as far as Great Britain, and possibly this country, is concerned we have passed through a minor boom on the Stock Exchange. As proof of that I would like to state the index number of the market value of securities as computed for and published in the “Bankers' Magazine.” It is based on 365 securities which had a normal value of 66,834 million pounds in 1920 for which year the index is taken as 100. According to this table the index number of market value for securities giving a fixed yield of interest, such as Government and municipal stocks, debenture and preference shares, was 110.7 in 1925 and for securities giving a variable yield, ordinary industrial shares and stock, the index number was 127.6. In 1926 the index figure for securities with a fixed yield was 109.65 and in the case of securities giving a variable yield, 136.1. In 1927 the index number for securities giving a fixed yield was 110.65 and for securities with a variable yield was 144.2. In 1928 the figure for securities with a fixed yield was 112.33 and for those giving a variable yield 155.64. It is quite clear from those figures and the statement I have made that the whole trend of security values since 1925 has been an upward one and the market during that period has been growing busier and busier. If the Minister's contention that the return from stamp duties may be influenced by the course of the Stock Market be valid, and I am prepared to accept it as such, how should the stamp duties have re-acted to market conditions since 1925? The stamp duties are, in general, on an ad valorem basis.

Accordingly, since the value of securities in general appreciated by 11 per cent. since 1925 and industrial securities in particular have appreciated by over 22 per cent. in that period, the amount paid in respect [1184] of each conveyance or transfer of stock in 1928 should have been higher than in 1925. Similarly, since the volume of business done in 1928, as represented by the number of transactions, was greater than in 1925, the increased duties should have been payable on an increased number of documents. Therefore, unless some other circumstances intervened, the return from stamp duties ought to have been much greater in 1928 than in 1925, but, as the members of the House can see by referring to the published return, so far from there being a greater return from stamp duties, the return has been very much less than in 1925. As to why it is less, I am not in a position to do more than hazard a guess. But I think the explanation possibly may be that as more and more securities came to be realised, under the inducement of the rising market, the cash, including both capital and profits thus secured, was not re-invested, but was used to discharge pressing liabilities abroad. Hence, it did not enter the investment market again in this country, and therefore it did not, as by its recurring re-entrance after each transaction it would have done, contribute to the full extent of its potentiality to the stamp duties.

In this connection, I may refer to a discussion which took place in the Press on the question recently as to the manner in which the yearly adverse balance of trade was adjusted. In the course of that discussion I think it was admitted by both parties to it that we had at the present moment, after making every adjustment for invisible exports and imports, an adverse trade balance of something over 4½ millions. It was suggested that this adverse trade balance had been adjusted by the realisation of our foreign investments. Now, a study of the returns from the stamp duties certainly confirms that, and I think in no way justifies the optimism of the Minister for Finance as to present conditions or the prospects of trade in this country. If the contention be true that the balance of trade is against us, this country is only succeeding in paying its way by realising its investments [1185] abroad. Unless the capital set free by such realisation is re-invested at home a diminution in the national income and a decrease in the purchasing power of the nation abroad must inevitably follow. Accordingly, a careful study of the analyses of estates subject to estate duty does not warrant the belief that there has been any considerable increase since 1925 in the capital invested in Irish enterprises.

I think the experience of those who in the same period have made issues of stocks or shares in such enterprises would confirm that view. Even as regards those stocks which have been issued under Government auspices, where every attraction both as to yield and the security of the investment, was offered to the investor I do not think that a single one could be described as being a successful issue. We may assume therefore that if any investments abroad have been realised the proceeds have not been re-invested in this country and the question remains then: have they been re-invested abroad? If they were re-invested abroad the purchasing power abroad of our community should remain undiminished and our total trade maintain itself at its former level, but the facts as disclosed by the figures recently issued by the Director of Statistics do not support that view. They show on the other hand a very marked shrinkage in our total trade since 1924. In 1924, the total trade, import and export, of this country, amounted to £120,475,000. In 1925, it was £107,331,000, and in 1927 it was £105,676,000. In 1928 it was £106,157,000. It is quite clear from that that our trade is not expanding. It has contracted since 1924. It is true, of course, and has on occasions been advanced in justification for continuing the present Government, that the visible adverse trade balance has grown less. I am convinced that it has grown less, not so much because we are selling more than we were before as because we are unable to buy as much as we were before. The fact that we have been realising our investments [1186] abroad has meant that the interest which those investments produced and which was added to the national income has been lost. Our income has been decreasing and consequently our purchasing power has diminished in the same ratio. I hold that one of the principal reasons why we are not able to purchase so much is that out of every 20/- produced or earned in this country, the domestic tax-gatherer takes 5/-, and possibly 6/-. In addition, out of the balance we collect and pay away another shilling to the outsider. That is the situation that has got to be faced by every Deputy in the House, no matter on what side he sits. It must be faced frankly and it should be faced irrespective of party. It must be faced, because it cannot be allowed to continue if the country is to prosper.

The adverse trade balance must be redressed, not by reducing the people's power, if free, to purchase abroad, but by restricting their opportunities to do so. There must be, I am certain, an intensification of the present tariff policy. At the present moment we have coming into the country most luxurious motor cars. They can hardly be held to be a necessity for trade or commerce. We have coming in expensive dress materials. I do not think any person will contend that they are essential to life. We have expensive prints, gold and silverware, diamonds of all sorts, and all sorts of fripperies, the expenditure on which is the merest waste. I certainly feel that opportunity should be taken, in the present financial condition of the country, to restrict expenditure on articles of this kind. At the present time there is a definite limit on luxury expenditure in another country, Italy, where the head of the State was faced with a state of affairs very similar to that which we are experiencing now. I think that if the Minister for Finance was at all awake to the interest of the present situation he would not allow the opportunity offered of the introduction of this Finance Bill to go without taking advantage, as I said, to restrict the wasteful expenditure [1187] upon luxury articles of that kind. As well as that, we have got to do more if we are at all to recover our former economic position. Not only must we reduce the opportunity of people to purchase abroad, but at the same time the power of the people to purchase, whether at home or abroad, must be permitted to increase by reducing the general burden of taxation so that they may be able to save more and, by their savings, repair the wastage of past years. I feel that one of the failures of the present Administration has been that there has been no attempt to secure economic administration. It is an extraordinary condition of affairs that in a country such as ours, dependent entirely upon agriculture, the cost of maintaining, on an average, one member of the Civic Guard, or one member of the Army, is four times the average wage paid to an agricultural labourer in this country. So that one Civic Guard, if we could dispense with his services, would enable four agricultural labourers to maintain the same standard of living as they have to subsist on to-day. Yet the Civic Guards toil not, neither do they spin; neither they nor the Army are producers of wealth. They are consumers of wealth, and they get, that is the anomaly, four times as much to maintain them as the primary, fundamental producer in this country receives as his ordinary yearly wage.

Again, we have the case of other officers who can be very well dispensed with. I wish to guard myself now against misunderstanding or misquotation, but I make the argument that the Governor-General at present receives £32,000 which is enough to maintain on the present standard 640 families in rural Ireland. I do not wish to be taken as at all justifying the fact that these families have to live on this standard. I am taking things as they are and instituting a comparison between things as they are. Yet that functionary receives as much for the upkeep of his office as 640 rural families have to live on. So [1188] far as I can see he serves no useful purpose and discharges no function in this State. Some people up to recently were under the impression that he existed as a personage——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy is wandering a long way from this Bill.

Mr. MacEntee: No.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy can discuss all that on the Estimate when it comes on.

Mr. MacEntee: I think I am perfectly relevant. I am discussing money which is going to be spent and I think I am entitled to indicate at least some of the money which might be saved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy is reading a great deal into this Bill.

Mr. MacEntee: I was going to say that he existed as a personage at which some people might sing “God Save the King.”

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy has been told he is irrelevant.

Mr. MacEntee: I think I am under as grave a misapprehension as the people were who wished to sing “God Save the King.” I leave the Governor-General to his friends in Trinity College.

Mr. Moore: They are not here.

