I move:

In sub-section (9), line 26, to delete the word "greatest" and substitute the word "least."

This is the section which deals with the imposition of duties in the First Schedule, that is to say the huge list of tariffed articles. I notice the Ministry have made up their mind that they are not sure themselves from time to time whether articles may come under one heading or another and in order to see that at any rate the public get the worst of it in every case, they have decided to put this in sub-section (9):

Where an article could be regarded as chargeable with two or more of the duties imposed by this section, such article shall be deemed to be liable only to that one of those duties in respect of which the greatest amount of duty would be payable and such article shall accordingly be chargeable only with such duty.

I have the feeling about these tariffs that if proper consideration had been given to them, there need not have been any confusion in the minds of the Ministry, the mind of the public or the minds of the Revenue Commissioners as to what duty was really chargeable on a particular article when it was coming in, but failing that consideration I should like to see that the balance would weigh on the side of the consumer in each case. Consequently if there is any case or if there are any cases in which double duty would appear to be chargeable that only one duty shall be charged and that that duty shall be the least that would be payable under any of the impositions. I think that when taxation is going to be imposed on the public, and in a sense tariff duties are taxation, where the tax is indefinite, in the sense that it is indeterminate as between a high rate or a low rate, the public should get the advantage of the doubt and the least of the duties in question should be chargeable. The importance of this amendment I cannot myself evaluate because I do not know how many of these confusions are likely to occur. I do not know if the Ministers concerned could give us an indication of the likely clash as between the greatest and the least amount of duty in the list to which this amendment refers, that is to say the First Schedule. If we could get some indication of that there is a possibility that there would be no necessity to press the amendment because the number of cases might be small.

I do not think that this amendment can be seriously intended. If an amendment of this kind were tabled by a Deputy, new to the House, everybody would understand, but the Deputy who moved this amendment has ten years' experience in administration, and he must know that a provision of this kind would not work. The practice which it is proposed to adopt in the sub-section has always been the practice. When we are imposing a duty upon furniture, at a particular rate, and on manufactured wood-work at a lower rate, it is obviously intended that articles of furniture should not be charged at a lower rate than articles of woodwork, and therefore it is necessary to have precautions of this kind.

That is the kind of argument we often hear here. Everything is protection of the duty even though it may be a higher duty than the items in the Schedule. As to having experience in this House, no experience appears to be any good except to lump on tariffs without any consideration, or the Minister being able to answer questions about them when put to him. The Minister gave one example, namely, the duty on furniture and manufactured woodwork. Is it impossible to get a definition of furniture that would bring within the scope of the furniture tariff whatever should be brought within the scope of that tariff? Would it not be possible to get a definition that would take in every article definitely brought within the furniture tax? If that is impossible we will get nearer to some definite thought on the matter, and an appreciation of what the position is if we say to the Government, and through them to the Revenue Commissioners that unless there is a proper definition the consumer has to get his chance of getting articles in free. It only means the difference between a possible fifty and thirty-three and one-third per cent. It is by no means having articles admitted free. The only articles upon which there is freedom are certain types of manure coming in from within the British Commonwealth, and linen goods, so there is no great contrast as between the free list and the tariff list. It is only between the different heads of tariffs the contrast is. Again I press for an indication of the number of things likely to be found under those heads. Are they likely to be numerous? Can we have specific instances other than furniture and woodwork and so on, as to what these amount to?

It is not possible to give special lists of every class of article subject to duty. One example is given, another is that of trade catalogues, thirty-three and one-third per cent., and printing matter 10 per cent. If the Deputy's amendment were carried trade catalogues would be subject only to the lower duty on printing matter and the object of the Bill would be defeated.

We have now an indication of two items out of a list of 38.

I move amendment 38.

In sub-section (2), page 10, to delete all from the word "articles" in line 40 to the end of the sub-section and substitute the words "Second Schedule to the said Finance Act, 1919, contained a list of goods to which the rate of such duty mentioned in the fourth column of the said Second Schedule to this Act is made applicable as a preferential rate and the articles chargeable with the said duty were included in that list."

This is merely a drafting amendment.

What does it mean?

If the Deputy will refer to the Second Schedule he will see. On item number 3, the preferential duty is three-farthings while the full rate is one penny. It was necessary to introduce this amendment to cover that particular instance.

