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

Dáil Éireann - Volume 30 - 21 June, 1929

Finance Bill, 1929—Committee (Resumed).

The Dáil went into Committee.

The Committee resumed consideration of the following amendment:—

Amendment 7. To insert before Section 30 a new section as follows:—

“On and after the First day of August, 1929, entertainments duty within the meaning of Section 1 of the Finance (New Duties) Act, 1916, shall not be charged or levied on payments for admission [1618] to any entertainment which on application by the promoters has been certified by the Minister for Education, or other authority recognised as competent by the Minister for Finance to be in the actual effect on those taking part in or witnessing same as predominantly educative.”—(Hugo Flinn).

Mr. Blythe: Deputy Flinn had proposed amendment No. 7 to insert before Section 30 a new section. I could, of course, say to the Deputy that I would let this pass, but that would not be a fair proceeding, because it would not accomplish the purpose the Deputy has in mind. The reason it would not accomplish it is just the same reason which made it impossible for us officially to draft an amendment. If any official were given the duty of deciding under the section whether entertainments were predominantly educative or not, he would have to look at the whole field and decide where he was going to draw the line. I believe that he would find that it was a question, dealing with dramatic entertainments, of charging for all or none. That has proved to be the case in regard to lectures. Theoretically, lectures could be divided into those which are predominantly educative and those which are entertaining. In practice I do not think the tax is charged on any lectures. It is extremely rare at any rate when the tax is charged in regard to lectures. The same would arise in regard to dramatic entertainments. If an official exempted the Cork Shakespearean Society he would find that he would have to exempt entertainments given by the Anew MacMaster Shakespearean Company. If he did that he would find it impossible to impose the tax on performances of “She Stoops to Conquer” or “The School for Scandal.” Then he would be driven to exempt entertainments by the MacDona Players in the Gaiety this week, and generally the position would be to make the revenue officer certify that practically every decent play was predominantly educative.

Looking over the thing in that [1619] way the officer would have to take a very strict view of the matter. He would have to decide that a strict view was the only safe line to take. If he took a strict view I do not think he could take the point of view that performances of, even say, Shakespearean plays by the Cork Players, were predominantly educative. They would not be predominantly educative for the audience. Undoubtedly, there would be an educative effect on the members of the society, but it could not be said that the effect on the audience was predominantly educative. Audiences come to a performance because they get entertainment and enjoyment out of it. So far as the players themselves are concerned, any educative effect is surely exhausted before they come to the night of the performance. It is obtained during rehearsals of the play. Certainly, there would not be much educational effect if they only had a public performance. A good deal of consideration has been given to this particular matter, and it is really impossible to draw the line. The question is whether dramatic performances will or will not be charged a tax. I do not see why they should be exempt when we charge other sorts of entertainment. As a matter of fact, if you take this amendment and do not interpret it strictly, but interpret it liberally, which is what you would do if it were to achieve the purpose at all that the Deputy has in mind, a large number of pictures that are not now regarded as educational, would have to be exempt. I have considered this matter as sympathetically as possible, and I have come to the conclusion that no line can be drawn in these matters, that it is really a question of all or none. If we were to exempt all dramatic performances, it would carry us very far, and I really do not think it could be done.

Mr. Flinn: I accept the statement which the Minister has made [1620] exactly in the spirit in which it has been made. That is to say, that he is anxious to do this thing if a reasonable method of doing it can be found; but he takes up a purely impossibilistic attitude. He says there are difficulties, there are border-line cases and that because there are border-line cases you cannot discriminate in this matter. The whole of our lives is made up of discriminating in matters much more complex than this particular matter. I have taken this particular case purely as an example. I have knowledge of what is really going on. The Minister for Finance or any of his representatives did not take the opportunities which have been given to them. That is to say, the Minister for Finance has had invitations for himself or any member of his staff, or any representative of the Education Department, to examine that particular example from the beginning to the end, to see it during rehearsals, to see its actual performances, to see the effects upon the individuals who were in process of training there, and the Minister for Finance has made no effort whatever—it may be that there are some technical or departmental difficulties which prevent his doing so—as far as I know to take advantage of these opportunities. In other words, he says that it is quite impossible to discriminate between educational and non-educational entertainment, and he has made no effort to do so. It is quite ridiculous for the Minister for Finance to put up an impossibilistic attitude in face of those facts. We have asked him to find any form of test he likes of a definitely educative character. We have asked that that should be under the Education authority, that the ordinary inspectors of schools should go there and inspect them and say whether or not it is a school, a technical class, whether it is day by day and in the actual visible effects which he sees produced to the satisfaction of his own educational authorities, proved that it is an educational institution.

If the Minister for Finance had taken that opportunity, if he had [1621] sent his people to examine it, if he had come back and said after the examination that those people were unable to set any standard or criterion by which they could decide whether or not it was educational, then there would be something in his attitude. But he has made no attempt whatever, as far as I know. Again, let me say that I think it is possible that there may be some Departmental snag in the way of making that test. I do take the Minister as sincerely anxious in this particular case, or in cases of this kind, if he could get a line of discrimination; but his argument that he cannot find a line of discrimination, when the evidence is that he has never tried, is an argument that should not be put before the House. There are authorities upon education which are far higher than the Minister for Finance or myself, and those educational authorities have been satisfied, and have gone out of their way to certify publicly their satisfaction that the test of being predominantly educative has been fulfilled in this case. The President of the Cork University does not go upon a public platform in the city of Cork to certify, in face of the citizens of Cork, that an institution whose work they are there to examine is in the highest degree educative unless the case is flagrantly made out that it is educative. What authority does the Minister for Finance put against the certificate of the President of the University of Cork? What criterion does he put against the certificate that has been given by educated and competent public men in the city of Cork, who do know what is going on? What has he done to find a standard or to prove that there is no standard which can be applied to a thing so definitely and predominantly educative as this; a test which will not apply to an ordinary cinema, an ordinary dancing class, or something of that kind?

I think the House will recognise that, to the extent to which the thing is educational actually to tax an educational activity is not merely a question of getting money, but of [1622] doing a definite wrong. The money which the Minister gets in this particular way, if it is obtained by taxing, and to that extent preventing an educational activity, is not merely money lost, but it is actually doing a damage. This particular institution lost hundreds of pounds, every single penny of which is represented by money paid to the Minister, and had to be kept going for a period in spite of the Minister, because he was charging tax, and but for the fact that the members and some of their friends who were interested in it were prepared to put up money for the Minister over a period of years, that educational activity would have come to an end. I certainly believe that from an educational, cultural, and national point of view the coming to an end of that particular institution, run as it is now, would have been a tragedy. There is not one Deputy who would not be altogether a more competent member of this House if he had had the training that these boys and girls are getting there, if he had been trained, as these boys and girls are, not merely to speak words but to understand them—an intensive training going on over years, in which the greatest literature in any language is not merely taught, but taught to be understood and expressed and realised. And yet the Minister says that there is no means of discriminating between that and a cinema entertainment! Honestly the Minister is not just to himself in putting himself on exhibition behind a statement of that kind. There ought to be some criterion, some method, and what we suggest is that the method of using the educational authorities to certify in a matter in which they are competent shall be used.

It may be said that the educational authorities do not exist for that purpose, that their funds are provided for other purposes. Our answer to that is that any people who think they have a claim must be prepared to pay the cost of that examination and certification. The Minister says there are border-line cases. We say, let every border-line [1623] case be decided in favour of the Minister. The burden of proof lies upon those claiming that these are educational activities. We accept that burden. We simply ask the Minister to set up machinery by which that burden can be discharged, and we will pay for it. I do not think any case has ever been put to the House more sincerely or reasonably, or any better case put forward. The Minister must find some other reason than that he cannot find any line of discrimination, when failure to find that line of discrimination is backed by the fact that he has made no effort whatever to use the machinery in his hands to find that line of discrimination. We are not tied to the particular details put down here. We are tied to the principle that this State shall not raise its revenue by taxing and penalising educative institutions, and if the Minister can find any more severe, correct or searching test than the test which we have put up, we are prepared to accept that test. But some test ought to be found, and some test can be found if the Minister and his advisers will put their minds to it.

Mr. Aiken: I wish to support the amendment. The Minister admits that there are plays which are educational and plays which are merely amusing. But there are other classes of entertainment which are simply and solely vulgarising. There should be some discrimination made between plays which are educational and entertainments which are purely vulgarising. If the Minister thinks there is difficulty in discriminating between plays which are educational and those which are merely amusing—and he puts forward the difficulty of the border-line cases—surely there is a wide difference between plays which are educational and plays which are vulgarising.

If he made a little mistake in a border-line case as between amusing and educational, it would be a good thing for the country—if he helped on the entertainments which are merely amusing as against entertainments [1624] which are vulgarising. We can afford to make a little mistake. We can afford to be a little flaitheamhaileach with plays which are educational, and the Minister will have in his hands a great weapon for the education of the people if he have in his hands a great weapon for the education of the people if he accepts this amendment. Deputy Flinn made a good case, but the Minister made a very bad case for throwing his hands up and saying it cannot be done. Something can be done. If he adhered strictly to relieving purely educational plays or entertainments for a start, it would be a step in the right direction.