Mr. MacEntee: I had just now compared the amount spent on a certain personage with the amount of money large families in rural Ireland had to maintain themselves. I was arguing that there should be some attempt made to reduce expenditure and therefore to reduce the amount of money to be provided by the measures which are incorporated in this Bill, but I wish to make one point quite clear. That is, I do not feel that these economies should be secured at the cost of reducing further the standard of living amongst the general mass of our people. I would like to emphasise that because I believe any further deterioration in the condition under [1189] which the workers and small farmers of the country generally have to live, will inevitably result in an increase in the rate of emigration and the loss of wealth in the form of warm and virile flesh and blood in which we can least afford to lose it. In all our policies we have to remember that far-off lands with their golden opportunities call continuously to the young, strong, and adventurous amongst our people and that for our own salvation as a people we must do everything we can to help them to resist that call.

It may be said when I am talking on these lines, and arguing that there should be a reduction in expenditure and at the same time stating that the social services must be maintained at at least their present standard, that I am stating a problem which is going to be a very difficult one to face. It is a vital problem for this nation. We have to maintain our population, and we cannot do it until at least we make life as attractive in Ireland as it is elsewhere, and we have got at the same time, to enable our people to repair the economic wastage of the past years. If we are going to do that, particularly if we are going to secure an economy, there must be a drastic reduction in expenditure upon everything that is not absolutely justifiable.

I have referred to the Army and the Civic Guard. I feel economies may be made in these two services. I feel we can do with less mercenary soldiers and a considerably lesser number of Civic Guards. We will find that does not mean, say, that we are going to disemploy them. I hope in the improved conditions that we will find other offices or employment for them, but they must be reduced; and as well as that, I believe from things I have heard, and from what has come under my own personal notice, that if a resolute attempt was made to deal with expenditure in Government offices and with the wastage that goes on, that at least another million might be saved. The unfortunate thing is that the Government do not seem to [1190] take that view. They tell us that everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds, and that we have the best of all possible worlds and must be content. Mr. Blythe, with a golden whip costing the people£20,000,000, is driving our young men and women into exile, and he is not disposed at all to listen to those who are asking for a drastic reduction in the expenditure in Government Departments.

Again, the Minister for Agriculture stands, as usual, for the policy of the open port. That policy is written boldly into this Bill. The flood of foreign manufactures is to pour into this country unimpeded and uncontrolled to drive our workers out of Ireland to find their livelihood in lands across the sea. I know of one particular instance— it has happened during the past months—where the leading factory in one of the oldest established industries in Ireland has closed down. Those engaged in that industry have been petitioning for a tariff to protect themselves for the last two years, I think eighteen months, at any rate, and so far the Tariff Commission has been unable to give a decision upon the case. In the meantime, as I have said, the largest, the best equipped, the foremost and the most enterprising works with the most enterprising management in that particular industry have had to close down, and most of the men who found a living and were able to rear their families in an Irish country town have transferred to England.

You have practically every single old-established industry faced with foreign competition. They have not been able to maintain themselves. They have a right, I think, to ask that the Government of the Free State should come to their assistance, as the Government of any other country would come to their assistance if their lot was so happy as to be cast in another country. There is another point that I would like to refer to, because I think it has something to do with this Bill; that is, the extraordinary position disclosed by the [1191] Minister in his reply to a question relating to the repatriation of the British coinage from this country. The Minister, in his Budget speech, informed the Dáil that in framing the proposals which are now incorporated in this Bill he has taken into account the amount which, under a recent agreement, he was to receive this year from the British Government in respect of the British coins repatriated from this country. According to a reliable estimate, the total face value of the British coins now in circulation in this country and put into circulation here by the British authorities is not less than £1,500,000. As I have said, the coins were put into circulation here by the British authorities. I do not think they were issued by the Currency Commission and I do not think they were issued by a Department or agency of our Executive Council. Yet the British Government has absolutely refused to redeem those coins at their face value. Every single penny piece or shilling that came into this country came in exchange for some article of value exported from this country and the British authorities refused to honour the bond which was implied when the head of their King was stamped upon that coin, that when it was presented particularly by a citizen of another State it would be duly honoured by them at its face value.

When the British Chancellor of the Exchequer was guilty of that act of international dishonesty and dishonour the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Justice did not cry “repudiation” or charge Mr. Churchill with embezzlement, and I am certain the Minister for Agriculture did not cite the Seventh Commandment to reprove him. Mr. Churchill's decision was taken mutely and meekly by the Government and the Government Party without even one “cuss” word from Deputy Gorey. What is the extraordinary position which we now find? We find that Mr. Churchill has not even kept his word in respect of this latter bargain. Under the agreement he was to have redeemed [1192] coins to the face value of £250,000 by April last. Now, however, we find that the face value of the coins redeemed to date is only £77,000. The British repudiate what is clearly their liability. When a comparatively small sum of money is involved the British Minister of that Crown and King which, we are told, must be sacrosanct here, without scruple, repudiates and dishonours that Crown and King. And yet, as I have said, it has all been taken mutely and meekly by the Minister for Finance. When we were young we often heard of the bird that could be caught by putting a little salt on its tail. I believe that particular bird is very rare and is seldom to be found. I, at any rate, have never seen it, but I think we have in charge of the finances of the State something even rarer, a Minister who is always captured by a little sugar on the tongue of a British politician. A few soft words from Mr. Winston Churchill, a few soft words from Mr. Lloyd George, and they agree to the boundary settlement; they agree to the settlement over the British coinage, and while they quite calmly and mutely acquiesce in a case in which a British Minister repudiates what is clearly a liability of the British State they continue to pay away out of this country each year over £3,000,000 which, legally, at any rate, we contend is not justly due.

And when, in the interests of the nation, a party arise and, basing their arguments upon the legal documents in the case, ask that that money shall be retained here, the Minister for Finance, who is mute before Mr. Winston Churchill, and the Minister for Agriculture, who is also silent, charge us with being embezzlers and cites to us the Seventh Commandment. They tell us we are compelled to pay this money by the law of God. As long as the finances of this country remain in charge of a Government so spiritless as the Government which now sits upon the Front Bench opposite, so long as it is in charge of a Minister who is content to take the easy course—come day go day and [1193] God send Sunday—there is going to be no hope and no future for this State. It does not matter what temporary or passing victories they may secure by means of a partisan Press. Ultimately the people of this country will be reduced to such a pitch of desperation that they will rise in their anger and clear the whole of them out.

Mr. M. O'Reilly: The Minister for Finance has an enormous amount of control over what is, perhaps, the most important question in this country, and that is the question of industry. We find on the question of land and the produce of land that it is at times impossible to get anything more than the cost of production, and at times that that itself is even impossible. I believe that there is one thing necessary in this country as a preliminary step in order to relieve that position, and it is the creation of industry, for, as I said on previous occasions, the powers that existed in this country previously were wise for themselves. The Chancellors of Exchequers in those days knew that their country was an industrial country, that it lived on industry. They cared little for the produce of land, and they found, being an industrial country, that their true policy should be, as far as this country was concerned, to deprive it of all its industries and, therefore, create consumers for their industries. They were perfectly wise.

We find on going back in history that any little industry we had they allowed to survive, provided that it had, to a certain extent, an effect on our industrial future or on our industrial education. The potato was first introduced into this country along with the tobacco plant. One would have imagined that the British Government would then have destroyed, through taxation, the potato crop, just as they destroyed the tobacco industry. But no, they were wise there again. They decided that there was, to a certain extent, an industrial future in tobacco growing. Therefore, having an industrial future in it, they destroyed it and allowed [1194] potato growing. It is curious to note that in those days the one portion of Ireland that remained industrial had for its main food corn and corn products—that was the North of Ireland. Southern Ireland existed wholesale on potatoes mixed with buttermilk. There is a certain atmosphere round the cultivation of the potato crop that is not industrial. We find that once the potato is dug the only process of manufacture it goes through is boiling or frying. We find that corn has to go through a certain manufacturing process, such as milling and other re-handling, and thus gives employment and creates a good deal of industry. You will find that people reared on the potato are generally people of great exclusiveness and, perhaps, with little initiative. In times of depression there is no necessity or no reason why they should mix with their fellowmen. The soil produces as much food as they require and they do not need more and there they remain. That has been the position in this country in the past.