I am rather curious about this substitution in sub-section (2) of Section 11. The purpose apparently is that the two-third rate is taken as the preferential rate and it is determined now that the rate shall be what is declared in column 2 of the Second Schedule. The same occurs in Section 10 but the preferential rate is not always mathematically two-thirds. Why is it necessary to substitute this in Section 11, and not in Section 10? Sub-section (2) (a) of Section 10 is very nearly the same as sub-section (2) of Section 11.

If the Deputy will refer to sub-section (2) of Section 10.

That is what I am referring to. Two-thirds is in sub-section (2) of Section 11 and the Minister is now moving to take out two-thirds in sub-section (2) of Section 11 and why not in Section 10?

Because it is not necessary to do so.

Why?

Because there is no preferential rate.

Suppose it was discovered that there was a preferential rate that is not two-thirds; supposing there is a duty which is not mathematically two-thirds what is to happen?

That can be answered when the occasion arises.

If the same circumstances were found to occur in the First Schedule which rate would apply? Is it the two-thirds?

It has nothing to do with the First Schedule.

The discussion is relevant to it.

Section 10 has already been passed by the House and we are not entitled to discuss it.

I am not discussing Section 10.

We are only entitled to discuss at this moment what we are doing under Section 11.

I am pointing out the absurdity of doing under Section 11 what was not necessary under Section 10. There is no more reason for this amendment in Section 11 than in Section 10. I assume the two Schedules are in the same position. There are duties in both. Why have two-thirds in Section 11, if it is not considered desirable to have it in Section 10? Why not reverse the procedure?

I move amendment 29: In sub-section (1), line 37, to delete the words "five hundred" and substitute the words "one thousand."

The Minister amended the original provision to some extent and exempted the 500 lbs. of tea in the possession of any person who had 1,000 lbs or over. I do not know why he did not go the whole distance and remove a certain grievance which the original tax created. The position now is that whereas a person with 999 lbs. of tea pays tax on 499 lbs. a person with 1,000 lbs. pays on the whole. The amount of money involved, from the Exchequer point of view, cannot be very great but this is leaving certain traders with a grievance. It puts certain traders at a disadvantage with rivals who may be operating in the same town or in the same street. I think the Minister ought to agree to alter the section, letting the first 1,000 lbs. of tea in stock free of duty, charging duty only on the amount above the first 1,000 lbs.

I support this amendment. I take it that it is an accepted principle that retrospective legislation is undesirable. In this case, the Minister made up his mind—very unfortunately, I think—that the situation demanded the imposition of retrospective taxation on tea stocks. He went further and made the differentiation to which Deputy Blythe has referred. The Minister has defended that on the ground that the person who had virtually no tea in stock is entitled to consideration as well as the person who had over 1,000 lbs. in stock but I think that defence, on the whole, does not hold water. The general feeling of inequity will prevail if a person with 999 lbs. of tea is exempt from this retrospective legislation and a person who has 1,001 lbs. is placed at a disadvantage of 499 lbs. The cost of the concession which Deputy Blythe proposed would amount to less than a ten-pound note in respect of every person who would become eligible for the concession, so that the cost would be insignificant. I submit to the Minister that the further he can go to meet those who feel that this retrospective procedure is undesirable the better it will be from every point of view.

I do not know whether it would be relevant on this amendment to refer briefly to the general principle of this tax but I am sorry the Minister did not deem it necessary to answer the observations of Deputy Blythe on the last section on the general principle of this tea tax. I think it is a pity that the opposition to this tax was allowed, at this juncture, to pass without comment. It is very desirable that the public should be continually reminded that the tax imposed upon tea in this Budget is merely the transfer of a duty from a commodity of great food value to a commodity of no food value. I think it is very desirable that the public should be made constantly aware that it is the intention of the Government to place a tax on what must be deemed to be a luxury commodity. It cannot be denied that the average poor person, who has to share the burden of this tax, can, without depriving anybody of a luxury to which great importance is attached, avoid the incidence of extra taxation. Any persons who feel that the 4d. tax will place a strain on their resources can, without depriving themselves of a luxury, arrange that their children will not have tea and thus reduce the weekly expenditure on tea and avoid the payment of the 4d. impost. At the same time, sugar is made available without any impost, to the great advantage of the junior members of the household, so that the net result of this tax—it is very important that the public should realise it—is that the weekly expenditure of the average working class family, following the impost upon sugar introduced by the last Government, can be materially reduced by the transfer of this duty from sugar to tea. But here the element of differentiation is brought in as between tea merchants and it will only produce a sum of about £9 per person liable for revenue. That seems to me to be undesirable, and I believe the Minister would make a useful concession if he could see his way to forego the £9, with a view to securing, in so far as he can, that every person will be dealt with equitably and equally by this Budget.