Mr. Goulding: I wish to support the amendment, because I am aware of entertainments run by school authorities, not for the purpose of making money, but to give the pupils an education and training to fit them for their after-life, which have been penalised. The heads of the schools have been put to very great inconvenience in endeavouring to get permits to run them tax free. As against that, I wonder is the Minister aware of the manner in which the revenue is being defrauded for sometime past by foreign companies running purely vulgar entertainments and charging no admission fee. Many of these people, to my own knowledge, are taking hundreds of pounds out of small towns and villages in the south by running entertainments. They charge no admission fee. They give a vulgar sort of music-hall show, and then they sell tickets inside the hall and hold a sort of drawing. The result is that they contribute nothing to the revenue, and they certainly do their bit to vulgarise and “West Britishise,” if I may use the word, the people in the country districts in the south. Some effort should be made to stop that. When we find that our own people who are endeavouring to educate the young committed to their care are penalised, while foreigners are allowed to come in and Anglicise and degrade them and go scot free, there is something wrong.

Mr. Anthony: I support the amendment for several reasons, which I have on previous occasions [1625] indicated to the House, without making any invidious comparison, as I possibly did on a previous occasion, when I referred to a very excellent institution we have in Cork of a cultural and educational kind. I do know that even in this obscure place called Dublin, there are very excellent institutions, such as the Drama League, the Abbey Theatre, and other institutions of a kindred nature. The very same argument might have been used against the subsidising of the Abbey Theatre as can be used against this amendment. I would ask the Minister to take into consideration the really wonderful cumulative effect which these institutions are having, and will continue to have, on the social life of the country. I do not know whether Deputy Flinn named the institutions which I have in mind, but they are the Cork Operatic Society, the Cork Drama League, and last, but not least, a society that is doing wonderful work —the Shakespearean Society. I think the latter was the society that Deputy Flinn had in his mind when he suggested that it would be a useful thing, not alone for people outside the House, but for the majority of those in the House, if we had studied as carefully as these students are studying this great writer's works.

I can appreciate the position of a Minister for Finance, who must have revenue, and who is frequently faced with what we might call a line-ball case, in attempting to decide in the case of a society which caters more for amusement than for education. While I recognise that difficulty, I should like the Minister to state whether he would be prepared to indemnify some of these societies against loss. That is a position which the Minister might approach in a sympathetic frame of mind.

The fact is that those societies, instead of being encouraged, meet with very great discouragement, because they find, after having devoted considerable time to educating themselves, and incidentally the public, that at the end of their season they are at considerable financial loss. [1626] When I say considerable, I mean relatively considerable. The loss would not be much to the State, but it means a very great deal to these societies, which are striving gallantly against tremendous odds to produce the best works both in drama and music for our people. The Minister should let us know what he thinks of that aspect of the case, namely, that instead of enforcing the amusement tax in these cases, it would be proper to examine the case which I suggest could very easily be made for indemnifying these societies against loss. It is within my knowledge that even an alien Government did not look with disfavour on the early activities of the Gaelic League, as the British Government used to exempt, in London at any rate, certain Gaelic League entertainments from the amusement tax on special occasions, such as St. Patrick's Night and so on.

I think we are not asking too much in this amendment. As I said, I appreciate the difficulty of the Minister, and I am sure Deputy Flinn also appreciates it, in discriminating between what is merely amusement and what is educational, or what is partly amusing and partly educational. I suggest, however, that he should examine the case from the aspect I have put up now, to see how far he could go towards indemnifying those societies against loss, once they have proved to the satisfaction of the Minister or his Department that they are of an educational or cultural character. I do see the danger of an institution suggesting that it was educational, and which might have for its object teaching the young idea how to shoot, etc. That might be considered educational, but I do not think the Minister would be asked to stretch his imagination to that extent. I think we can leave it to the good sense of the Minister's officials to indicate what is and what is not educational in these matters.

Mr. MacEntee: I have a great deal of sympathy with the difficulties of the Minister in the matter, because undoubtedly it is a very difficult problem to decide in cases like this, [1627] where education ends and where amusement begins. Plays were originally produced for amusement purposes. I think Deputy Goulding gave at least one dividing line, when he asked that school productions should be exempted from the tax. Supposing we put it this way: that productions under the auspices of an educational authority, whether a school, a secondary college or a university of classical plays, whether in English or any other language, or the modern plays in any language except English, that at least would bring certain classes of theatrical productions within the category of those in which the educative value would possibly be greater than the element of amusement. As well as that, I think the Minister might consider the case of extending the remission to productions by amateurs, and that would possibly cover the case of the Cork Shakespearean Society, in which Deputy Flinn and Deputy Anthony are so much interested. I feel that, provided a sufficiently definite schedule were drawn up, the position which Deputy Flinn has endeavoured to embody in his amendment could be fairly met. While I do not think that Deputy Flinn is going to press his amendment to a division at this stage, we would like that the matter should be given further consideration on the Report Stage. I know that the Minister is sympathetic to the attitude which Deputy Flinn has taken up in the matter, and since there is sympathy on both sides, and a certain amount of goodwill, it ought not to be difficult to meet the claim which the Deputy is making.

Mr. Blythe: I had really considered this matter very largely from the point of view of the particular case which I knew Deputy Flinn and Deputy Anthony were interested in —that is, from the point of view of, say, the Cork Shakespearean Society. I did not give much consideration to the question of school plays, which is rather a different matter. In any case, I am told that they will be mainly exempt. Deputy MacEntee also raised another point which I had [1628] not considered—that is plays in other languages. I might say that I had considered it might be desirable some time definitely to exempt plays in the Irish language because of special difficulties. Of course, that covers a small field and does not raise the perplexities connected with the principle set out in this amendment. Looking at the matter as I have been trying to look at it, the difficulty seems to be that there is no border-line. Amateur productions, I think, would hardly be a good line. It would be very difficult to ascertain whether a performance was entirely amateur or not, and a great many amateur performances would not merit exemption when we consider that concerts and other performances of that sort are not exempted. Taking the line which we have been pursuing, the line of the educative effect, the difficulty is that there seems to be no place where a line can be drawn. You cannot say that Shakespeare is educative but that some later dramatists are not. I think if you admit the Shakespearean plays you are bound to admit plays such as “The School for Scandal” and “She Stoops to Conquer.” If you do admit plays like that as being educative, then, to put it frankly, you cannot take up the attitude that Shakespeare is educative but that the others are not.

Mr. Flinn: We agree with all that.

Mr. Blythe: If you come to modern plays there are many people who would classify Shaw's works as educative.

Mr. Flinn: “The Importance of Being Earnest.”

Mr. Blythe: Quite. I think Deputies on the other side see that there is a great difficulty there. If we are pursuing the line of the educative effect, we can hardly exempt Shakespeare when played by amateurs or by people who are partly professional and partly amateur. This thing has been examined very sympathetically in the Department. I put it to the Minister for Education when I saw this amendment down, and he said that if we are asked to administer [1629] that we really would have to let other plays through. That was how it struck the Department of Education without consultation with the Revenue Department. It was simply their view of the case. Taking it from the aspect that Deputy Flinn had in mind when he put down the amendment, and the manner in which it has been working heretofore, I must say that it is impossible to draw the line. One or two new things have been suggested, including the question of amateurs and plays in other languages. I think somebody mentioned classical plays, but that leads us to the same difficulty unless we are to fix a date or something like that.

Mr. Flinn: Where there is agreement in principle and where it is merely a question of difficulty in machinery, we do not desire to divide the House upon the matter. But we must get out of the block somehow. I have taken only one particular case as an example. There may be others infinitely more desirable. My feeling is that of one hundred performances which would apply for exemption under this thing probably 95 per cent. would rightly be turned down. I probably would turn down 97 per cent., but as a general rule I think 95 per cent, would probably be turned down. The other 5 per cent. most certainly ought not to be penalised. We will not press this amendment to a division. We may or may not bring it up on Report Stage. I suggest that the Minister should take the particular case we have given him as a standard case and examine it. A man who has only inspected two boilers knows very little about boilers, but a man who has been in two boilers, even though he knew nothing about them, will know infinitely more than the man who has never been inside one.

I have not the slightest doubt that if one of the ordinary inspectors of the Education Department will go to this particular institution and see the people before, during and after training; if he will see the actual production and judge from that production the mental change which has been made in those who are capable [1630] of producing, and will then examine some of the ordinary amateur entertainments, above all amateur Shakespearean entertainments, he will see there is a distinct difference between chalk and cheese. When I was asked to see an amateur performance of Shakespeare, I simply said that I had suffered enough from amateur performances of Shakespeare; but I went there eventually, purely and simply because I heard it was not receiving support. I went there to curse, but I stayed to pray. I was amazed. I did not believe work of that quality could have been turned out under those circumstances. I do believe that the inspector of education can discriminate as between chalk and cheese. I suggest that this particular case should be taken as a test case and examined. We will not divide now upon the amendment, but the question will be raised again.

Amendment 7, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed: “That Section 30 stand part of the Bill.”