As I said, you found the British Government, when free trade was introduced, making a determined effort to develop their industries— to see that their industries should give as much employment as possible. They killed their agricultural industry in England in those days, but you find that they have been intelligent enough, and quick enough to repent, and now they are taxing the industrial branch in order to recompense, to a certain extent, the agricultural element. Here they do not seem to have made any effort to do that, because we find that at the present time there is 60 per cent. more arable land in this country than in Denmark, and that we actually use or plough one-third less. We have, since the Union, been turned into a live-stock production country. That was again, to a large extent, caused through the action of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer, because we find that in live-stock rearing there is not at all the expenditure or the utilisation of capital that there would be in this [1195] country if we were an agricultural country. There are no houses necessary for live-stock, or barns or machinery of any description, with the result that it is more or less on a parallel with the potato crop. There is practically no cost of production, no expenditure on stock.

It is true that unsettled times and conditions have had their effect on those industries as well. For instance, potatoes could be hidden in the ground and soldiers, yeomen and robbers of different descriptions would find it difficult to find them. Live-stock could have been driven away, while corn could, with great difficulty, have been removed. There may have been other reasons. At any rate, we find that the Irish Parliament, about the time of Foster's corn laws, were inclined to change the position, and they believed that an agricultural future would be more suitable for this country. In order to bring that about certain proposals were made for the transmission of corn to the coast towns. Wheat in the raw state was allowed something like 6d. per ton per mile as an assistance to freightage; oats something like 3d., and flour 1/-. We find that the numerous mills, now derelict and ruined, which excite so much curiosity in the passerby, were erected in those days. That is another proof of how an industry can be helped and assisted by a sympathetic Minister for Agriculture.

We find later on Foster's corn laws introduced which had a most extraordinary effect on the agricultural position in Ireland. You found that corn production became an economic industry. You found that outside the consideration of protection even, they could have produced that wheat and corn at a most profitable price. But, in order to make it more profitable, you had the Foster corn laws introduced which left that industry in a strong position. If men in those days could have made these attempts I do not see any reason why the Minister [1196] for Finance to-day could not make some attempt—and no attempt has been made—to give encouragement to an industry that would give a large amount of employment, that is an intensive industry, that could educate farmers to a high pitch and that would employ their own sons and daughters. It is an industry with a tradition, and it is an industry on which we have spent a good deal of money. The industry to which I refer is the tobacco industry. We had, some time ago, a Commission set up to enquire into the question of tobacco-growing here. The report of that Commission got very little sympathy when it reached the Dáil. In fact, as far as I can find out, the Minister for Finance did not think it necessary to debate the point in the Dáil or ask Deputies to come to any decision on the point. He came to a decision himself, and evidently the decision was that it was impossible to grow tobacco in Ireland.

Mr. Blythe: The matter was debated at a later date in the Dáil and, I think, voted upon.

Mr. O'Reilly: At any rate, the Committee recommended that “the duty on Irish tobacco be reduced from 6/8 (or five-sixths of the full excise duty) to 5/- (or five-eighths) as compared with 8/2 Customs duty payable on foreign leaf. The Committee are satisfied that such reduction would secure a market which at present does not exist for homegrown tobacco, at an average price of about 1/6 per lb., and would make it possible for Irish manufacturers to provide the consumer with a cheap blend, which, if composed of 50 per cent. Irish, could eventually be sold at a reduction of 1d. per oz. on present retail prices, or, if only 25 per cent. Irish were used, at a reduction of ½d.”

That was the report of a Commission set up by this House. Whether that Commission was set up by the House with the intention of giving effect to its conclusion, or whether it was set up simply to sidetrack the question, I do not know. But certainly the question was sidetracked. [1197] Statements were made broadly, as well as I remember, by the Minister for Finance that the subsidy would be too much and more than the taxpayer could bear. But as far as that point is concerned it may be left to a future date to discuss. In any case there was very little consideration given to an industry which has had such a past, and which showed that it had such a future. We read about the position of the tobacco industry at the time of its suppression about 1830.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Can the Deputy state if the report of the Commission was brought before the Dáil and discussed by the House?

Mr. Blythe: It was.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Because if a decision was come to by the House the Deputy would not be in order in raising it now.

Mr. O'Reilly: As far as I know a decision was come to by the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Then the Deputy would not be in order in raising it in this fashion.

Mr. O'Reilly: I am not to debate the decision of the House about the Committee, but I am in a position to raise the question of tobacco growing as an agricultural industry!

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The point is that the matter was brought before the House, as I understand the Deputy, and a decision was come to on the question of the tobacco industry by the House and therefore it cannot now be raised or debated on this Bill. The Deputy will have to come at it in a more direct way. I am not suggesting that he cannot raise it and speak upon it on another occasion, but he cannot do so in the fashion that he is now doing it.

Mr. Flinn: In the Finance Bill would it not be possible for the Minister to make other provision for the growing of tobacco, and upon that assumption would not the Deputy be in order?

[1198] An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: That is so, if a decision was not come to by the House already.

Mr. Flinn: This being a new Bill, the Minister could have introduced into it another provision which the House could then accept.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: I am afraid the Deputy's point does not alter the decision.

Mr. O'Reilly: I am allowed to discuss agriculture and the general position of agriculture in this country?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: Quite.

Mr. O'Reilly: The present position of land tenure in Ireland is a peculiar one. Since the 1923 Land Act we have to a certain extent appointed a number of managers of small farms of land of different sizes. They are practically managers with a few little advantages. If there is any surplus profit they may pocket it, and they are allowed to will the land. I dare say that much was left because if they were not allowed to will the land they would be entitled to pensions. But there are certain things that farmers can produce on land which they are not allowed to produce. There are certain restrictions—import duties and different fiscal arrangements that prevent them from producing these commodities, economically and in order to prevent them producing this particular commodity they are told (1) that these commodities only belong by right to tropical countries; (2) that it would rob the taxpayer, and (3) that it is a complete impossibility. Now this agricultural industry to which I refer, that is, the growing of tobacco leaf, has had a wonderful past. It is only practically a hundred years ago since this particular industry was in being, and tobacco was grown the same as we grow turnips.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy is getting off the rails again.

Mr. O'Reilly: At any rate, I submit it is unfair for a farmer not to be [1199] allowed to grow what he thought was profitable on his land considering that the Government have such power over him and his land. They have actually more power to collect his rent than previous landlords had, and still he has no liberty when a particular form of industry could be followed which would bring him benefit, but perhaps might compel the Minister for Finance to think a little more and to change the incidence of taxation. That is only one out of many industries that are affected in this way. I am aware that difficulties exist and that these difficulties were not perhaps put there by members of the present Government, that they were inherited, but I believe that these difficulties could be wiped away. I believe they do not belong and should not be attached to any Government that exists in this country. I do not believe that any industry that we could hope to cultivate successfully should be prevented because of any such thing as taxation. We find according to the present system of taxation, especially as far as tobacco is concerned, that in the West of Ireland, in the Gaeltacht about which we have heard so much sympathetic talk in this Dáil, the individual is the heaviest taxed man in this country, that he pays more taxes than big industrialists in Dublin, and that he has so much less wherewith to pay. Tobacco is no longer a luxury to him; it is a necessity. He has little to eat and to amuse him, and I think it would be only just and fair that the State should consider his position. If he smokes ordinary common or Kentucky tobacco it is not at all sound or healthy for him, and it will cost him about £5 a year, while his income is generally about £6 a year. Take the position of the agricultural labourer; he is engaged on production, and he is the heaviest taxed man who pays that tax except the farmer. I shall be told that that amount of money has to be collected. But it is not beyond the wit of the Revenue Department, who have a great deal of wit and a great deal of brains and are very clever men— [1200] they have wonderful nets through which they allow nothing to escape; they pick everything up—it ought not to be beyond the wit of those men to devise some system whereby the incidence of that taxation will not bear so heavily upon these men.