After what Deputy Dillon has said I do not think it is necessary for me to add anything further to what has been already said in the Budget statement and elsewhere in defence of this particular duty, as contrasted with the maintenance of the pre-existing duty on sugar. I am still not convinced that the proposal which the Government has made to meet the case of merchants who had stocks in excess of 1,000 lbs., is not the fairest and the most equitable which, in all circumstances, could have been put forward. Admittedly, from the revenue point of view, the ideal thing would have been to have endeavoured to collect the excess duty on every pound of tea in the possession of merchants. Practical reasons make that impossible. We had to fix some limit for exemption and we fixed 1,000 lbs. In deference to requests made in the House we reduced the exemption to merchants carrying a heavier stock than 1,000 lbs. to 500 lbs. We thought that was a fair way out. However, I am not anxious obstinately to maintain the attitude we have taken up on the matter. If I find the cost of meeting the Opposition and the Independent members who have spoken is not too great I will ask that this amendment be not pressed at this stage but be withdrawn and, if I am not able to meet the Deputies on the Report Stage, they can bring it up again.

I move amendment 30:—

In sub-section (3), page 11, line 52, to delete the word "paragraph" and substitute the word "sub-section."

This is merely a drafting amendment.

Are these amendments going down on the Report Stage?

Undoubtedly.

Then I must ask the House not to permit these amendments to be withdrawn, but to be disposed of now.

They are not moved.

They are not moved, and as Deputy Mulcahy is not in the House they cannot be moved without his authorisation.

I move:—

In sub-section (1), lines 38-39, to delete the words "a gramophone or".

I would like to ask the Minister to consider whether he could not exempt gramophone records. Gramophone records were previously chargeable and appeals were made some years ago from all sections of the House to exempt them. I think the Minister should recognise that some special consideration is due in respect to them, as compared with the other types of records which it is proposed to tax. People who purchase records for a pianola are much better off than a great many of those who will be buying gramophone records. Many people have no type of musical instrument except these records and they are found in the poorest households. I think the amount of duty involved cannot be very large and that the Minister might exempt them.

I desire to support the amendment. The Minister may be aware that in some of the poorest houses the people save their pennies in order to purchase gramophone records. It would be inflicting a great hardship on them to tax records. If the Minister could give an assurance that gramophone records will be manufactured in Dublin, or could hold out any hope that the industry will be revived, I think the amendment need not be pressed.

I am afraid I cannot see my way to accept the amendment.

Why?

We are putting a tax on other musical instruments and I do not see why we should exempt what are accessories for the mechanical production of music, while we continue to tax instruments used by musicians to earn a livelihood. Most of the gramophone records now sold are very much cheaper than they were when this duty was withdrawn in 1924, and consequently the tax is very much lighter.

After all, gramophone records are not necessaries of life. A gramophone is a luxury article and I cannot see why it should be put in any other category than that of a luxury.

I know many houses where the children save their pennies in order to buy gramophone records. I should think this tax would be a great hardship on them. The gramophone stands in quite a different position from that of any of the other musical instruments that have been spoken of, and I appeal to the Minister to do something in this respect for the children, not for the children of the rich, as he would call them, who, perhaps, are able to get the money, but for the children of the poor. This is the one means of entertainment that these families have. I think that the really strong case should appeal to the Minister.

I should like to ask that this be pressed a little bit further. We are getting, as this Budget develops, I do not say, new principles of taxation, but we are getting new categories, and we have the astounding suggestion made here to-day by an Independent Deputy, and, of course, accepted, as naturally it would be, by the Minister, that tea is a luxury. The Minister will see that paraded over many parts of this country before he goes to election next——Tea is a luxury. This, as a matter of fact, is a children's tax in the main——

And what is sugar?