Mr. Blythe: This and the next section are intended to remove doubts which lately have been raised in connection with powers to take documents. So far as the practice in regard to Customs documents is concerned, it has always been usual to take documents which were considered necessary for the purpose of securing conviction where fraud was suspected, and to hold them. In connection with a recent case in Court, while the matter has not been proceeded with, it has been suggested against the Revenue that the power which they believe they have, and the power which, in regard to customs cases, has always been acted on, was not valid, and in order to prevent other litigation, or the possibility of litigation, successful or unsuccessful, it has been thought wise actually to declare that the power of taking and holding documents does rest with the Revenue Commissioners. Deputies will see it is quite necessary that this power should exist. Take the case of a betting [1631] office. If the Revenue people demand documents, there are thousands of documents that may require examination, such as telegrams, betting slips, and all sorts of things. If the Revenue Commissioners could not remove the documents, it would only be a warning to the proprietor of the office, if he were guilty of fraud, to get rid of the documents. The Revenue officers, having spent the day looking through them, would return in the morning to find that the documents which would be of value to them, and a disadvantage to the proprietor, would be gone.

The same sort of thing arises in connection with shipping documents. There were a large number of Customs prosecutions recently, where the documents were taken and convictions secured. If those documents could not have been taken and held by the Revenue Commissioners, the cases could not have been brought, and prosecutions could not have been effected. This has always been the practice, and there are legal authorities for doing it. The validity of these legal authorities has had certain doubts cast upon it lately and it is to remove these doubts that these sections are inserted.

Mr. MacEntee: We feel we ought to say something on this matter, because while we have the completest sympathy with the Executive in any steps which it has been duly empowered by law to take in checking evasion or fraud against the Revenue, we consider it is a different matter when we are asked to pass legislation, which is to have retrospective effect, in order to legalise something which has been done by an officer of the Executive. There are little acts that may be excused; but I do not think that there is any excuse, except under serious and exceptional circumstances, for an officer of the Executive committing an act which is illegal. The officer is, by the very virtue of his office, compelled to pay greater attention, and to respect more highly the letter of the law than is any ordinary citizen. I have looked up the Act of 1926 on [1632] this matter, and it appears to me that the section which it is proposed by Section 30 of this Bill to interpret, certainly does not confer upon the Revenue officers power to remove documents from a betting office. A case which attracted public attention recently does prove that the Revenue officer should have that power to use as a last resort. But the fact is, nevertheless, clear and incontestable, that so far as the Act of 1926 was concerned, the officers had not the power to remove those documents. It may be very necessary for them to do that. I am not going to make a very strong point about it this time, but I think it ought to be made clear by the Opposition, and by every Deputy of this House, that if an officer of the State acts illegally and outside the letter of the law, he should not be allowed to do so, and as a matter of fact the House should not condone that illegality and indemnify the officer against the consequences.

We are prepared to say that retrospectively the officers should have the power given in this section, but at the same time we think that these powers should be used in such a way as to entail the very minimum of inconvenience on the citizen. After all the documents are the property of the citizen. They are necessary for him in the conduct of his business. If they are removed from his custody he is going to be subjected to extraordinary inconvenience. I think that the owner of the documents, while anxious to retain them within his own custody, as he is entitled to do until the offence of which the Revenue officer suspects him is clearly brought home to him, ought to be allowed to do so. If the citizen elects to retain those documents in his custody and under supervision of an officer of the Revenue, the officers of the Revenue should be permitted to make copies of these documents while still in his office. I submit that the owner of the documents should be given that option. He has the primary right to them.

When a Revenue officer enters the premises of a citizen to inspect documents he only acts upon suspicion. I [1633] do not think that the owner of the documents should be penalised or inconvenienced by having those documents removed from his premises until the suspicions of the Revenue officers have been clearly shown to be well-founded. What I have to say in regard to Section 30 relates also to Section 31. I notice that in subsection (2) it is stated: “Whenever an officer of Customs and Excise removes a document under this section he shall on demand made by the person from whom he obtains this document at any time while this document is detained under this section either (at the election of such officer) furnish to such person a copy of such document or allow such person to inspect and take a copy of such document.”

The copying of such documents may be a comparatively expensive matter. It may be made very inconvenient for the person who owns the document to have it copied. It may be inconvenient for the officer to spare a competent member of his staff to make a copy. I think that in that matter he should have the option to say, “I will make a copy of the document myself,” or “I will allow you to make a copy for me.” I really think that the person who owns the document should have an option in the matter. I can understand that there may be cases where a person would prefer to make a copy of the document himself. On the other hand, it may be that he is not placed at a disadvantage if an official of the Revenue makes a copy. We think that is only fair in the circumstances. After all, the documents have only been seized on suspicion, and we think until the charge is brought home to him that the citizens should not be penalised except to the least possible minimum.

Mr. Blythe: I accept generally and entirely what the Deputy says. The section was put in because of the doubt that was raised in a parallel case. We feel it necessary because of that doubt to have this section here. As a matter of fact there was never any suggestion of litigation against the Revenue Commissioners [1634] in connection with Customs documents. I do not know how far the law goes back, but it has been for a very long time the practice of the Revenue officers to use these powers in connection with customs documents. I have not myself heard any complaint that that power has been unreasonably used. I know that the practice, the intention and the only justifiable attitude of the Revenue officers in this matter has been, first, having some grounds of suspicion, to go into the office and look at the documents and see whether there was anything in them to indicate that this suspicion which they had, was well-founded. Having got some confirmation of their suspicion in the documents or having very strong proof otherwise, then the officer takes the documents. It has not been the practice to come in with some small grounds for suspicion and seize documents without first finding on inspection of these documents some grounds for supporting that suspicion. The position is this, that in a great lot of these cases the documents have been dealt with, and the person does not require them in his business. As to documents that he may require in his business, this gives him ample protection in that matter.

This prevents the possibility of somebody who has been cantankerous putting the Revenue to considerable expense. For instance, a man who was inclined to be cantankerous may allege that thousands of documents would be necessary. If such a man were up against a prosecution and with a fair chance of that prosecution proceeding, he would be in that humour, and would make such a claim. On the other hand it might be impossible to allow him loose on the documents and to give that man the absolute right to inspect and copy the documents himself, because in that case a man might spend days with the documents, and in that way prevent a proper examination and inspection. He might spend even weeks on them and the result may be that it may be difficult to take a prosecution—in fact, if such a man [1635] were skilful enough he would hold the documents examining them long enough so as to allow the six months run out and thus provide that the prosecution could not take place. It seems to me that the only thing is to give him the right of one or the other. If he asks for a limited number of copies he will be given them or he can have the right to inspect a number of documents.

If he is prepared to inspect he will normally be allowed to inspect and take a copy, provided he is not trying to do it in an obstructive way. I think it is fair to assume that the Revenue people will not hold documents unless it is clear when they go into them that there is material for prosecution in them. In regard to customs documents I have heard of no complaints of unreasonable seizure, and that has been going on for a great period. I do not know of any cases of unreasonable seizure of betting documents. That Act, of course, has been only a short time in operation. It is only occasionally the matter would at all come to my notice. In any case of seizure I heard of the seizure was found to be justified to provide materials for the prosecution.

Mr. Good: I am not quite happy about this particular proposal. The Minister spoke about members of the public being cantankerous. Has he thought at all about the Revenue authorities being cantankerous occasionally?

Mr. Flinn: Withdraw that.

Mr. Good: I have come across a great many members of the public who have to deal with the Revenue authorities. Here and there I have heard them say that they are quite decent officials, but here and there I heard again that they are inclined to be exceedingly dictatorial. What I object to in this particular clause is this. It gives to those Revenue officials a right to take any particular document without any plea of fraud being alleged. In other words, they can prevent a man from carrying on his business. In [1636] connection with shipping, as the Minister is aware, the original documents are of the greatest importance in carrying through the clearance and other matters in connection with customs. Original documents are essential. If those documents are taken from the individual it is impossible for him to carry through his business. The Minister does not say in this clause that those documents will only be taken under certain circumstances and that if it is necessary from the point of view of the protection of the business community there should be some clause or some addition to this clause that would make it clear that these documents would only be taken under certain circumstances.

We may have cantankerous members of the public. I quite admit there are cantakerous members of the public, but there are also officials who are cantankerous, and to leave it to any cantankerous official on the one side to take those documents and to leave the business man in a position of very considerable difficulty is not wise legislation. We are all with the Minister, if there are extreme cases, to give him extreme powers to deal with them, but until we meet these extreme cases I am not prepared to give extreme powers to Revenue officials to deal with them as they will and I do not think it is wise for the Minister to give these powers over the ordinary commercial community.

Mr. Blythe: As a matter of fact, I pointed out that these powers have been in existence.

Mr. Good: Why are they brought in here?

Mr. Blythe: I have told the House that certain doubts have been raised with regard to the interpretation of the statutes under which these powers have been exercised. So far as Customs matters have been concerned they have been exercised for generations, at any rate for a pretty considerable time, but because of certain interpretations of statutes [1637] doubts are being cast on the validity of the powers. There is no new practice proposed to be introduced.