As long as we have a system that makes the poor poorer than they are, we are going to remain a poor nation. It is the number of poor we have to carry that tells. I believe they should get some consideration, and I believe the Minister for Finance should have considered their position. It is unfair to consider tobacco a luxury any longer; it has become a necessity and the use of it has become universal, especially since our sisters and wives and other people have taken to using the weed. The taxation that arises from that has greatly increased and it is a most unfair tax on production. Some consideration should be given to it from the point of view of its altered position. It was once a luxury, but to-day it is a necessity.

Mr. Flinn: I take it the question of whether the Minister will scrap A or B, or what he will do eventually, has to be left to the dim and distant future when he will envisage the perfect Bill and I take it that we will have the simplified code of income tax procedure, which has been spoken about, a few days after the Greek Kalends. The machine which we have in use at present would be well worthy of a futurist Heath Robinson. It certainly bears no relation to the actual necessities of the country. It is one of the very bad inheritances which we have got, and the sooner the Minister or his successor succeeds in finding time and opportunity to authorise some of that very accomplished staff—with which Deputy O'Reilly has been making friends in the interest of his next year's income tax assessment—to undertake the simplification of the income tax code, the better. I take it there is no use at the present moment in putting forward statistics and examples as to the lowness of [1201] the yield, the enormous number of assessments, and the difficulty and expense both to the Revenue Commissioners and the commercial community involved in some of those very unremunerative schedules.

I only hope the Minister will find the opportunity to do something towards simplification. For instance, he could take off some of the C.I.D. —I am speaking metaphorically— some of the third degree men, his ancient order of torturers, who are now having such good fun with the thumb-screws and all the rest of it in the country but who, unfortunately in my opinion, are doing a great deal more damage to the commercial position than they are doing benefit to themselves, and put them to this useful work. Perhaps he would be able to find the men who could do that. I will say, at any rate, that the torturers are very brainy men and I would very much prefer they would apply their brains and energy to something of a more useful character. There is one matter which I think the Minister might well have taken up and that is the lack of allowance which is given where industrialists use modernised methods and plant. For instance, if I turn from one type of gas heating to another type of gas heating, or if I turn from one gas engine to another type of gas engine, I get some allowance for the difference in the value of the plant. If I turn over from gas to electricity no allowance of the sort is made.

Mr. Gorey: The remark in reference to gas is not altogether inappropriate.

Mr. Flinn: I do not want to interrupt the Deputy's conversation in any way. I take it the Deputy is, for the moment, temporarily finished. I think when the Government has entered upon a scheme which the Minister puts down among his assets as worth £5,200,000—it is called the Shannon scheme—it is eminently desirable that everybody should be encouraged to use the power generated by that scheme when it comes. When the whole of the revenue which is going to be got from that scheme [1202] is to meet actual pre-existing commitments of the State, under that scheme, there is even a case for making an exception to the existing rules and actively encouraging those who will prefer electricity as distinct from some other form of power or some other form of heating or lighting. Personally, I do not like making special provision for special cases, but the Shannon scheme, as its liability will remain upon this country, is a very special case and I think the Government might very well consider before this Bill is completed whether a provision of this kind should not be made. I think in such circumstances an allowance should be made under the income tax rules for people who alter their plants along the lines I have suggested.

I have not yet had time to go into some of these provisions in detail. I would want to go into them carefully before I could understand them. Quite frankly, the number of the people in the House who read this measure, particularly from Section 8 to Section 20, and whose individual opinions on the matter would be of any great value is, I am sure, very few. These are questions which we will have to take up carefully and in detail with our advisers, and see whether the actual results of these provisions are going to be as good as their immediate object claims to be. As I read them, they are mostly means of getting more money for the Minister for Finance. A couple of them seemed to me to be ones which contain a certain amount of human recognition of the fact that that unfortunate beast of burden, the taxpayer, should get some consideration even from the Minister for Finance. We will deal with this in more detail in Committee Stage. We will hope to go into it more fully. I take it that Section 23, when it is discussed as an individual section, will raise a very considerable amount of controversy as to whether that is the particular way which the Minister for Finance should have adopted, and whether even now some variation in that particular method might [1203] not with advantage be adopted.

There is Section 25, which deals with duties upon mechanically-propelled vehicles. As one of those who has something to do with those vehicles I have no hesitation whatever in saying that the vehicles which are particularly meant in this case, like every other vehicle that uses the public road, must be prepared, first, without any question of taxation arising, to replace the whole of the damage they do to the road. I personally do not object in any way to the taxation of this particular type of vehicle. What I am concerned with all the time is that no logical basis, no basis in a logical and scientific way, for this taxation has been exposed to the House as being in the possession of the Minister. The defence may be that naturally the getting of that logical basis is a matter of time, and that it is difficult, but that in the meantime something must be done. There is a good deal to be said for that. You must have an empiric method before you can get a scientific method. But I would suggest a co-operation between the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Local Government, and have them get down to a scientific method of taxation.

I think the atmosphere of mind of the Minister, and possibly the mind of the House, is that they do intend to get a certain revenue from this type of vehicle. The question is whether, in getting that revenue, they will not consider those from whom they get it and see whether they cannot get the total revenue in a way which will produce less friction. At the present moment the position is that this taxation is levied as yearly taxation. The actual load upon the vehicles, as we know, varies very considerably from year to year, and a very considerable number of them are only temporarily in commission; and we know that, in addition to that, in relation to the individual vehicle that load is not a steady load at all. It ought be taken off; if it is not, it [1204] is left over, to the danger of the community and to the increase of the cost of transport. These vehicles should be definitely taken off the road every year for a definite period for overhauling. The suggestion made by those interested in this matter is—I am not speaking now for them, I am saying that that is a suggestion they put forward— that they should be allowed to pay that taxation in periods either monthly or tri-monthly at pro rata yearly rates in order to encourage the taking off of those cars for a reasonable period for overhaul. Personally, I think there is a lot to be said for that.

The Minister may say, “I want that total revenue, but I am not very particular how I get it. But I am prepared to consider your particular point of view so long as I do not get less revenue.” It may be necessary for the Minister if he reduces the period of the licence so that the car will be off the road, to add pro rata to the actual cost of the licence. Personally, I think he ought to meet that question definitely, on the point of view of reducing the period for which the licence can be got. I think whatever the charge for the period is for which they ought to be able to get the licence, the charge should be made out at a pro rata rate.

I have gone into the question to a certain extent, with certain suggestions that have been given to me and it does look at the moment that the effect of this particular method of fixing the charge for these particular vehicles will be to take the buses off the roads which are unprofitable but which are profitable to the community. I mean there are a lot of isolated districts with bad roads through which buses are passing where, possibly, they are damaging the roads, and the tendency seems to be that those portions of the country which are now only served by buses will, as a result of this, suffer through this particular taxation.

What I would suggest to the Minister is this, that in contact with [1205] the trade representatives or those who do know, there should be made a map of this country showing the routes which are likely to be affected to the extent of being interfered with by that taxation. I think the Minister may find that there is a social value question as distinct from a taxation value question involved in that particular issue. I cannot quite gather exactly whether there is any new gain to these Corporations here which are marked for a continuance of Corporation Profits Tax. I take it the status quo is continued for a time.

I am taking up now a couple of points which have been brought to me for consideration and for putting forward before the House. There are certain powers which the Revenue Commissioners have under these Acts of continuing certain penalties. I mean, as far as I understand it, there is a Revenue Commissioner's power which enables him to get a man arrested, put him into prison and leave him there pretty well until he wakes up and says he must come out. There seems to be technically at any rate, the power of perpetual imprisonment in the Revenue Commissioners. I saw a case made the other day in one of our own Government Courts in which a judge protested against having to give an order, with the implication which belonged to that order, for imprisonment under these circumstances at the behest of the Revenue Commissioners.