Nobody ever said that sugar was a luxury. That is the relevancy of that remark. The Minister has dragged in tobacco and I would like the Minister to stand in front of a working class constituency and talk of tobacco as a luxury. He is living in a peculiar stratum of society if he has these two ideas that tea and tobacco are luxury articles. Gramophone records cannot be put on the same footing at all as tea or tobacco, but still a good case can be made. A tax is being imposed on musical instruments, and if the section stands as it is, and Deputy Mulcahy's amendment, when moved later, is not carried, gramophones will be taxed as such. That only adds to the injustice of the thing. The first cost is considerable on some gramophones, but taking even the smaller type which are cheap and relatively efficient, these can be brought in here and the first cost is considerable on them, but still it can be borne, but if one is to get any sort of pleasure from a gramophone it must be by reason of a fairly good stream of new records and it is these additional sums coming in that will inflict hardship. There has recently sprung up quite a considerable trade amongst big record manufacturers in records for children and records that are even above the stage that would be described as the children's stage but for young people nevertheless, and records which those who are interested in educational science are coming more and more to consider of value from the purely educational standpoint. There can be a division made into what is entirely and completely a pleasure record and those which are designed to be as much an aid to education as the reading of historical novels would be an aid to education, on the literary or historical side. These aids to education are going to be somewhat hindered by this. I wonder has the Minister any idea of what the remission would cost, of what he would not get if the gramophone record was excepted from this tax, because that is an item that must enter into our calculations at this point. It is rather a rough and ready way of dealing with a serious amendment which has very definite backing from the two angles I spoke of, simply to say that it is a luxury article, and to say further, which seems to me to be fantastic as an argument, that because the gramophone itself is taxed, the record has to be taxed also. I think that much more serious consideration than that shown by the type of answer the Minister gives might be afforded to an amendment of this type.

Deputy McGilligan has raised the question of luxuries, as usual, with great adroitness, with reference to tea, on the subject of gramophone records. He has managed to get it in and I think it only reasonable and fair to reply that tea is neither a luxury nor anything else but a deleterious article of food for young children. The case made here was that it was not intended or suggested that tea was not only a luxury but almost a necessity for adults amongst the poor population in this country, but that it was neither one nor the other, but an article of food calculated to do grave injury to the children of the poor and that the transfer of the tax from sugar to tea was calculated to leave the tax as it was, available to the adult population, with a saving on their weekly sugar purchases which would more than counter-balance what was to be paid in respect of the tea, if they pursued the sensible course adopted by every well informed parent, of withholding tea from their children and giving them another beverage.

With reference to the Minister's reply I would respectfully suggest that when Deputies Mrs. Collins-O'Driscoll and Sir James Craig intervene in this matter and make a representation to him, supported as it was by Deputy McGilligan, it would deserve the Minister's consideration as to whether some concession might not be made. I suggest to him, though I fully understand the reluctance of the Minister to make a remission on a luxury article of this character, which is a luxury no matter what its educational value is, that the case might be met on Report Stage by limiting the duty in respect of the cheaper record, say, the record not intended to retail for more than 2/-. Some modus vivendi might be arrived at which might meet the case of the people for whom Deputies Mrs. Collins-O'Driscoll and Sir James Craig spoke. With regard to the more expensive records I quite agree that they are of a highly educational value but, any person who can afford to pay 6/6 for a record, or 35/- for a book of records, can very well afford, in times like this, to contribute to the revenue, in order that he may enjoy the educational benefit of such music, but, in the case of the poor and the children who enjoy this harmless amusement, I think the Minister would be showing a benevolence that would do him credit, if, with paternal solicitude, he ensured that the records of the young were delivered from the hands of the tax-gatherer.

Deputy Dillon has, for the second time, got in his spar as to whether tea was a luxury or not. I am not going to go into it. The populace is the best judge of that and they will some day clearly indicate whether they consider it a luxury or not. As to the tax on gramophones, the Minister said that since 1924, records and gramophones have become cheaper. They have become cheaper, and I think that the Minister and every Deputy ought to be glad that they have. Up to recent days, children, and, I may say, adults on the mountain sides and waysides of this State, had very little opportunity of hearing any relatively good music. Any music they did hear was derived possibly from a mouth organ, a penny whistle, or a jew's-harp. They occasionally heard the music of the wayside fiddler when he paid an occasional visit to their humble homes, but, on the whole, their knowledge of music was very limited and their opportunities of hearing any music very limited until the advent of the gramophone, which, for the first time, placed within the reach of these poor people, opportunities of hearing fairly good music and of hearing reproduced some of the best bands in the world. It was an educational value to children, and I think it ought to be the desire of the House that such opportunities should increase and not decrease. It ought to be the wish of all of us that opportunities for children and others in very remote places to hear good music should not be limited.