Mr. Flinn: Is it not perfectly evident that these powers have been illegally exercised where they have been exercised, with or without protest, in relation to the betting tax? There does seem to be no authority for taking possession of these betting documents, none that we have been able to find. Therefore, it looks as if manifestly an illegality has been committed, whether it has been protested against or not. The Minister objects to people obstructing, as he calls it, a Department of that kind. If they are skilful enough, he says they can do certain things. If they are skilful enough they are legally entitled to do it and it is time that the Minister and the Executive recognised that every man has a perfect right to the fullest exercise, not by permission, not under complaint, of any power he has under the law and that it is for the Executive to alter the law and not to complain that the man is skilfully exercising his right under the law.

Deputy Good has raised the point in relation to shipping documents and documents used in business. Once they get into the hands of those people they may be wanted on a halfhour's notice, and they must be available. Now there is no means of getting them back. We can imagine cantankerous people putting difficulties in the way of Customs authorities in exactly the same way that we have actual experience of pressure being put upon individuals by the Revenue Commissioners to prevent them exercising their legal powers. I can give a case to this House—I can give them the documents if they like—in which it is admitted in writing by the Revenue Commissioners that they have demanded an illegal payment. They go on demanding it and say “if you do not do that we will do something else to you.” That is a written document from the Revenue Commissioners admitting they had no legal right to claim from a man certain monies but stating if he did [1638] not pay them that way they would get it out of him some other way.

Now exactly in the same manner they may hold those documents of Deputy Good which he may want to clear a cargo until he does something which otherwise they cannot compel him to do. There is real merit in that particular case and it seems to me that documents of this kind which are impounded should be in the hands of some neutral authority from whom they can be obtained on demand. They may go to a registrar or someone else so that they can be at the disposal of either party to the suit freely. I think that line of country wants to be examined because there is the tendency of people, dressed in a little brief authority to do things that would make the angels grieve and make the ordinary commercial community as unhappy as Deputy Good said that he was when he contemplated this particular motion.

There is another point in this to which I strongly object and it is on principle. This says “to remove doubts.” Now it is not to remove doubts as far as we know in relation to one specific line of conduct. I am not defending that at all. I am not taking the case of the betting people one way or the other, but I will take the case that Deputy MacEntee took that the officials of the State must not do illegal things for the benefit of the State. They must not do a little evil even to attempt a big good. This is not to remove doubts; it is to alter the law and to alter it retrospectively. It is to say “this section includes.” That is all right. That is an alteration of the law. That can ordinarily be done. But to say “always did include” is to legalise these irregularities. They say there has been no protest about that. I hope there will be no protest, but the simplest plan is to take, “it always did include,” and if there have been illegalities the remedy will still remain with the man who has been injured. Why I am taking this point is this: we have had those particular phrases included in other Bills. If they had not been included in other Bills I would ask the House to fight [1639] them word by word and line by line. Once you have included in any Act those words “includes and always did include powers” it shall be interpreted to mean and always to have meant, which means that every contract which has been made by this State of every sort and kind, big and small, with individuals or with larger bodies, is at the disposal of the majority of this House. A precedent has been made, unfortunately, and you cannot get away from precedents. Retrospective legislation means that every pension which is paid in this country can be abolished under exactly the same power. The security of tenure of every civil servant can be abolished under that power. Every contract of every sort and kind which the State has made with an individual or which individuals have been enabled under the law of this State to make with each other can be declared to have been null and void from the beginning.

Unfortunately that precedent has been set, but there is no reason in the wide world why we should go on unnecessarily multiplying the cases, building up the case for that absolute power of the repudiation of existing contracts of every sort and kind. What I suggest to the Minister is, merely as an act of grace and as a recognition, that that sort of thing should not go on, that the State should not commit illegalities, that these officers should not commit illegalities, and be entitled to assume that they would be indemnified by this House. I suggest that the words “always did include” should be removed. The Minister says it will make no difference because nothing wrong has been done. He says that whatever was done there has been no protest. If that is so there is no difficulty from his point of view in removing those words, and from the point of view of those of us who think if things of that kind have been done they ought not to be covered up in this way. They ought frankly to be brought before the House if they want an indemnity to be taken [1640] specifically in the cases that have occurred. I think the words “always did include powers” should be taken out of this Bill, and should not, unless where it is manifestly impossible otherwise to deal with the difficulty, be included in future Bills before this House.

Mr. Blythe: On this question of retrospective legislation, everybody knows that there are certain objections to retrospective legislation, but there are cases in which to refuse to legislate retrospectively would be perhaps unjust to everybody. When a law is passed, and when it is the express desire of everybody to accomplish something by means of that law, and it happens, either through some amendment or some faulty drafting, that the legislation does not mean exactly what everybody intended it to mean people, however, go on believing that it means what it was intended to mean. Numbers of people do various things in the belief that the law is so-and-so. Then suddenly somebody notices the flaw. A case is brought to the court. A decision is got from the court that the law is not what it was always meant to have been. In those cases to fail to legislate retrospectively in some form would be unjust to everybody, and the objections in that case to refuse to legislate retrospectively would far outweigh any general objections that there may be to retrospective legislation.

I do not admit that officials did wrong, but the law is not clear and a decision of the court might produce any result. It might go one way or the other. Anything that was done by officials was done in the full belief that it was done entirely legally.

Mr. Flinn: We accept that.

Mr. Blythe: It may or may not be supported if the matter was litigated to a conclusion. In these circumstances I hold that these are the sort of cases where the arguments are in favour, on the balance, and not against retrospective legislation.

Mr. MacEntee: We feel the force of what the Minister has said with reference to this particular section in the Act of 1926, in view of the actual [1641] result of the case, where the person involved apparently admitted the fact, when he paid a very substantial fine to the Revenue Commissioners, that he had been committing illegalities over a considerable period. At the same time, this case anyhow clearly is not within the category which the Minister proposes in cases where retrospective legislation might be indicated with the general consent of the citizens and to the benefit of the State. He referred to statutes which presumably had been before the public for a considerable number of years, under which practices had grown up where precedents had been established, but when the matter had been finally tested the courts held that the general practice during that period had been wrong and not well founded. So far as I understand, this Act has only been on the Statute Book for something like three years. A general practice has not grown up. Under the statute the Commissioners did something in one case, and when the matter was brought to issue the person involved contested the Commissioners' right, but he did not carry it any further than that. The case, as a matter of fact, was settled before any decision was given by the court. It was settled out of court. An agreement was arrived at as to the amount in which the person involved should be immersed. There are two difficulties. There is the fact that the person aggrieved admitted that he did wrong. On the other hand, there is the section of the statute itself. I contend that it is quite clear from the reading of that statute that the Revenue Commissioners have not power to take these documents. On the question, therefore, of whether, in view of the very explicit terms of the statute, the House would be justified in accepting the section in its present form, I certainly feel that we should not accept the inclusion of the words “and always did include powers to remove all or any such documents.”

The wording of the original statute was:

Any officer of customs and excise may at any time enter any [1642] premises in which the business of bookmaking is or is believed by such officer to be carried on and may there search for, inspect, and take copies of or extracts from any books, accounts, letters, and other documents there found relating or believed by such officer to relate to the said business of bookmaking and may further require any person found in such premises to produce all documents in such premises relating to the said business.

But there is not a word about removing these documents bodily from the premises of the owner and taking them into the custody of the Revenue Commissioners. Therefore, I think this House would be stultifying itself if it said now that the original statute was to include something which the House did not, when it was considering that statute, definitely include in it. Apart altogether from the merits or demerits of retrospective legislation, I think the House should not include the words, “always did include power to remove any such documents,” because the section did not, in fact, include any such power. I think the Minister would be well-advised to meet the general wishes of the House in this matter. We ought to be careful and we ought not to say to officers of the Executive, if we accept the section in its present form: “You go ahead. Do whatever you think is right in the matter, come to us afterwards and we will alter the law to suit the action you have taken, and if you have aggrieved any citizen, if you have done anything that you are not empowered to do by legislation, we will indemnify you against the consequences of such illegality.” As Deputy Flinn reminds me, we will even go further and we will say: “You were right from the beginning. You knew better than we did what should be done. You were the people who should have been legislating and not us.” I think the House should not adopt that attitude towards officers of the Executive. I think in all the circumstances [1643] that the Minister would be well advised, and the House would be glad, if he did agree on the Report Stage to introduce an amendment to meet this particular case. Apart altogether, as I said before, from the general principle as to whether retrospective legislation is justified or not, I think in this case he ought not to press for the inclusion of those words in the section.

Mr. Flinn: I think that the House is prepared to leave to the Minister the material of the clause, but the form ought to be altered.