I certainly think that if that is one of the survivals of the old income tax procedure it is a survival whose abolition need not wait until the whole income tax procedure is remodelled.

I think it was Deputy O'Reilly who on a previous occasion put forward the doctrine that the best use of taxation which the Minister could make was to leave it in the pockets of those who produced it. I am very largely of that opinion, for a good deal of the taxation which is now taken out of the pockets of the taxpayers would be very much better left there. I [1206] think we could safely and wisely try to carry on with less enforcement services and things of that kind in relation to our industries. I think it would be a great deal better to do so. There was an idea some years ago, and I heard it very publicly and clearly expressed by a Minister, that the only people in this country who could use money properly in industry were the Government. He said that they were going to do everything. Personally, I do not hold with that view. I think the Government themselves are beginning to realise that there are very real limitations to their powers.

A great many things which Governments can do usefully with money and power in relation to trade are merely the necessary and essential backing up of people who are doing the thing themselves. I think that the Government might, to a large extent, leave a good many things in which they now interfere without knowledge to the people themselves. The total taxation of this country, in my opinion, is too high, and I am not putting that on any low ground of little economy. If we take the Government contention—and that must be their contention—that the existing industries of this country can continue to produce the amount of money now extracted without damage, then we can look at any money which is saved from preventable expenditure on the carrying out of existing services as money which is available for the provision of money for productive purposes. If the House will realise that one million of money saved is capable of letting loose at present forty millions at two and a half per cent., they will see what argument there is for working towards that particular object. If we spend all the money which we are now spending upon enforcement services of one kind or another, then we will not have the power of borrowing and of providing money for matters of that kind.

I think that twenty millions of money let loose on agriculture and [1207] industry would be infinitely more valuable from an employment point of view than any million of money which to-day is spent by the Government in its ordinary administration. It is not in any sense of hostility to the Civic Guards or Army men that I advocate saving along those lines. I believe that every Civic Guard and every soldier has brothers and sisters, fathers and mothers, friends and relatives, all over the country and it is not an isolated, distinct and segregated unit. The money which is now being wastefully spent on two services of that kind would if used for the purpose of developing industries be infinitely more beneficial to the men themselves in the Guards and in the Army than the present expenditure. The present position undoubtedly is that you cannot demobilise either the Army or the Guards because you have nothing to demobilise either the Army or the start to develop some industrial and agricultural pool into which we could demobilise them the better.

At present we are in a vicious circle. You are going to demobilise the Shannon men very shortly. I suppose there are five thousand of these men now and they are beginning to be scattered, but nothing has been done so far as I can see, to provide a pool into which even these men can be demobilised. Nothing can, or will, be done to my mind so long as existing production and industry are taxed up to the very last penny at which industry can maintain itself. So long as that is the system of taxation I do not think that you can do anything by which you could demobilise the Shannon men or the Army men or the surplus men in Government Departments. It is simply a question of eating your own tail. Taxation under this budget is too high. The method of expenditure of money is extravagant. That is my summing up of the Bill and of the mentality of those who framed it and who will administer it.

I think that we should realise that [1208] we are a poor country which cannot afford a whole lot of the luxury trappings of government, as distinct from the essentials of government. If the Government would change their outlook upon public order—I mean their professed outlook—and would try and introduce a feeling of kindliness and good-feeling, they could cut down by hundreds of thousands of pounds, without any difficulty, their enforcement services. I cannot see why they should not cut down these services, including the whole of the Army, the whole of the Civic Guard, and the whole of the Ministry of Justice Vote. It is a question of the way of looking at things. Until they want peace in this country and try to get it, the country will have to pay a heavy cost of insurance against disturbed conditions, for which, I am afraid, the Ministry have a good deal to blame themselves in creating.

Mr. Anthony: I would ask the Minister to consider the very serious position of the Irish distilling industry. The figures disclosed in the latest available returns go to show that there was imported into the Saorstát from January to March. 1928, approximately 19,000 proof gallons of spirit. On the basis of that figure it gives 76 proof gallons of whiskey imported by the end of the year. This spirit is 30 degrees under proof as measured by Sykes' hydrometer, a most correct and valuable instrument for measuring the specific gravity of this liquid. The statutory minimum strength, I understand, without declaration for home consumption, is 25 under proof. The great bulk of foreign spirit which is entering into competition with our own native distillation is submitted to a process which reduces its strength by means of an admixture of patent still. The Irish spirit, as we know, if reduced under proof to anything below twenty-five would assume a rather cloudy appearance, which would render it not so easily saleable as the imported article. These imports, as the Minister must be aware, come mainly from Scotland, and Scottish whiskey, coming [1209] in here practically protected by our system, is sold very much to the detriment of the Irish article.

I do not see any provision in the Bill that would enable the Irish distiller to compete, even on equal terms, with his Scotch competitors. There is, of course, involved in the whole question the matter of employment in the industry. The distilling industry gave very valuable and decent employment in this country for many years, and I suggest, owing to the laxity of the Department in not realising its full responsibility in this matter to the Irish people in general and to the distillers and those engaged in the industry in particular, it has allowed a state of affairs to exist which is to the detriment of our own people.

There is another phase of this question to which I would like to direct the Minister's attention. I find that in the Second Schedule of the Bill there are modifications of income tax in respect of profits or gains arising in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, but I would suggest that it should be a matter of consideration for the Executive or the Finance Department, to see how far we would be able to attract Irish capital back into our own country, that is, capital invested abroad. We do know that a good deal of securities are held by Irishmen in other countries, and some method should be devised to attract that capital back to our own country. At one time there was a little temerity or nervousness on the part of certain people to invest their money in Irish securities, and it was said that there was a want of stability. There was no indication from any Party in the State that we would have things so well stabilised as to induce a keen and hard-headed business man to keep his money at home or for that matter to attract foreign capital into the Saorstát. Happily since the advent of the Fianna Fáil Party to this Chamber these fears have been dispelled. For that reason I think that we should do something by way of inducement, and I would suggest that relief from tax should [1210] be given to Irish industrialists or capitalists who invest in Irish industry.

Whilst the Second Schedule provides for modifications in income tax in respect of profits or gains arising in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, we have nothing in the Bill that would suggest an inducement to Irish capitalists to invest their money at home. This is a matter that I think the Minister for Finance and the Executive Council should take into very serious consideration. There is a very good opening in this country in many avenues of industry and commerce for capital, be that capital Irish or foreign, and it would be a gesture, I feel sure, that would meet with the appreciation of every citizen in the State if, included in the next Finance Bill, we had a provision to that effect. There are a few matters upon which I intended to touch, but they have already been covered by other speakers. Therefore, I will content myself by making a further appeal to the Minister to do something by way of putting Irish distillers on an equal footing with their foreign competitors. I also feel sure that when he understands the whole position and appreciates it, he will be able to do something for this industry, which has been very badly hit during the past few years. Those of us who admit to sampling the distillations and brews of other countries know that you cannot beat the Irish product, pure potstill whiskey, in flavour, strength, or other attributes. It stands very high amongst those who indulge in spirits. It is a national industry, and it is an industry which I hope we will never lose. I do not want to see this industry penalised to the extent that it will be put out of existence, and I suggest that the Minister should take this matter into very serious consideration.

Mr. de Valera: There is one matter in particular to which I would like to draw attention. I suppose there is very little use in following Deputy Anthony on the matters which we have already raised on more than one occasion, namely, the [1211] question of seeing that, if we are going to drink whiskey in Ireland, it shall be Irish whiskey; and secondly, seeing that by preferential rates, or other inducements, capital at present being used to develop other countries, should be used to develop our own industries. There is a third point, which I do not think was dealt with just now, but it has been dealt with on more than one occasion, namely, the advisability of giving greater relief to a man with a small income and a family. I gave on the last occasion some figures to indicate the difference that exists between the amount of tax paid by such a person here and in Great Britain. A man with an income of £400 and having three children, has to pay a tax of £3 7s. 6d. in this country, whereas in Great Britain he pays nothing at all. In the case of a man having a salary of £500 and three children, he has to pay £10 2s. 6d. in this country and only £3 3s. 4d. in Great Britain. As I said, there seems to be very little use in pressing these matters on the Minister for Finance.