I will ask the Minister, in view of the desires of Deputies both here and on the Independent Benches, to reconsider this matter. It cannot amount to a great sum of money. This places in the hands of the very poor people opportunities of hearing good music. A tax like this will put good music possibly out of the reach of the poor. Numerous charitable organisations and very many private individuals distribute, at their own expense, gramophones amongst the poor people and this provides them with a very desirable form of entertainment. The people have to provide their own records and if this tax is imposed it will cause considerable hardship.

I am surprised that one case in favour of gramophone records has not been made up to this. Some speakers have referred to the educational value of good music. I agree with that and I wish to add my voice to theirs in that connection. A further case can be made for records of an educational type. I do not know if the Minister is aware that languages are now being extensively taught through the medium of the gramophone record. French, German and Spanish records can now be procured and those languages can be learned through that medium. I do not know whether the Minister can tell me of his own knowledge whether there are gramophone records for the teaching of Irish.

Yes, there are.

I would like to emphasise that there is no more effective channel for teaching a person pronunciation than through the medium of gramophone records. Of course people may acquire a book knowledge of a language, but they will carry the imprint of their own attempts at pronunciation for the rest of their lives. People who are taught pronunciation by means of gramophone records will acquire a correct pronunciation that cannot be acquired in any other way except, of course, through personal contact with speakers of that language. I do not know whether the Minister will make the case that there are nowadays broadcasts from various countries in different languages and that people with very powerful and selective sets can listen to excellent lessons in foreign tongues.

I would like to point out that for the ordinary private individual in this State the method of learning a language by means of gramophone records is the simplest, and a language can be very easily acquired in that way. If the price of records is increased there will not be so many bought. Wealthier people, when they use gramophone records for some time, pass them on and in that manner many gramophone records find their way into the humblest homes. Very often records are presented to the poor. The revenue to be derived in this case will be very small and I think the only effect of the tariff will be to prevent people, particularly the poor, getting a little amusement in their own homes.

Deputy Dockrell's statement reminds me of one matter that I would like to stress. Two young men in my district were getting employment until lately teaching Irish to the Civic Guards. Two months ago their work ceased, through the instructions of the Department of Justice, and Irish is now being taught to the Civic Guards by means of gramophone records.

Your own Minister for Justice did that? It is scandalous.

I think it is not right that those young men should be unemployed for the sake of having Irish taught through the medium of gramophone records. I do not think the language could be learned very well from records.

The Deputy should be a good judge.

Deputy Corry should be an authority on the subject.

This was done before the present Minister's time.

But the Deputy mentioned a few months ago—two months ago.

It was done by the gentleman who has only one record in this House—the Deputy of the kicking cow. I appreciate this tax if it will put an end to the unemployment of those young men who were engaged teaching Irish. I think teaching Irish by means of records is nonsense.

I do not think the House will accept Deputy Corry as an authority on the teaching of Irish, whether by gramophone records or by means of the spoken word. I think the Deputy's knowledge in that respect would not carry us very far. In connection with the discussion on this section there is one thing that might help us to have a clearer point of view. What I have in mind is the necessity for a clearer definition of the word luxury. What is or what is not a luxury? So far as I can judge from the Minister's interpretation, a luxury means something we can do without. Therefore, everything in the form of clothing, food or entertainment could be done without; they are luxuries and should be taxed out of existence.

Perhaps the Deputy will try to do without clothes and then he will realise whether or not clothes are a luxury.

We could do with very little this weather.

A proper definition of what is meant by luxury ought to be given. Apparently we are discussing it from different points of view. I take up a different attitude to the Minister in regard to what is a luxury. With regard to gramophone records, it is disgraceful to put a tax on them. You can, at any rate, remedy matters by eliminating the tax on the lower-priced records which are available for the homes of the poor. It is ridiculous to class gramophone records as luxuries. The gramophone is the only sort of musical entertainment the poor can have. They buy reasonably good gramophones and records cheaply. That is the only way they have of getting into touch with some of the master minds in the musical world; that is how they acquire the more popular airs and songs. Any form of culture as applied to the lives of the poor ought not to be taxed. Their lives are drab enough and these gramophones are the means of bringing them some brightness. If you go through the smaller towns and cities you will find gramophones installed in the houses of the poor. They cannot afford expensive wireless sets, pianos or violins. Gramophones in their cases are essential and I do not think the Minister should define them as luxuries.