Mr. Good: I really would press the Minister for some safeguards in connection with this clause, which is exceedingly wide. If you look at Section 31 you will see that an officer shall have the right “to demand the production of or to inspect or examine any book, account, letter, voucher, or other document,” and that “such officer shall also be entitled to remove and detain such document.” I take it that the word “document” there would mean “book, account, letter, voucher, or other document.” It is quite obvious to any person who has even a rudimentary knowledge of business that if an official is to walk in and take possession of books, documents and letters and to retain them, he has power to paralyse any man's business, without any allegation of fraud of any kind. I am quite willing to give the Revenue authorities very wide powers in cases of fraud, but for an official to be able to walk in in the ordinary way and to paralyse a man's business, as they have power to do, is, I think, not wise. I know from previous transactions that the Minister is quite willing to deal reasonably and fairly with the commercial community in these matters. I urge that in its present form the section is too wide and is unfairly wide, and that some safeguarding in connection with it is necessary, and I would urge the Minister to give the matter consideration before the Report Stage.

[1644] Mr. Blythe: The only thing that I can think of in connection with that is some such thing as the Deputy himself suggested, that is, the question of suspicion of fraud, and perhaps some safeguarding words could be introduced. But I think in some of these cases it would not do for an officer to make an inspection and then go away and swear some sort of affidavit to the effect that he suspected fraud, because he might not find the documents there when he went back. I would be prepared to consider it, but I think the officer would have to be allowed to make some declaration immediately after he removed the documents because he suspected fraud. I know from cases that I heard of that it needs somewhat prompt action, and there have been great numbers of customs cases in which prosecutions were successful and in which large sums for duty were recovered, which simply could not have been brought to a successful conclusion unless this power had been exercised. However, I admit that, theoretically, the kind of things that the Deputy fears might be done under this section.

Mr. Flinn: Some of them do happen.

Mr. Blythe: I am prepared to see what safeguarding words could be introduced to meet that point. With regard to the other points, the officers of the Revenue acted in this particular case under a sub-section which gives certain general powers to make regulations, and there was in those regulations an analogy with the customs position which always existed. The question really is whether power was given by the statute to make regulations as wide as they were made. I do not want to argue the legal side of the matter, nor am I competent to do so, but I assure Deputy MacEntee that the case is by no means as simple as he puts it. It is not the type of case that one could say involved a certainty of a court decision against the Revenue Commissioners. It is a case in which strong arguments could be put forward on both sides.

[1645] Mr. MacEntee: In the original section there is no power to make regulations at all.

Mr. Blythe: There is power to make regulations under that section, I think, or perhaps in the previous section. With regard to a practice having arisen, of course, there have been seizures of documents in a very large number of betting cases. The Bill had been, it is true, in operation for two and a half years or so, but there had been a practice, many cases had been in the courts, and this point was not previously raised. As I say, it is not just as simple as it would seem to anybody who listened only to the Deputy reading out a part of the section.

Mr. Flinn: The Minister made the point very strongly, and I agree with him that in certain cases prosecutions would have completely failed unless they had exercised the particular power which he now claims they legally would exercise. Has he considered what would happen if in one of these cases a man who, as a result of that illegal seizure, was mulcted, took action against the official who made that illegal seizure, and claimed as damages the amount in which he was mulcted, directly consequent on the declaration of the Minister himself upon the act of that man, and the legality of that act is contested? What I am suggesting to the Minister is that if he wants to indemnify people for acts which in good faith they have done wrongly, this is not the way to do it. We had a particular case where the House passed a law for a specific purpose. Warning was given by members that the law did not carry out that specific purpose, but it was passed. Then when the courts decided that the Act did not carry out what the House specifically passed the Act to do, the House passed an Act saying that a particular clause in the original Act did mean, and had meant from the beginning, exactly what their own courts had decided it did not mean. That is the same principle which is enshrined here, and it means, no matter what you [1646] do, that there is no security for any man in the courts. A challenge was made that a case should be brought for a test in the courts. Under exactly the same procedure, if it had been brought into the courts, and if the courts decided in favour of the man whom the Minister challenged, the Minister could have reversed that decision. That is the sort of principle that is, unfortunately, enshrined already in our legislation, and nothing that anyone can do can take it out. But we can avoid strengthening it day by day by not including an unnecessary clause of this kind. If the Minister wants to indemnify some particular official for something which might have been illegally done in good faith, let him do it directly, but let him not do it in this particular way.

Mr. Blythe: I cannot indemnify officials unless it is clear that they have done wrong. If there had been a case in the courts, and if it was found that officials had done wrong, then there would be a case for indemnifying them for acts done in good faith. But when there has been no decided case in the courts, when I am simply advised that the position is doubtful, then the whole position is different.

Mr. MacEntee: In view of the fact that the proposal would not reverse an interpretation that the courts have given to an Act, we are not going to divide on this section, but it must not be taken that we are going to accept at all the principle of retrospective legislation.

Mr. Flinn: And between now and the Report Stage the Minister may think something out.

Question—“That Sections 30 and 31 stand part of the Bill”—put and agreed to.

SECTION 32.

Mr. Blythe: The reason for this section is that at present there is no penalty for making a false return. This is another matter which has been raised in a recent case, and another [1647] weakness was shown in the Act. It would seem that at present a person who had made a false return, and who had really defrauded the revenue, could, on detection, pay up the duty promptly, that the revenue people might be bound to accept it, and the person might get off without any penalty.

Mr. Flinn: It is not a retrospective clause?

Mr. Blythe: No. It was a weakness that was shown in the Act.

Mr. MacEntee: There is only one point about it, and that is the amount of the penalty which is proposed to be imposed. One of the witnesses before the Joint Committee on the Betting Act, a District Justice, expressed himself as being strongly of opinion that excise penalties of exorbitant amounts, and beyond the capacity of the individuals to pay, should not be imposed. It simply resulted in a large number of citizens being detained in prison for an indefinite period. So far as most of the people who might become liable to the penalty are concerned the amount specified in the Bill is altogether outside the limit of their ability to pay, and I think the Minister might reasonably consider whether he would not act on the recommendation of the Joint Committee on the Betting Act and reduce the penalty to a more reasonable amount, an amount which would, in effect, make it a money penalty. At present it is not a money penalty, and it results in the imprisonment of a number of individuals for an indefinite period. It is even more serious than that, as it means that men are going to be put out of business; it means that their homes are going to be broken up, that they are not going to be able to continue in business.

I do not know whether the penalty in these cases fits the crime or not. It is very serious to evade the payment of any tax which is properly due to the revenue, but at the same time there ought to be some consideration given as to the [1648] consequences following a penalty of this kind. I know a number of cases where grave hardship has been inflicted. Men have erred, possibly the practice has become general, and in consequence of their error they have been thrown into jail, their homes broken up, their business gone, and their families are now destitute. A penalty could be sufficiently serious to stop evasion and would yet not result in such dire consequences to the person who is foolishly guilty. I think the Minister ought to reconsider the penalty of £500, even notwithstanding the fact that the Justice may have power to recommend mitigation. Even if a penalty of £500 was mitigated to a fine of £125 in the case of a man whose total capital possibly does not amount to £125 it leaves the position just as it was before.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.

Mr. Anthony: In cases of this kind I would impress upon the Minister the advisability of making the punishment fit the crime. We are all agreed that the State should be enabled to punish adequately persons who make false returns in relation to the betting duty, but, at the same time, my experience goes to show that in 99 per cent. of these cases the money penalty inflicted is altogether out of proportion to the ability of the culprit to pay. It is rather farcical to have enshrined in a section of a Bill of this kind a figure which does not even suggest a maximum or minimum fine but £500. The usual custom hitherto has been that the amount is reduced somewhat, but, in the vast majority of cases, even after the reduction, the person charged has to remain in prison sine die and the State is charged with his upkeep during that period. I suggest that it is farcical to have a figure of this kind inserted in the Bill, and the Minister should take that into consideration. I do not for a moment suggest a sliding scale, but the figure should have some relation to the ability of the person to pay. We know that [1649] in the profession of bookmaking, about which I know very little, there are small men and big men. Some of the bigger men with large ramifications can afford to pay the higher penalty. Here you have a rigid water-tight section which says that a person shall be liable on summary conviction to an excise penalty of £500. I press the Minister to give consideration to what Deputy MacEntee suggests, and to secure, at least, a little more respect for the law as it stands, a thing which I am sure the Minister desires, and not to have an impossible figure in 99 per cent. of the cases.

There have been certain evasions of the Act which, I understand, were merely due to carelessness or thoughtlessness. In these cases money penalties, with the alternative of imprisonment, have been inficted In the majority of cases we find that it is the imprisonment that is suffered. It came to my knowledge that under this section a man was convicted and mulcted in a very heavy fine which he was unable to pay. A number of his friends got together and petitioned the Minister for Justice in connection with the matter, pointing out to him the circumstances surrounding the whole case. The main circumstance was that the man was unable to meet the penalty imposed. He was imprisoned for five or six weeks. I was in the position that I was able to procure for him an extra visit while in prison from his wife and some members of his family. I am glad to be able to say that, in response to a memorial submitted to the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Finance, the man was allowed out on payment of a modified fine. I would like to see a lot of this procedure abolished and have a minimum fine fixed that would be within the reach of a person to pay. In my opinion it brings the whole Act into ridicule when we find, from time to time, a bookmaker in struggling circumstances fined £125 or £150, while at the same time that man would not have 150/- to meet the penalty. I suggest to the Minister that he should reconsider this whole [1650] section, because I think it is one of the big blots on the whole Bill.