The matter to which I wished to draw the Minister's attention especially is the position of the coachbuilding industry. Most members of the House know, I am sure, that that is a very ancient industry and that it was well-established before the advent of the motor car. The coming of the motor car changed matters, and whilst some of the bigger firms tried to adapt themselves, a number of other firms could not do so. There is an immediate necessity for stopping the huge import of motor bodies, particularly in the case of buses. The import is not at the moment as heavy as during the rush period, but we have four or five well-established firms that are in imminent danger from the competition across the water.

The makers of the chassis naturally tried to get the bodies made in conjunction with them across the water. We have no chassis made here. Consequently the competition is so intense that unless action is taken by the Ministry, and the [1212] proper tax put on, which will prevent unfair competition, we are going to lose our coachbuilding industry. One of the five principal firms, I am told, will have to close down within a week or so if action is not taken. I understand an application was made as long as two years ago to the Tariff Commission. In that time all the facts of the situation should certainly be able to be put in this connection, and we should have had a report long before this. The present tax is purely nominal under the circumstances. In our opinion it is necessary, if this industry is to be saved, to put on what, in fact, would be a prohibitive tax. I am sorry the Minister is not here to tell us what is the attitude of the Ministry in respect to it. There is, I suppose, about £5,000,000 a year being drained out of this country in connection with motoring. That money should be saved for the country, and where we have had men of enterprise to equip their firms so as to meet the demand for the motor buses in particular I think we are not doing our duty by these people when we allow foreigners to come in and put them in a position in which they will have to give up business. At present I understand some of the other firms have got only occasional orders. The men are skilled men, and if they are let off work for a period they have to leave the country and find employment elsewhere. Each time a new order is put on hands there is the question of trying to reassemble the workers. As I say, we regard it as a very pressing matter, and I hope the Minister for Finance, when replying, will assure us that he is going to take immediate action upon it.

I do not think it is necessary to deal with the matter at any great length. In Australia they have built up, as a result of putting on a prohibitive tariff, one of the greatest coachbuilding works in the world, and I am informed that in many cases some of the chief workers were Irish. It seems strange that we should allow an industry like that to die out. It is not merely a question of the buses alone, and of bodies for the [1213] motors alone. There is also the question of the general coachbuilding industry. Horse-drawn vehicles have been dumped in here from other countries to such an extent that coachbuilders throughout the country, apart altogether from the five principal firms I am speaking of now, are being driven out of work. It is a matter which requires the urgent attention of the Executive and I hope that the Minister for Finance when replying will tell us that he intends to take immediate action upon it.

Mr. Briscoe: There are two or three matters I would like to draw the attention of the Ministry to. I tried before to raise the matter in connection with bookmakers, and I was advised I could raise it in this particular Bill. I do not believe that the taxpayers generally in this country are anxious to have the situation, at present existing, in connection with the collection of tax. As far as I can make out under the Betting Act of 1926 there are two classes of bookmakers, one who enjoys the credit of the State and is entitled to pay duty on his bets on a credit basis and whose books are examined and checked. There is also a smaller class of bookmaker who does not enjoy that credit with the result that he has to proceed to the Customs house and buy a sheet for which he pays 2/6d. That enables him to place on the sheet particulars of bets the duty on which would amount to 2/6d. In some cases the amount of bets recorded on a particular sheet will exceed the nominal amount of the sheet and the custom has grown up in dealing with that particular situation to permit the bookmaker to pay the difference as between 2/6d. and the actual amount of the duty on the bets recorded on that sheet.

The difficulty arises after you leave that point. Bookmakers are supposed to return those sheets within fourteen days after they get them. I do not know the difficulties of these particular gentlemen, but in several cases bookmakers do not return their sheets within the prescribed time, and when the [1214] Revenue Commissioners go after them they discover that they owe £20, £30, and as high as £50 on duty over and above the 2/6d. on each sheet. The regulations, which are controlled by the Revenue Commissioners, enable the Revenue Commissioners to take those men to court, and the penalties inflicted are absolutely out of proportion altogether with the crimes committed. The justices in the courts have no option, but must inflict the penalties prescribed.

I have particulars of one case before me. I have a question down to which I will not get an answer until next week, asking how many bookmakers are in prison and how many are on the run, body warrants having been issued against them. Here is the case of a man who fell into arrears amounting to something near £50. He was brought before a District Justice and fined £500 which was subsequently mitigated to £125. He wrote to the Revenue Commissioners what I considered under the circumstances a fairly reasonable letter stating: “As you are probably aware I have been summoned before the District Court for over-holding of a tax paid sheet and fined £125. In addition, I owe your Commissioners a fairly large sum for Betting Duty (£55). The fact is that at the present time I am absolutely unable to meet this liability, and I respectfully request that you place the matter before the Commissioners with a view to having the penalty mitigated and to allow me some time to pay the amount they may fix by instalments.

“I have a very large family, most of them helpless—seven of them range from four to fifteen years of age. I have no intention of defrauding your Commissioners and I am firmly resolved to clear the matter up if they consent to make conditions possible for me. Should they do so a relation of mine has given me £15 to pay a first instalment.”

The answer he got back from the Revenue Commissioners states: “I am directed by the Revenue Commissioners to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 14th [1215] instant and to state, in reply, that they are not prepared to consent to any further mitigation of the penalty, amounting to £125, imposed on you on the 5th idem at the District Court, Dublin, for contravention of the Betting Duty Regulations, 1926.” This man could not pay that money. He offered to pay it by instalments, but his offer was not accepted. At the present time he is in Mountjoy Jail. He is the father of 20 children, and is in Mountjoy because he cannot meet the demands of the Revenue Commissioners.

Mr. Shaw: He ought to get the Victoria Cross.

Mr. Briscoe: He should get some recognition from the State for having increased the population to the extent he did. The fact remains that because he overholds he is treated in this manner and it is made impossible for him to meet this obligation. He is thrown into gaol and his wife and children are at the mercy of neighbours and friends. At the same time the taxpayer is paying for his upkeep. I do not believe the Revenue Commissioners will ever get anything from him, and how long they are going to keep him is another question. He may be kept three months. He is a man of 65 years of age. There are other men in a similar position and there are men, as I said, who have left the country altogether because they could not meet their obligations in that way and body warrants were issued against them. I do not believe that the citizens of the State would approve of this kind of administration by the Revenue Commissioners, and I would ask that the Minister would instruct the Revenue Commissioners to be a little bit more reasonable.

I have particulars of another case here which was reported in the Press headed “Bookmakers Fined.” I quote it to show the ridiculous position when it comes to a comparison between the fine and the penalty. I will not mention the man's name. He was fined £500, mitigated to [1216] £125, for having neglected to pay duty in respect of a bet of 2s. 6d. Mr. Cussen said that he accepted the defendant's explanation that the matter was a genuine mistake and he would recommend that the fine be further mitigated to £5. He can only recommend. Here is the case where a man omitted to pay duty on 2s. 6d. The amount that would come to the State in respect of that particular bet would be less than a halfpenny. Yet the Revenue Commissioners bring the man to court at big expense and he is fined £500, mitigated to £125. What the further recommendation has come to I do not know, but certainly it would appear to be a rather stringent attitude to adopt towards people.

As I said before, I am not in a position to go into the matter as I would like to because I had hoped that this particular debate would not start until next week, and I hoped by that time to have the information I asked for. If the Minister would look into the matter and see how many men he has in jail in similar circumstances and come to some terms to collect the debt by instalments I would be very glad.