From what I have heard in this debate it would seem there were only two classes in the State who would buy gramophone records, the very young and the very poor. The whole case against the tax is based on the assumption that children in certain circumstances might have to pay more for their records. We are led to believe that the purchasers of the greater number of records would be children. If the case against a tax is based on the belief that gramophone records will be slightly dearer for children we ought at least to have some reliable figures to show us what proportion the children constitute of those who purchase records. I believe it is a very small proportion, almost infinitesimal, so insignificant that it should not be mentioned in the debate at all. The State should not be at the loss of revenue amounting to thousands of pounds simply because possibly two or three hundred children——

Thousand.

There has not been a single argument submitted to show me that there is a thousand. The State should not lose revenue simply because two or three hundred children purchasing sixpenny records might have to pay twopence more for them. That is the case made by Deputy McGilligan and some other Deputies. We cannot look at the matter merely from that point of view. It has also been said that this tax is going to deprive the poor of good music. It has been said that the cheaper records go mainly into the poorer classes of homes. I deny that absolutely. I think the people who buy shilling records in the greatest numbers are people in fairly comfortable circumstances. They buy may be two or three a week. As soon as one jazz tune becomes popular they buy the record with that tune and make the lives of their neighbours a misery, playing it daily to the end of the week. Then they go and buy another one. The proportion of really good class music which is recorded on the cheaper records as compared with music of the ephemeral kind is insignificantly small. Even the amount of good music——

What is good music?

I am not a musical critic.

Hear, hear!

I know if I heard the Deputy singing "You are the cream in my coffee," I would know he was not singing a classical number. Again, even in the case of the higher priced record the same applies. The best definition of good music I suppose is probably music which has lived. That is good music. Again that forms a comparatively very small proportion of "recorded" music, and by far the larger number of gramophone records are records of an ephemeral and passing kind which one hears from day to day for two or three weeks and never hears again.

Thank God.

I agree. We are asked to abolish this tax virtually because that is what it will mean, in order that the plague may afflict us more frequently. There is no other case made. I enjoy this music as much as anybody possibly, because I have a very low-class taste in the matter.

Shame.

But I am not going to give away money, which is absolutely essential in order to balance the Budget, simply to make it cheaper for people to inflict this music upon them. There was one serious matter raised in the debate which might have some substance in it if it had any application at all to the section under discussion. That was the question of educational records, records which are used for teaching a language. It was Deputy McGilligan who raised that matter. It is quite obvious that when Deputy McGilligan raised that he had not read the section.

Why?

The section says: "A customs duty ... on all records and other similar articles and intended for the reproduction of music by means of a gramophone," and so on. There is no tax upon records designed solely or which form part of a language course. No tax is imposed on such records, because they consist mainly of the spoken word. They are not dutiable and would not be dutiable. I take it, it was in the mind of every Deputy when the debate was centred upon this particular aspect of the question that we were going to tax records which constitute part of a course in language in which grammar and phonetic lessons were given and in which possibly songs were recited. Mainly or partly this course consisted of songs reproduced and I could not see how these records could possibly come under this tax. There is no language course, as far as I know, which consists merely of the singing of songs. Therefore there was no substance in the point made by Deputy McGilligan when he said records used for language teaching purposes.

I did not make that point.

The Deputy did make it.

The only man who made that point was Deputy Corry.

Deputy McGilligan made it. He said records used in the teaching of a language.

I did not say for the teaching of a language. I said educational purposes.

It was Deputy Hennessy used these words.

Deputy Doctor Hennessy had a second course with the hare started by Deputy McGilligan but he was not the first who used it by any means. The attack on the duty has been based particularly on the fact that certain children's records would be made more expensive. I do not know whether it would be possible for us to exempt such records without having to drop the tax altogether. I know that a number of children's records are sold around about 6d. I will have that aspect of the matter looked into and if it is possible to meet the point which Deputy Sir James Craig, Deputy Dillon and Deputy Mrs. Collins-O'Driscoll have raised in regard to children's records and if it is possible to exempt them in some simple way which will not involve us in administrative difficulties, I will try to meet that on Report Stage.

The Minister will have to go further. I did not refer to records that might be called records of the phrase method of conversation. As far as I remember the phrase I used I talked about records that were as much an aid to the teaching of a language as novels by the best writers are an aid to a literary course. There are quite a number of very good teachers in this country who insist on gramophone records as an aid, but not as Deputy Corry said, as a substitute for education. I never heard of anybody who set out to teach a language by means of a gramophone. I do know that the gramophone can be brought in when a certain amount of contact has been made already with the student and when a certain amount of progress has been made in the language.