Mr. S.T. O'Kelly: Deputy Anthony has made the case that I was going to make. I have very little to add to what he said, except to refer to one or two cases of people in my constituency that have been brought to my notice. In regard to one of them, the man was fined a sum of £500. Probably that man never had anything like that sum of money in his possession in his lifetime. He was in a small way of business, and it is probable that in the near future he will never have that amount of money in his possession, unless bookmakers make a lot more money than I know of. I do not know much about them, but as far as I know that man would not be in a position for many years to pay a fine like that.

That man, like the man referred to by Deputy Anthony, has been in prison for some time and may remain there until Tibbs' Eve. I have written to the Department of Finance about his case. They say his case is a particularly bad one. The full amount of the fine was put on, and was not mitigated in any way. That may have been necessary. I am not going to go into the merits of the case except to say that this man may remain in gaol until he dies. I am told that he is a very delicate man, and that if he has to remain in prison he may not last very long. Anyhow there is no way, so far as I know, that a man of that kind can be dealt with under this Act except to allow him to remain in prison, unless some individual who has influence with the Minister for Justice and the Minister for Finance is able to get them to soften their hearts. So far as the Act is concerned, there is no way of dealing with these cases except to demand that somebody will put up the total amount of the fine that has been inflicted. Suggestions have been made by Deputy MacEntee and Deputy Anthony that the fines fixed under this Act should be such that they could be paid by individuals in a small way of business as bookmakers. I agree with those suggesttions. [1651] At the same time, I do not want to make it easier for these people to defraud the revenue, but I think that a way ought to be found of dealing with individuals of the type that I have in mind other than that of allowing them to spend the remainder of their days in prison when they are financially and absolutely unable to pay the fines imposed on them. In many cases the fines imposed are out of all reason in proportion to the business done by these men, though perhaps not out of proportion in relation to the offences committed. But, certainly the fines laid down are absolutely beyond the powers of these people to meet. I would ask the Minister to give consideration to that aspect of the question.

Mr. Goulding: Deputy Anthony's statement reminds me of a case that proves the absurdity of this section. Apparently, there is no distinction made between those who deliberately attempt to defraud the revenue and those who, through carelessness or an oversight, delay in sending in their accounts. I have a particular case in mind that I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister. In this case a bookmaker was arrested and imprisoned. He made the claim that he had not attempted to defraud the revenue. His case was that he only delayed in producing certain documents. The extraordinary fine provided here was imposed on him, but it was afterwards mitigated in the usual form. When he had been in prison for sometime he made a compromise by offering to pay £50. He was kept in prison for a period of about three weeks. The period that he was in prison was, from the point of view of the business that he carries on, the most important period in the year for him. In the end he was released on a payment of £40. The position, therefore, was that the State was put to the expense of maintaining him in prison for three weeks, and of then letting him out of prison on the payment of a sum that was less than the sum he originally [1652] offered to pay. A case like that proves the absurdity of a water-tight section like this. Some effort should be made to prescribe fines that would be more in keeping with the status of some at least of the people engaged in this business, and at the same time not to have them taken away from their families and kept in prison at the expense of the State.

Mr. Blythe: As I pointed out the other day, this whole matter is somewhat difficult to deal with owing to the nature of the business that bookmakers are engaged in and to the willingness of bookmakers to take a chance. A bookmaker who is inclined to defraud the revenue will take chances that perhaps a man in another line of business might not take. I admit that we have got to look over this whole matter very carefully. There may be certain classes of offences where we ought to reduce the penalty. Pending an examination of the whole position, I put this figure of £500 in because it is the figure that is fixed for other excise offences. The case that Deputy O'Kelly referred to is perhaps somewhat different. There was an element of fraud in that case, but I do not think there was the same deliberate fraud that this section was contemplated to deal with. There was the sum of £288 due to the revenue, and there was, as I have said, a certain element of fraud in the case.

It may be that in the case of the person on behalf of whom Deputy O'Kelly spoke we ought to have some lesser penalty than is provided for. But Section 32 of the Bill deals with the case of a man who makes any statement or representation which is to his knowledge false or misleading. What is proposed here is that there is an excise penalty of £500 which the District Justice may mitigate to £125. If the man can find the money he escapes imprisonment. If that man was proceeded against by a private citizen and was found guilty of similar misrepresentation in order to obtain money, and came before the courts, he would, on conviction, be [1653] liable to imprisonment without the option of a fine.

Mr. MacEntee: He would be imprisoned for a definite period?

Mr. Blythe: On the question of the period, I informed Deputy Little, in connection with another Bill, that I would bring the law into line with the law in Great Britain. I undertook that pending the amendment of the law the practice would be as in Great Britain, where, I think, the maximum period of imprisonment a person may get is six months. Very few people here have been kept in prison for six months. It is easy for a person to make a little flutter by saying that somebody was fined £500 for a revenue offence, and not being able to pay the fine may be kept in prison for an indefinite period, even for the period of his life. In actual practice people have been kept in prison for short periods. I think in one case a person was kept in prison for six months, but there are very few cases where the period of imprisonment has been more than four months. I think in the majority of cases the period of imprisonment is about one month.

One may make alarmist statements on the legal position as it has worked, but I do not think it has worked out on the whole very harshly. So long as there is the option of a fine a poor man is going to be harder hit than a wealthy man. No matter what the fine is put at the wealthy man can pay. You can hardly fix a fine so low that it will not be extremely hard on the poor man. On the other hand, the principle of imprisonment without the option of a fine would, I think, be going too far, and would be unjustified.

I would not, at the moment, promise to fix the penalty for deliberate misstatement lower than £500, which is really effective at £125 unless the District Justice thinks the case an extremely bad one. I intend to examine the whole question of penalties very thoroughly in connection with the Betting Bill. I think it may be possible, in a case where a [1654] man does a certain amount of mis representation, and where his main offence was simply that he did not pay the duty, to devise a number of safeguards in the working of the Act that would check men more quickly than they are being checked, and prevent them being tempted to get into arrears and make misrepresentations in order to avoid payment. I think in many of the type of cases we had to deal with so far we can amend the law so that there will be less prosecution and less fines, and stricter regulations in other respects. That is a matter that is being looked into. There are probably offences in regard to which we can make the fine less than £500. I put the £500 down because it is like a standard fine. I do not think these are cases in which there should be a lower penalty than there is in connection with other cases. Where there is deliberate misrepresentation we should have as high a fine as in any case. My reason for being inclined to allow the £500 to stand at the moment is in order to leave the matter in its present position until it has been completely investigated in connection with the drafting of the new Betting Bill.

Mr. MacEntee: We would be satisfied with the promise of the Minister to look into the whole question not only in relation to betting penalties but in relation to excise and customs generally. How money fines came to originate is a matter of interest. I think the chief reason why they were imposed in the first instance was owing to the difficulty of detaining people all over the country when smuggling was general; and, secondly, the Justices of the Peace before whom the smugglers were brought were often the aiders, abettors and inciters of the offence, and the penalty had to be fixed sufficiently high to retain the smuggler in custody until some person came down to inquire into the offence seriously. We have continued that practice for 100 years after the necessity for imposing these exorbitant fines existed. Consequently I think it is time there should be a revision of revenue penalties generally. [1655] The penalty of £125 does result in imprisonment for an indefinite period. I think it would be much better to let a person know at the outset that he is going to be imprisoned for such a period, and that it would result in his being put out of business and breaking up his home, and the other consequences that follow from the money penalty rather than let him go on thinking “I may be able to raise £125,” and finally he may find that he is not able to get it when called upon to do so. We are not going to divide on the section.

Mr. Briscoe: In connection with this matter, it is very difficult to give an expression of any definite view having regard to the statement of the Minister that the regulations generally will be looked into and changed somewhat in the near future. The difficulty I see in this matter is that certain regulations exist on the part of the Revenue Commissioners. Cases are tried before the District Justice and he has no option but to assess a fine, and not on the merits of the case as it appears before him. I would like to suggest that when these regulations are being considered for revision that either the Revenue Commissioners should inflict the fine and be done with it, or if it is to come before the court the court should be given some discretion to fix a penalty commensurate with the offence committed.

I raised a matter here two weeks ago, and arising out of it I had a consultation with the Minister, who facilitated me in meeting the Revenue Commissioners in four or five cases. I must say that the Revenue Commissioners treated the matter, so far as I concerned, in a very fair way, and as a result four bookmakers whose cases were brought to my notice have since been released from Mountjoy Jail. The Revenue Commissioners were not unreasonable, but the difficulty was that because there could not be negotiations these men had to go to Mountjoy. If they had in the beginning [1656] brought their cases before the Revenue Commissioners, as was done subsequently, and the Revenue Commissioners negotiated for payment on the instalment plan these men would not have gone to prison at all. As it is they are absolutely ruined. In two cases their homes have been sold out, and the people are absolutely destitute as a result of having been in prison. They could have paid the same amount of fine, and the same amount of duty, they have paid had they been able originally to negotiate in the matter. There is a case where only a sum of £5 was owing in duty, and the man is in prison six weeks. I suggest to the Minister when he is considering these regulations that he should put a maximum fine down and a maximum period for imprisonment in case of non-payment of the fine, and that he will leave it to the discretion of the justice in the court whether the maximum amount should be paid or only a portion of it. I referred to a case last week where a bookmaker was brought before a District Justice for the non-payment of duty on a half-crown bet.

