I move:—
That the Dáil agree with the Committee in Resolution No. 3.
Resolution No. 3—Customs and Excise—Tobacco.
I want to submit to the Minister that, in his desire to raise revenue in connection with tobacco, I think he has gone further than will be effective. It is common knowledge that there is an optimum rate of taxation, even on luxuries, and that if you go beyond it, instead of getting extra revenue, you will get less revenue. I gather from the Minister that his exclusive purpose in the imposition of this tax was the raising of revenue and not the reduction of consumption or the imposition of a hair shirt on the community just because he thought it good for its soul. I tell him from personal experience as a tobacco vendor that, in my judgment, the increase which this tax has made necessary in the price of tobacco will reduce the consumption of tobacco by 30 per cent. If we have to do that, we have to do it, and it might very well happen that difficulties of supply would make it incumbent upon us all to do with less than 70 per cent. of our normal tobacco consumption. If we have tobacco or if we are able to get tobacco, I do not see the point of cutting down our consumption when times are so difficult as they are at present simply through ineptitude. By putting a tax on tobacco which is greater than the normal consumption will carry, we are simply imposing on our people hardships over and above what the circumstances require. I should be glad to hear from the Minister whether any consultations have taken place since the publication of the Resolution with the ordinary channels of trade for the purpose of getting advice as to what effect this level of taxation will have upon the sale of tobacco.
In that connection, I do not think it is any harm to say that in times like these we have all got to be ready to give up not only our luxuries, but in some cases things that we had come to look upon as necessities, if circumstances demand it. But that should not set Ministers for Finance or anybody else rampaging around the country to find new methods of creating unnecessary hardships to the people simply for the fun of making them suffer. The people have enough to put up with without having any unnecessary burdens placed upon them. So far as the average cigarette smoker is concerned, he can very well get along without his cigarettes. But, take the average working man who buys one or two ounces of plug tobacco. In his present straitened circumstances it is a very great hardship radically to cut down his consumption of that luxury, luxury though it is. It may well be that it is necessary to cut down his consumption, but we ought to do it with our eyes open.
This Resolution, in addition to placing an increased tax on tobacco, places an increased tax on snuff. The average old woman in this country gathers together 6½d. at infrequent intervals with which she purchases half an ounce of snuff. I think this tax will raise the price of that half ounce of snuff to 8d. or 8½d.; I am not sure at the moment. Would it be unreasonable to suggest that we should at least exclude snuff from this extra impost? Snuff is consumed in this country almost exclusively by old people. If you take an old woman who is in the habit of getting half an ounce of snuff, it must be almost the only luxury she has. In days past when I was a child old women took a blast of the pipe, but you very seldom find them doing that now. Ninety-five per cent. of them, if they use tobacco at all, use it in the form of snuff. I am selling it to them every week. I know the old women who buy it, and it is a source of considerable distress to anybody in my position to see these old people denied that solitary luxury they are in the habit of getting.
I emphasise again that I am very conscious it may be necessary to restrict the consumption of tobacco, in which event we will have to face it. But I ask the Minister, who on previous occasions proved himself sympathetic in regard to the inability of the humble citizen to get a bit of tobacco, to consider now a similar case in respect of a very restricted class of persons who may be unable to get their snuff as a result of this tax.
There are two grounds on which I suggest this tax should be reconsidered. In regard to snuff, I ask for a return to the rate of duty which applied before the present Financial Resolution was adopted in Committee. I do not think that would mean any loss in revenue. I think it will mean a very marked mitigation of the hardships of the Resolution. In regard to tobacco, I make no plea but this: satisfy yourself before you make this Resolution permanent that its effect will not be to reduce the revenue derived from tobacco. In my judgment, for what it is worth, and I sell a good deal of tobacco across my counter, the effect of the Resolution will be materially to reduce the consumption of tobacco, to reduce it so much that the revenue at the new high rate will in fact be less than the revenue at the old rate that obtained before this Resolution was adopted in the present financial proposals.
I agree that a basic increase of 5/6 a lb. on unmanufactured tobacco is very heavy. I realised from the first time I suggested it to my colleagues of the Government that it would mean a hardship for many people because, although we may call it a luxury, tobacco, as Deputy Dillon said, is probably a necessity for many people. The same type of speech was made by Deputies last year when I proposed an increase in the tobacco tax. It was suggested that the result would be a big reduction in consumption. That has not proved to be so.
I do not think I suggested that there would be a reduction.
I am not saying that Deputy Dillon said that, but other Deputies said it. The increase in the tax this year admittedly is considerably greater than it was last year. Therefore, there will probably be some reduction, and we allowed for at least a 20 per cent. reduction in consumption in estimating the revenue we will get from the tax. I had to get the money and I had to consider where I would get it and what would be a reasonable subject to tax. Different varieties of food were suggested. Last year we put a tax on sugar and there was an uproar from the Opposition side about it. If we increased the tax on sugar again, I think Deputy Dillon would not agree with that.
What would the snuff concession cost?
I do not know. I will look into that.
I think it would be very small.
Snuff and tobacco have always moved up together. There would probably be difficulties in administration. Probably it would have to be done by way of rebate or something like that. I will look into it. I do not know that the consumption of snuff is very great.
It is very small except amongst old people.
I imagine it is. I am sympathetic towards those poorer classes of the population, but I would rather put a tax on snuff than a tax on food at any time. People can live without snuff, but they cannot live without food. That is the difficulty I am in.
A couple of pinches of snuff might make a ½-oz. of tea go a long way.
If you had a choice between snuff and tea, you would put the tax on the snuff rather than on tea. Tea might have come in for a very heavy tax if we were getting sufficient of it.
A ½-oz. of snuff would last a week, but a ½-oz. of tea would not last more than a breakfast.
A ½-oz. of snuff would last me a long time. The snuff tax will hit a very limited class of people. I should like to make the same kind of gesture I made last year, if I can do it without impairing the revenue to any considerable extent. I know it is a hardship, but it certainly is not for the purpose of making people suffer that we put on the tax. I think one can defend this tax because, when all is said and done, it is a luxury, not a necessity. It is a luxury, and we will have to make a choice of the commodities that we tax. I think that tobacco is, generally speaking, a fair mark.
And we may have hopes about snuff?
I will look into it.
Question put.
The Dáil divided:—Tá, 46; Níl, 23.
Tá
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Bourke, Dan.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Breslin, Cormac.
- Buckley, Seán.
- Carty, Frank.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corry, Martin J.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Patrick J.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Daniel.
- Keane, John J.
- Kelly, James P.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Kissane, Eamon.
- Lemass. Seán F.
- Little, Patrick J.
- Loughman, Francis.
- Lynch, James B.
- McCann, John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Meaney, Cornelius.
- Morrissey, Michael.
- Mullen, Thomas.
- O Briain Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Loghlen, Peter J.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Rice, Brigid M.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Rvan, James.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Laurence J.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Conn.
Níl
- Bennett, George C.
- Broderick, William J.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Cogan, Patrick.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Dockrell, Henry M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, John L.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Sullivan, John M.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Giles, Patrick.
- Hughes, James.
- Hurley, Jeremiah.
- Keating, John.
- Keves, Michael.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- Pattison, James P.
- Reidy, James.
- Ryan, Jeremiah.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Allen; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.