I suggest that the Minister should consult Deputy Fitzgerald-Kenney who——

It is a great pity that Deputy Corry did not get some training in speaking a language by gramophone records or otherwise.

Deputy McGilligan could not learn it by any means.

There are things used by the children apart from education, the singing of songs, and records are put up in that form because the best pedagogic opinions are that you can learn the language in this way. The object is to aid the memory, by things from which interest will be derived. That is an educational aid used for the very young type that I referred to. It is not really a matter of formal education, but is useful before a child is sent to school or in the early days of a child's schooling. The Minister talked of the small number of records used by the very young. Again I thought I had guarded against that error.

Bought by the very young.

It does not matter by whom they are bought. The Minister is not serious in that interjection. If the price of records goes up and if parents cannot afford them they will not buy them. So that is not a definite question of a child being able to afford them. A child gets a certain number of pennies which it puts into records possibly, but there are still considerate parents in the country who actually bring home a few records of the small type for a young child. It is not merely the young child who has to be considered. I spoke of young children as well, and I included in that phrase those who have gone the length of the Leaving Certificate in the schools or who are in their early years in the University course, because even there it is becoming recognised that a record is an aid. I am still awaiting one item of information. The Minister played about with figures and talked about reliable figures that Deputies should have given him. The onus of proof is generally on the people in possession of the more reliable information. We have not heard from the Minister what he would not get if the tax on records were abandoned; in other words, what he estimates to get from the tax on records; what he will not get if it is abandoned, and what he is not going to get if the tax on records of a certain type is abandoned. That is information that we might get before we are in a position even to frame further amendments to whatever amendment the Minister is going to put down for the Report Stage.

For once I find myself in sympathy with the Minister for Finance. I am rather surprised that he did not include in the list of tariffed or taxed articles that abomination known as the loudspeaker that we hear so frequently. I did not think the gramophone had so many friends in the Dáil. As we are talking about the teaching of foreign languages and the teaching of Irish through the medium of the gramophone, I wonder has anybody ever suggested that even in our schools we might use the gramophone as a method of teaching correct English and correct pronunciation. There is one useful function that the gramophone might perform. It does help through phonetics to teach a language. No case, however, had been made for the cheap records mentioned so frequently. Most of these are of the jazz type. As the Minister says, these cheap records are bought, inflicted on the neighbours for two or three weeks and then thrown on the scrap heap.

Personally I feel that this is a most acceptable section. The only thing I am sorry for is that the Minister has not included such things as loudspeakers, which are so objectionable. I suggest that it is not too late yet. Even the birds are silenced by them, because they have this apparatus even in trees. One cannot go into the country now but somebody shouts a jazz song at one from some unknown quarter. For that reason, I feel myself in sympathy with the Minister. At the same time, there is, I think, one instrument that the Minister might easily have left out of this section and that is the pianola, because it is on quite a different plane from the gramophone. While it may be automatic in action, it is altogether different from the gramophone. I ask the Minister to consider the question of including loudspeakers in this section on the next Stage.

They are taxed.

I want to keep them out altogether. If the Minister will do something to get rid of that abomination he will deserve the gratitude of the country.

I move amendment 37:

At the end of sub-section (1), to add the words "and not including records of songs in the Irish language."

I am accepting the amendment.

There are certain reproductions of Irish instruments like the pipes. Good pipe music, I am sorry to say, is becoming very rare.

The point is whether it is Scotch or Irish.

I am serious in this, because there have been some beautiful airs in these Uilean pipes preserved on records. They are really magnificent.

I shall consider that and see if I cannot bring in an amendment on the Report Stage to cover it.

I move amendment 38: "To delete sub-section (2)." I move this amendment to give the Minister an opportunity of getting out of this farcical performance of pretending to encourage the growth of tobacco here. I presume no tobacco will be grown this year, or very little, because the time for sowing had passed before the Budget was introduced: I have not the figures in connection with the growth of tobacco at my finger ends but I think that produce is something like 1,000 lbs. per acre. To relieve that tobacco from tax would mean, at the present rate of duty, giving a subsidy of something like £500 for every acre of tobacco grown, because if a pound of Irish tobacco is used it means that there will be one pound less of foreign tobacco used. There has been ample experience to show that this country is entirely unsuitable for the production of that crop. It means that if the crop is grown there is going to be a tremendous loss of revenue, a loss altogether out of proportion to any employment that could possibly be given. To spend money in order to encourage the growth of tobacco here is quite as absurd as spending money in the way it was done in the famine days by getting people to dig a hole and fill it in again.