Another matter to which I would like to refer is this: I understand that under the 1926 Agreement between the Ministry and England it was agreed that firms registered in England and operating in the Saorstát would be permitted to pay their income tax to the English Revenue Authorities. As a quid pro quo it was agreed that persons domiciled in England but having residences in the Irish Free State would pay income tax in the Irish Free State, provided they remained for a single period of 24 hours in any particular year in Free State territory. That particular rule was applied only to very big taxpayers. I only refer to it because I do not believe it is a fair position to have the Ministry in. I can easily visualise people who might have a very big income tax contribution saying: “Very well; we cannot come to terms.” or if something happens which they do [1217] not like saying: “We are not going to come over to Ireland for 24 hours in any particular year, so that you cannot collect income tax off us.” I would like to know if I understand that matter correctly, and if it is as I stated I would like to know if the Minister could see any way of altering it, because it is unfair to the Ministry. These people can say “If it does not suit us we will not come to your country and you cannot collect income tax off us.”

Some time ago the late Deputy Holt asked the Minister if he could see his way to bring into force a recommendation that existed some time ago in connection with old motor cars. It was suggested at one time that cars of a certain age—five, six, ten or whatever it was—would not bear the same tax as was imposed on new cars of the same horse power. I understand that there are numbers of these cars all over the country which could be brought into use. It would save the purchase of new cars if they could be put on the road. Perhaps the Minister would look into that also and see if he could bring that regulation into being. I know it was mooted at one time.

There is another matter that I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to. I understand it is having the attention of the Attorney-General at the present time. The Customs and Excise authorities, in collecting the tax on dutiable goods coming in at the port, seem to have rules that suit themselves and that are not equitable as far as the traders are concerned. When a tariff was recently put on cloth a certain cloth was exempt up to 1/6 per square yard. Anything over that was dutiable. Certain traders in Dublin had cloth arriving about the time that that law was made, and because an entry had been made for those goods on the day the duty was introduced those goods became liable to duty. A short time afterwards the Minister altered the Act. He allowed cloth of a higher value in free. The same traders thought when they made an entry on or after that date the second lot of goods [1218] would be allowed in free in view of the first ruling. But they found that the Customs and Excise authorities were going to have it both ways. I understand that this matter is having attention. If not, I hope it will.

Another thing that I would like to refer to is this. In connection with the old Dáil Loan subscriptions certain people have sent in receipts for their original subscriptions.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy can raise that matter on the Estimate.

Mr. Briscoe: I can put it this way.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle: The Deputy should put it on the Estimate rather than on this Bill.

Mr. Briscoe: The methods of the Ministry of Finance seem to be very peculiar, because unless according to their registers and records something is accessible and noted it has no standing. The fact of a man having a receipt does not seem to concern them. That seems to be rather a pity, because it affects usually people who are not so well off and to whom a small amount of money is quite a big thing.

I am particularly anxious that the Minister should look into the situation that confronts the whole bookmaking confraternity. We do not know how long this situation will last or what difference will be made by the recommendations of the Committee that recently inquired into the matter, but I think the Revenue Commissioners should not have the power to dictate to the court the penalties to be imposed on people for overholding the tax, and they should not have power to keep people in custody for any time it pleases them. I think it is going to take us back to the time we read of in the “Tatler” and “Spectator” when gentlemen were kept in Newgate Prison until their friends came to their aid. It seems rather peculiar that such a thing should be tolerated at the present time. I know from what I heard [1219] from citizens of Dublin anyway that they certainly do not believe that is the proper way to go about things. I hope the Minister will look into the matter and make it possible for the Revenue Commissioners to accept instalments from these people, and, at the same time, prevent men from getting into default by being more stringent in the giving of sheets to them.

Mr. Shaw: The question raised by Deputy Briscoe in connection with these bookmakers who are in Mountjoy at present has been dealt with at length by the Betting Committee, and I feel sure that the difficulties will be removed by the new Bill. I am in complete agreement with what Deputy Briscoe has said on the matter. I shall tell a story which will illustrate the position better than any statement I could make. Recently, in the Dublin police courts a bookmaker was brought up for some offence and fined £500, mitigated to £125. At the conclusion of the case the bookmaker and his friends adjourned to the nearest licensed premises and the bookmaker asked his friends what they would have. One of them said he would have a glass of whiskey. The bookmaker replied: “Oh, no, not with me; I could not afford to treat you to anything so expensive.” Then the friend replied: “Very well, mitigate it to a glass of stout.” That illustration shows how absurd it is to fine persons £500 who have not £2 in the world. I understand that there is a large number of these people in Mountjoy at present, and so far as I know they will remain there until the new Bill is introduced. I agree with Deputy Briscoe that something ought to be done to endeavour to meet these cases, because it does look absurd to keep persons in prison when they have no possibility of paying the fine.

Mr. Moore: There is a matter on which I should like the Minister to give some information, and that is with regard to the tariffs which have [1220] been in existence for some years and which, apparently, are not fulfilling their purpose—that is, they are not keeping out imports as was intended. Is it the attitude of the Government that these tariffs shall be allowed to remain as they are; that they are satisfied to get revenue from them, and that they have no regard for the employment that is being lost through the apparent failure of these tariffs? Is it their attitude that those concerned in an industry, if they want any increase in the tariff, must prepare another case for the Tariff Commission and go through all the trouble involved in an application before anything is done to meet the position? According to the last Finance Accounts, it appears that £86,298 was raised from the tariff on confectionery in 1927-28. That is a huge sum, and obviously means that about £600,000 worth of confectionery is imported every year.

Even the Minister for Agriculture could hardly hold that if that confectionery were, excluded from the country the cost of living to the farmer would go up tremendously and that it would be merely another burthen on his back. We should consider the terrific loss of employment involved in that sum of £600,000. So far as one can learn, the very best confectionery can be produced here. If we cannot produce it, then we can very easily arrange to produce it. There can be no excuse that I can think of in a country where unemployment is so rife, particularly amongst women, for allowing that huge import to go on unchecked. I should like if the Minister would give us not a Party statement—I do not ask it as a Party question or anything like that—but a little of the Executive Council's philosophy on this question of tariffs. Are they satisfied simply to say: “We have now given the tariff; we will let the industry go its way; in time, perhaps, imports will reduce; meantime, if it does mean loss of employment to the country, it means cash to the revenue, and one thing balances another; it is at least a convenience to the Government, even if [1221] it means hunger for the people?” Is that the Government's philosophy on the question or what excuse can they make as a Government, looking on at the terrific unemployment and the drain of emigration, for allowing in over £600,000 worth of a luxury article, an article that is produced in this country, and could very well be produced in this country to the last chocolate? Even if it led to an increase in prices, I do not think anybody would have a big grievance if the price of sweet cakes or such article was raised. In view however of the competition that prevails and the fact that the industry is distributed all over the country, there could not possibly be an increase in price. It is almost certain that if there were a total exclusion of confectionery it would not mean a shilling in the year in the outlay of any family.

The same thing applies to the other industries that are tariffed. In the case of furniture, £44,296 was raised in the last year for which the Finance Accounts are available. That means that something over £300,000 worth of furniture was imported. At a time when people who have been trained in the wood-working business in this country, whose homes are in the country, and whose desire is to remain in the country, are emigrating, as numbers of them have emigrated in the last month, is it fair that we should take up the attitude I have described as regards confectionery also with regard to furniture? A little better case could possibly be made than in the matter of confectionery, but certainly no substantial or convincing case could be made that if we raised the tariff on furniture, or even excluded furniture entirely, a single family in the country will be affected injuriously. The poor, as we all know, never buy furniture—they more often sell their little bits of furniture. The amount spent by the lower-middle classes on furniture in the year is so small that even if there were a slight increase in price, or an increase in the price of certain articles, which is quite unlikely to take place, it could not be called a national misfortune. [1222] That is going on, however. You have work which means employment to numbers of people being given away day after day and week after week in a country where unemployment prevails to a shocking extent, and where unemployment is being felt not merely by the direct victims, but by every trader, and great numbers of professional and other people who never thought that they would be so directly interested in it as they find themselves at present. If I wanted to take up the time of the Dáil by going through the list of other articles that are tariffed a similar case could be made. For instance, £35,517 has been collected from the import of matches, while I think the matches made here are quite good enough for anybody, and it cannot be held that they are very much dearer than those imported. Quite a substantial amount of blankets was imported, although I understand the tariff on blankets has been on the whole successful. £3,600 has been raised from the import on bedsteads, which means that there is still a substantial number of bedsteads coming into the country.