On the same sheet he had many bets with friends of his own, and if he neglected to put them on the sheet it would never have been discovered. The justice remarked that it was a genuine error and recommended a mitigation of the fine to £5. Notwithstanding that, however, the Revenue Commissioners could not see their way to have it mitigated to less than £10. The justice was satisfied that it was a genuine error. I believe that if the Commissioners are able to inflict the fines they should arrange to collect them; or if cases are brought to the courts the amount of the fines should be decided there on the merits. In regard to cases which I brought before the Commissioners, I must say that they met them very fairly, but my grievance is that this was not done earlier so that men would be saved from going to Mountjoy Jail and from being absolutely ruined. I hope when the Minister is making regulation that he [1657] will allow some elasticity so that such cases can be dealt with. There is one bookmaker in jail for six weeks owing to his failure to pay a fine to the amount of £5. I think that is rather heavy.

Mr. Blythe: I am told that he is out of prison.

Mr. Briscoe: Very good. I want to emphasise the fact that the Commissioners were not unreasonable, but the position was that things were at a standstill. The man could not pay in full and was not allowed to pay by instalments. He was put in prison, and the Commissioners did not get their money. Had arrangements been made, the amount would have been paid. I hope when the Minister is making regulations he will save these people from being sent to prison.

Sections 32, 33 and 34 agreed to.

SECTION 35.

Mr. Blythe: I beg to move:—

In sub-section (1), page 17, lines 31 and 32, and also in sub-section (2), line 54, to delete the words “of the Incorporated Law Society of” and to substitute in each case the words “or person executing the office of Registrar of Solicitors in.”

This is really a drafting amendment owing to the fact that solicitors' certificates will be issued in Northern Ireland.

Mr. MacEntee: The arrangement is reciprocal?

Mr. Blythe: Yes.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Section 35, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Blythe: Section 36 is to correct a clerical error.

Section 36 agreed to.

Mr. Blythe: Section 37 puts the Agricultural Credit Society's stock on the same basis as National Loan.

Section 37 agreed to.

Mr. Blythe: In reference to Section 38, I shall move an amendment on the Report Stage in reference to the new motor duties, because they refer to the county councils.

[1658] Sections 38, 39, 40 and the First and Second Schedules agreed to.

THIRD SCHEDULE.

Professor Thrift: I am somewhat late in raising a point, but I think I have an opportunity to do so on this Schedule. I have a feeling in my mind in regard to the procedure in this Bill concerning income tax assessments based on the previous year's income. I came to the conclusion this morning that there is real risk of injustice being done under the Bill as it stands, and I want to ask the Minister a question. It seems to me that the matter affects a large number of people, but I shall take particularly civil servants as a class. The point about which I want to be satisfied is this. There are a large number of people who pay and have paid their income tax regularly on the actual amount received in a year. They are salaried people receiving fixed salaries, and many of them will continue to receive those salaries until their time comes for pension. It does not matter whether that time comes next year or ten years hence. They will have paid their tax on the money received until their pensions come, and then will apparently pay on money they received in the previous year. That means that they will have paid twice over when they are in receipt of a smaller income. If that is correct I think it will do serious injustice to a large class of salaried people who expect to be put on pension at a certain time, as they will be penalised if the Bill goes through as it stands. I may be wrong in my view, but I want to be satisfied on the point.

Mr. Blythe: The position is all right. The position is that when employment would have ceased the amount of tax would be reduced in the first year of pension.

Professor Thrift: That applies to civil servants?

Mr. Blythe: Yes.

Professor Thrift: I do not think that that answer goes quite far enough as I have other cases in mind. I will take the opportunity of speaking [1659] about them to the Minister before the Report Stage. I have cases in mind where salaries diminish even though employment does not cease. If they pay on money received in the previous year they will be assessed on the larger sum.

Mr. Blythe: I would like to have particulars of individual or typical cases from the Deputy so that I could have them looked into. On the other hand, if a person got an increase of salary and paid on the amount received in the previous year he would gain an advantage. I will look at any cases which the Deputy may put up.

Professor Thrift: The advantage in the case referred to would really only be suspension of payment because payment would be held over until the following year. If there was a disadvantage it would be a permanent loss to the individual. The Minister appears to be satisfied in regard to pension cases.

Mr. Blythe: I am satisfied in cases where employment ceases.

Third and Fourth Schedules agreed to.

FIFTH SCHEDULE.

Mr. Moore: I move:—

To insert at the end of the Fifth Schedule a new paragraph as follows:—

“All mechanically propelled vehicles whose motive power is electricity derived from a storage battery affixed to the vehicles, whether for use as hackney carriages or for the conveyance of merchandise—£1 per vehicle.”

The purpose of this amendment is, by reducing the tax on electrical vehicles to a nominal figure, to popularise them. The amendment is not prompted by Mr. Drumm's invention concerning which the Minister for Industry and Commerce gave us such an encouraging account. It is, of course, altogether too soon to legislate for such a revolution as that and I would not be guilty of such immodesty. This matter was mentioned last year in the discussion on the Budget and the Minister for Finance then expressed sympathy [1660] with the idea of introducing such vehicles in substitution for the present type of motor vehicles. Since then the use of electrical vehicles in most countries has increased. In Berlin electrically-driven taxis have been introduced and are competing with the ordinary type of motor vehicle and plying at a cheaper rate. In England the Post Office recently placed an order for a big number of delivery vans for use in London and Leeds. In America their use is rapidly extending and in Italy Signor Mussolini has ordered that no taxation of any kind shall be chargeable on those vehicles although Italy has a very big manufacturing industry in ordinary motor vehicles. In the Saorstát there has been comparatively no interest taken in such vehicles up to the present. I do not think that there are more than three or four registered throughout the country.

In Belfast, however, a bakery company has about half a dozen delivery vans of that type in constant use and has found them admirable for the purposes of town delivery work. Primarily, the case for the vehicle is that it is vastly more satisfactory to have our transport based on native power than on fuel which has to be transported thousands of miles. No one has to be told that petrol is very much in the hands of trusts and that the price is liable to be changed from time to time by arbitrary methods. The Executive Council have confessed that they can do nothing to control the price of petrol. Even the British Government has been unable to do anything in that way to meet the outery of the motoring community which was raised some time ago when the increase in the price of motor spirit was announced. In addition to that factor, the cost of motor spirit which is now approaching £1,000,000 per year is a very big tax on the country.

If this amendment is passed I do not expect for a moment that there will be an immediate demand for electrically-driven vehicles. There are no special battery-charging facilities in the country and I understand that a manufacturer of electrical [1661] vehicles who visited the Saorstát last year with a view to ascertaining whether facilities would be provided by the municipal authorities here did not get much encouragement in that direction. As well as that, the fact that the battery has to be charged for every fifty or sixty miles' journey would be a deterrent. But in view of the great importance and the great economy of these vehicles from the national point of view and in view of the importance of having transport, as far as possible, independent of outside troubles and outside influences, it seems a most desirable thing that some encouragement should be given to the users of vehicles of this kind. I think all will agree that at the moment, when electrical power is almost ready for distribution throughout the Saorstát, some action should be taken with a view to bringing such vehicles to the notice of the commercial public and giving an impetus to their use. The vehicles have been described as having the advantage of being easily controlled by unskilled labour; they have a high figure of reliability due to simple construction and the absence of rotating parts. Consequently they have low repair costs. They are clean, sanitary and free from fire risk. If this amendment is passed the Road Fund will not lose any appreciable amount, and even if it did, the loss would be well repaid by the national advantages that would accrue. I submit to the Dáil that by passing the amendment and offering a remission of taxation for a period on electrically-propelled vehicles they would be doing something that is bound to do good to the transport system of the country and that cannot possibly have any injurious reactions.

Mr. Blythe: This proposal, as the Deputy has suggested, would affect a very small number of vehicles. In fact, I believe it would affect five. Three of them are not really commercial vehicles and are taxed at the £6 rate. There are just two electrically-driven vehicles taxed at the commercial rate of £30 or something like that. It seems to me that [1662] it is really premature to fix any special rate, as suggested by the Deputy, for electrically-driven vehicles. I believe if we had come to the point where there was soon a likelihood of some considerable increase in the number of electrically-driven vehicles we would not and could not fix it as low as this. If these vehicles were likely to come on the road in any numbers, I think it would be necessary, in view of the fact that the Road Fund is definitely for the purpose of getting money for road maintenance, to charge them some reasonable rate. On the other hand, if there was an increase in the number of electrically-driven vehicles, it would be held up as a great injustice to individuals who bought their vehicles when the tax was only £1, if they were asked to pay £30 or £40 or whatever sum they might have to pay for a heavy vehicle. I think the Deputy's amendment is premature, and apart from that, I think that it really goes too far.