The thing has been amply tried out. The fact that it is not merely proposed to give an allowance of 2/- per lb., or something like that, but that the Minister proposes to make this tobacco duty free is an indication of how impossible it is to grow the crop in this country on an economic basis. This provision will do no harm now but it will do no good to anybody. It would probably be time enough to take it out next year, but I think that the Minister ought not to begin the performance that is indicated by this section. There has been a clamour raised by a few dozen people who care nothing about the general financial scheme, and who are only interested perhaps in having something adopted that will put money into their own pockets easily. There was a great deal of propaganda we all know a great many years ago about Irish-grown tobacco. The growing of tobacco in this country was given a chance then. It undoubtedly had a fair chance. Every effort was made to foster it and fairly substantial sums of money were wasted on it and I think another attempt is not necessary.

I was one of those who advocated, I think last year, that this duty should be removed and that home-grown tobacco should be free of duty. I did so because I was absolutely satisfied that it could be grown in this country. I am satisfied that, as Deputy Blythe has now stated, no injury would be done to the revenue for at least a year or practically two years because the Budget is introduced at a time when it is too late to sow the seed. The seed is sown early in February. As far as the growing of tobacco is concerned in this country it can be grown in the same way as turnips, cabbage or anything else. The experiments tried hitherto in this regard were unreal experiments, because largely behind these experiments was the idea to prove if at all possible, that the thing could not be done. This, however, is a genuine attempt to encourage the farmers of Ireland to grow tobacco. If they do not grow it no harms is done and nothing will happen. If they do grow it nothing will happen in the way of loss of revenue for at least three years. It will be time enough then to take any steps that may be thought necessary to restrict by taxation the growing of the plant.

I do not see any reason whatever, when farmers have to pay annuities which are at least three times as high as they should be, why they should be restricted by taxation from growing anything they please. I am convinced, and many more people are convinced, that this industry if it gets a chance will become extremely important to the agricultural community because it will introduce what is absolutely necessary amongst the agricultural community, an effort on industrial lines. It will gradually bring the agricultural community into the position that they will adopt an industrial outlook. I believe that the removal of the duty and the removal of the restrictions on tobacco growing would bring a number of Irish farmers to realise all the natural advantages that they have in this country. As a matter of fact, there are few parts of the world in which tobacco can be grown as successfully as it can here. As I said before the last experiment had a definite object and that was to demoralise the whole industry. There are few countries that are more suitable for the growing of the plant than this country. The damp climate which we have in this country is especially suitable for the cultivation of the plant. In the last experiment the thing was wrongly handled. Vested interests over which the Government had no control got control of the experiment, although huge sums were expended on it. As much as £70 per acre was given in subsidy. The result was that the farmers ploughed up their land, put in a few plants and drew their £70. I think everybody will admit that that was not the way to make a success of the experiment.

There are few farmers who do not know that they can grow tobacco as well as turnips, cabbage or anything else. If it is not a success nothing will happen. If they cannot sell the tobacco, or if they cannot smoke it no revenue will be lost. On the other hand, if we find it is a successful industry and that the tobacco produced at home has displaced the foreign tobacco, I do not know that we will have done a lot of harm. Taxation can be raised in other directions, if necessary. I think it is time that we should get rid of the rotten groove in which we have been moving heretofore and make an effort to start native industries in the proper spirit. It is time we got rid of the habit of giving subsidies. There is no subsidy involved in this. If the farmers are successful in growing tobacco and can produce tobacco of the necessary standard, I think we shall have done the country a good turn even though taxation may have to be raised in other ways.

I do not agree with Deputy Blythe that the growing of tobacco will only employ a few people. On the contrary, there is no branch of the agricultural industry which can employ more people. I think that what is the policy of this Government should be the policy of every Government—to see that there are as many people employed in the country as possible. The fact that low prices exist is responsible for unemployment. These low prices deprive people of employment because those who produce cannot sell their products at an economic price. That has brought the whole world into a state of complete confusion. I, for one, am perfectly satisfied that what the Minister has done in this matter is perfectly right.

The thing is so ridiculous that we should not waste any time discussing it. I am sure it will be possible to repeal this provision in time.

Amendment put and negatived.