As I said, we would like to know what the mind of the Minister is on that whole subject. Is it to be a case of passive observance of the result of the tariff and not worrying about the further problem that remains because of the comparative failure of the tariff, or, at least, because of its lack of complete success. There is another question on which I hope the Minister will enlighten us when he comes to reply, and that is the question of the investment of Post Office moneys abroad. In a reply to a question of mine a few weeks ago the Minister said that practically two million pounds of Post Office and trustee savings bank money was invested in British security. Of course there is the amount of five millions which was deposited in the British savings bank, I think, dating from pre-Treaty times. I put the same question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Post Office and he was not able to give me much information. We should like to know [1223] whether there has been any further or more vigorous effort made with regard to getting the owners of that five million pounds to transfer their money to the Saorstát Savings Bank. It is a very big sum. It is an unfortunate thing for this country that such a large investment of money, which brings in so little return, should remain invested abroad at the present time. What is more serious, however, is the Government's position with regard to the two million of money deposited in the Saorstát Savings Bank invested in British Government securities. It seems a curious thing that under the present statutes the Government is not at liberty to invest in so strong a security as Dublin municipal stock, and that they have actually to invest that money in British Government securities. Surely if the Saorstát is a safe thing at all the city of Dublin, which might now be called the Saorstát, ought to be a safe Government security. There is something needing a lot of explanation in this. Within the last twelve months the city of Dublin issued a loan, and had to go outside the country to ensure success for it, yet at the same time the Government is investing money for which it is responsible in British Government stocks.

I think, in view, to say the least of it, of the unsatisfactory position that there is through the coinage transfer, we should be careful about leaving any money which belongs to the people in British Government stock, especially now that a very dangerous Socialist Government has taken possession in England. Anyhow, I hope the Minister will be able to say that something definite is going to be done upon that point. I think it is no secret that certain issues in which the Government were very much interested in recent months have not been a great success. It would be important to know whether the Government are going to make any effort to transfer that money that I refer to, so that certain services of great importance and of great value to the people in this country will have the advantage of it.

[1224] I personally am a bit disappointed that the Minister for Finance in his Budget statement and in his Finance Bill did not do anything with regard to pensions drawn from the Saorstát Government enjoyed by people who are not living within the Saorstát. I believe that was a very wrong thing to have allowed, and I think it will always be a big grievance if nothing is being done to remedy it, especially seeing that there are precedents all over the world for imposing conditions on pensioners. Many countries make provision, I believe, with regard to State pensions that those enjoying them shall live within the country. Assuredly if there is any country that should have made such provision it is this country. I do not think the Saorstát is so wealthy and so prosperous that it could afford to see people drawing big pensions like £3,000 or £4,000 a year not spending any of them in the country, and without contributing one farthing to the rates and taxes of the country and not recognising any duty whatever to the country itself. It is a thing some of us thought the Minister would find a way of dealing with. I hope the Minister for Finance will not have to say now that it is too late, and that no new conditions can be made with regard to pensions, and that those who enjoy them will be at liberty to live where they like in the future as in the past.

An Ceann Comhairle resumed the Chair.

Mr. Moore: In view of the extraordinary conditions under which a lot of these pensions were obtained, I certainly think that the Government might have endeavoured to establish such provisions as would enable them, at least, to get out of the pension what the pensioner ordinarily spends upon his living.

I suppose there would be very little use asking the Minister for some statement as to whether the Government had any intention of dealing immediately with unemployment or taking any further steps to mitigate the terrible state of things that prevails in so many towns at [1225] the present time. It is a deplorable thing to have to realise that in every town of any size in the country you have a number of people living there the miserable existence which unemployed people have to live, that there is no hope for them in private enterprise, as far as we can judge, and that the Government neither directly nor indirectly appear to have any intention of helping their lot. Anyone who travels any distance from Dublin must be familiar with the spectacle of numbers of men living perfectly useless lives, and becoming rapidly unfit for work and no value to the State, but living generally at the public expense— drawing home help or something of that kind.

Everyone who travels any distance from Dublin must be familiar with that spectacle. Is it the attitude of the Government that they disclaim responsibility for it and that they can only help it in so far as their ordinary measures for the encouragement of agriculture and industry will help it? Is it their belief that the present agricultural policy is going to have any effect whatever on the unemployment problem, or even that one per cent. of the unemployed are bound to be absorbed within our lifetime by the success of the present agricultural policy? I hardly believe it is. Similarly, I can hardly believe that it is their belief or their hope that their present industrial policy is going to create such a situation that those people will be absorbed into employment within our lifetime.

Their industrial policy may be a good policy taking a long view of things, but I am not going to argue that now. They may believe that it is a very good policy from the point of view of the nation as it will be in twenty, thirty, or forty years' time. But I can hardly believe that the Government can expect that anything that they are doing for industry at present is going to absorb the unemployed in the country towns during their lifetime or ours. Then, is it their attitude that it is better to persevere in that long view and sacrifice those [1226] people? I would not say that it is a heartless attitude but I would say that it is a deplorable attitude unless they come to the conclusion, after the most careful thought, that there is nothing they can do for these people.

I have met young men in country towns, 24 to 25 years of age, who have told me that they have never yet done a day's work. They told me they were eager to get work but there was no work for them. I believe that is a fairly general state of things in several places. It will be a big shock to some of us if we have to accept the dictum that all that can be done for these people is being done, and that neither in the way of public works nor by any special stimulation of industrial enterprise can anything be done for them. If we realise the claims these people have upon us it is very hard to approve of a Bill which continues the taxation or rather which continues the system of finance which means that over £600,000 worth of confectionery, a protected industry, can come into the country every year. In face of facts like that, in face of the fact that you have that much luxury imported and which is not necessary and which could, if manufactured here, give very big employment in this country; in face of these facts, it is very hard for the Government to say, “We are doing the best we can for unemployment, but we are not prepared to take any special measure to help it.”

I know that the Economic Committee has not yet finished its work, but judging from the failure to agree on a certain fundamental problem which has been shown by the Committee it does not look as if an immediate remedy for unemployment will be found through the activities of the Economic Committee. I would appeal to the Minister to say what is the present thinking of the Government on that subject? It is a terribly important matter for great numbers of people. It is important not merely for the people themselves but for those who have been hoping that they would be able to continue their businesses through the gradual [1227] absorption of the unemployed into employment. I have been told by several traders—not by one but by several—that the only thing that was enabling them to hold out against bad times was the expectation that the big number of unemployed in their towns would at some time or other get work, and that that employment would be reflected in their spending powers, and that consequently they themselves would be able to continue their businesses. Even from that point of view the problem is worth considering. While we all know the country is changing, and while we all know that the physical appearance of the country so far as the distribution of its population is concerned, may not be the same in the future as in the past, still I think that the transition stage should not be allowed to weigh unnecessarily heavily on a certain number of people. In regard to what Deputy de Valera has said about the coachbuilding industry, I put this to the Minister: that in that case, too, it cannot be held that the producers of the country are going to be seriously affected if a tax which ordinarily would amount to a prohibitive tax were imposed. I hold that this is a tax which would not affect the cost of living of any single family in the country. For that reason there can be no excuse for allowing businesses of that kind to disappear if the Government intends to preserve industry in the country at all.

I have spoken so much upon this subject that I shall not take up the time of the House now upon it, but I do say this to the Minister—that if action is not taken in the immediate future, I think there can be a very big charge laid at the feet of the Government in connection with that industry, an industry that cannot be accused of being like the flour industry, badly placed or badly equipped—that in connection with that industry that might have a great future and that certainly has its roots in the past—they did not show the sympathy that they ought to have shown and that the Government [1228] did not take the steps which a Government that was desirous of the industrial prosperity of the country could well