We have hopes that there will be a great increase, as a result of the invention which has been mentioned here, in the use of electrically-driven vehicles. If that comes about we will undoubtedly have to consider the position of electrically-propelled vehicles; but I do not think, in the event of our hope being realised, that we could possibly agree to a rate of £1 per vehicle, because if there was a substantial increase in the number of electrically-driven vehicles the position would be that there would be so many more on the road, and if there was an income of only £1 from each of them the Road Fund would be depleted and we would be driven back to the position of having the taxpayer, or in the case of rural roads, the farmer who does not gain so much out of the good roads, taxed to maintain them at a standard suitable for this sort of vehicle. For the present, there is no money involved, but I would suggest that the Deputy should not press the amendment. When the position is clarified he could bring forward his proposals again. If he were doing that, I do [1663] not think that we could go to the length which his amendment suggests. We know that one of the difficulties in connection with any increase in tax is that people complain that their calculations are put out and that they are charged a much higher rate on a vehicle than they had to pay when they bought it.

Mr. Aiken: I think the Minister has certainly made a very bad case against Deputy Moore's amendment. After all, it is up to the Government to give a lead in matters such as this. We have spent, or are spending, at least £5,000,000 in trying to produce electricity in this country. Surely to goodness, even if the Government had to pay into the Road Fund from other funds, the sum which they would lose by taking the tax off electrically-driven vehicles, they should do so. Even under the old conditions it has been proved that in a great many parts of the world the electrically-driven van or truck is suitable for delivery in towns. In another year or so we will have hundreds of thousands of units of electrical power simply going to waste. Before we find ourselves in that condition surely some provision or some arrangement should be made to consume practically all the electricity we are going to produce.

The Shannon scheme is going to be a load on the taxpayers in this country until the total production is used, and this suggestion of Deputy Moore would certainly increase the number of electrically-driven vehicles. It is always difficult to get people to use new machinery of any description. It is going to take them some years, and the sooner we start the better. There is absolutely no point in the argument of the Minister that if we take off the tax now it would be very hard to put it on again. It can be clearly stated that the relief in taxation on electrically-propelled vehicles is simply for the purpose of encouraging electric power, and no promise will be held out that that relief is going to be permanent. But even temporary relief will undoubtedly have the result of increasing the popularity of such [1664] vehicles, and we should aim at that at the moment.

Mr. MacEntee: I do not know that I have very much to add to what Deputy Moore and Deputy Aiken have said except that it appears to me that the Minister did not quite get the purpose of Deputy Moore's amendment. It had no relation at all, except in an indirect way, to the number of electrically-propelled vehicles in general use beyond the fact that Deputy Moore is anxious to increase the number. The fact that there are at present not more than six, of which three might be described as commercial vehicles, shows that there should be some inducement offered to those using vehicles for the purpose of their business to adopt more generally electrically-propelled machinery. It had not any reference either, except an indirect reference, to the invention to which the Minister referred and which invention is still in its development stage. It has possibilities, and very big possibilities, for the future of this country probably, but on the other hand the Shannon scheme is a certainty. There is going to be, I believe, at the earlier stages at any rate, some difficulty in disposing of the full output of the scheme, and one of the ways in which the output can be used, or portion of it, would be by utilising it in driving commercial vehicles in the country.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. McGilligan): How many million units would be used?

Mr. MacEntee: I am not aware how many million units would be available or taken.

Mr. McGilligan: How many thousand units would be used?

Mr. MacEntee: A very considerable number. I have not the statistics, but I know that in Great Britain and other countries electrically-propelled vehicles are in very general use and that they are increasing. I have seen them used very generally in Germany and also in Great Britain, but we know that they are hardly used at all in this country. We know if they were in [1665] more general use the problem of the Electricity Supply Board would be an easier one. As well as that there is the other point of view. We are importing petrol to the value approximately of something like a million pounds a year. The whole of that supply is controlled at the present moment by three or four large concerns operating under an agreement and in unison with each other. The price of petrol is very much higher here than in Great Britain. There may be sound commercial reasons why that should be so, but I suggest that if we have an alternative source of motive power we should encourage it, even if only from the point of view of bringing ourselves from under the petrol rings and combines.

For that reason I think the Minister should consider sympathetically this amendment. As has been said, it is not going to result in any loss to the Exchequer. The electric vehicle has a certain advantage, but commercial people in these matters are sometimes liable to err on the side of conservatism. It has its disadvantages also, but there are certain fields in which it has a decided advantage over the petrol-propelled vehicle or the steam-propelled vehicle. I think the Minister should seriously consider whether in the present circumstances he would not offer some inducement to people to overcome their timidity, to overcome their lack of familiarity with the invention. If he is disposed to consider the principle that Deputy Moore has embodied in his amendment we could then go into details as to whether the amendment errs on the side of offering too great an inducement. Perhaps the Minister will say that one pound per vehicle is unduly low. Let us admit that for the purpose of argument. At the same time it does not altogether counter the proposal that there should be preferential treatment given to vehicles that use native motive power, and which depend for their power of propulsion on native energy over vehicles run on fuel which is imported. That is the principle that Deputy Moore is [1666] anxious to impress upon this House. I think the Minister might consider, in these circumstances, whether he could not go some way to meet Deputy Moore, and whether in the present circumstances, taking time by the forelock, in order that a substantial number of these vehicles may be introduced by the time the Shannon current is available, he should not in the present Finance Bill act upon the principle which the Deputy has proposed to the House.

Mr. Briscoe: I would like to ask the Minister to say whether he is in agreement with the views which the amendment of Deputy Moore puts before the House. Is he prepared to say that he is anxious to promote, or to help to promote, the use of electrical current in vehicles throughout the Free State, and if he is going to say that if this amount of one pound is rather low he might be prepared to consider a different figure, but a figure still lower than the rate charged on ordinary vehicles? The Minister for Industry and Commerce interjected a remark and asked Deputy MacEntee how many million units would be used for the charging of the batteries. That is beside the question altogether. The point is that we are going to have either an over-production or an under-production of electric current. If the invention that we have heard so much about proves to be a success. I have no hesitation in saying that we will have an under-production of current from the Shannon scheme.

Mr. McGilligan: Why do you say that?

Mr. Briscoe: Because of the remarks made by the Minister in regard to the new invention.

Mr. McGilligan: Not in regard to cars.

Mr. Briscoe: No, in regard to the railway. I say that if the invention is a success there will be an under-production of electricity on the Shannon scheme. On the other hand, if this invention does not materialise we will be faced with an over-production, and, therefore, we will have to have another outlet through these cars.

[1667] Mr. McGilligan: Through these cars?

Mr. Briscoe: In various ways nobody can say whether those generally used would prove to be satisfactory or not. Deputy Moore has asked that the State should make it possible for the thing to be tried out without any cost to the State. After all every electrical car would save to the State the amount of money paid for its petrol. Putting it at a small figure I should say that every petrol propelled car in the State must lose to the State £25 per year for petrol used and that would be on the calculation of ten gallons per week. If you save to the State £25 of the capital exported for petrol for each car and if you multiply that, even by the small figure of one hundred, you will be able to examine the possibilities. By adopting this amendment you will be giving the same facility to those who want to put it to the test. On the other hand on the present basis if you do not give some lead to people who want to try these things you are going to stunt from the beginning the experiments they would make. At the same time if the preference is given them, in three or four years time you would have some experience and knowledge and we would see whether or not they were going to be used. The Minister could say, “I will not accept the suggestion of one pound, I will make it two pounds.” or some other figure and not turn it down altogether. We want to try and stop the importation of fuel from outside and to use native power instead. This is one way it might be done. I hope if the Minister does not accept the amendment he will give us some indication to show that he is anxious to develop the use of electrically driven vehicles. Even if the Minister for Industry and Commerce thinks it is not going to use many thousands of units every vehicle driven by electrical power will save to the State the cost of the petrol used for that vehicle.

Mr. McGilligan: I interjected a remark because, in coming into the House, I heard somebody pleading [1668] that this would be suitable and useful to the Shannon scheme. No figures were given, and all sorts of absurd statements were made as to over-production and under-production of electricity. I hope to give people an opportunity quite soon to discuss the final cost of the Shannon scheme and then we might get that point about over-production and under-production argued. I interjected the remark I made because of what I heard, and Deputy Briscoe was inclined to decry my interjection, and said himself that this is a way in which the State might help the Shannon scheme. I say this particular proposal, taken by itself, will not help the Shannon scheme. What is going to make people run vehicles on electricity or what has prevented them running vehicles on electricity on the roads at the present moment? Two or three things— the price of the battery that has to be used, its fragility, its maintenance, cost, and the difficulty in charging it.

Mr. Briscoe: And the tax on cars.

Mr. McGilligan: The tax on cars is a relatively unimportant thing. Remember if there is a decent battery which is better in many ways than the present batteries, which are unsuitable, either as to weight or bulk or charging time, the cost of lighting, of fuel price of the Shannon current in comparison with the price of petrol, then the reduction of the tax on the vehicle is not going