I move Resolution No. 2:—

(1) That in lieu of the present customs duties in respect of matches. there shall be charged, levied, and paid on all matches imported on or after the third day of May, 1945, a customs duty at the following rates. that is to say:—

(2) That in lieu of the present excise duties in respect of matches, there shall be charged, levied, and paid as on and from the third day of May, 1945, the following excise duties on all matches made in the State, that is to say:—

(3) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).

I heard the Minister's Budget statement clearly, but perhaps he would be kind enough to give the House certain further information. Is it not unusual to give an ad hoc subsidy to one firm in respect to matches? Is the Minister in a position to say if the Prices Commission have conducted a careful inquiry into the profits of this match company, and required the company to make a fair contribution in regard to the price of matches, before it is proposed to give them a State subsidy of £53,000 a year? Is there any precedent for giving that firm a subsidy of £53,000?

I found that the excise duty put on a couple of years ago put this industry in jeopardy, and this is only bare justice to the firm, after a full and most detailed examination of their accounts. When everything was gone into, I am satisfied, in order to keep the industry going, that it is the barest justice to them to reduce the excise duty by this amount. The prices section of the Department of Supplies went into this to the fullest possible extent at my request, and into all figures relating to the cost of production in this case.

What capital is invested in the industry?

I cannot say.

Within one firm? We know that one firm is to get £53,000.

£58,000 in each full year.

There may be a good case for this, but the House would like to know what capital is invested in the firm, what dividends are paid, how much per annum is allowed towards the payment of dividends, and what percentage this sum of £58,000 would mean to the firm in respect of invested capital.

10 per cent of £500,000.

Part of the money goes in certain proportions to wholesalers and retailers. This goes, too, amongst wholesalers to improve their position, because they were also included when the higher excise duty of 8/- was put on.

How much is going to be distributed?

I will give the figures to-morrow.

Will the Minister say how many people are engaged?

I will try to get the figures.

On these figures, if we are to vote £58,000 to one firm, it would represent £100 yearly to 580 people. It might be cheaper to give them £100 each, and let them earn a livelihood elsewhere, and to let the public get cheaper matches.

From my information about this company I say that, from the workers' point of view, there is no better run company in the City of Dublin. I know from personal knowledge the way the workers are treated. With the exception of Guinness's, I think no workers are better treated by any firm.

That is not in question.

Deputy O'Higgins asked me for the numbers employed. I do not know, but I shall find out.

There is no animus amongst any Deputies as far as I know against this firm, but I think it right all the same to say, although some of the proprietors are old and respected personal friends of mine, that that does not discharge me from inquiring about this £58,000. The Minister stated that part of the money is going to be used for the relief of wholesalers and retailers. If the House is to be asked by this Resolution to provide this money, it ought to be told how much is going to the proprietors of the match company and how much is going to wholesalers and distributors. It ought further be given an undertaking by the Minister for Finance that he would keep the whole finance under review, to ensure an equitable division between the three parties mentioned as long as this concession extends to the match company. I heard nothing from the Minister in the way of details of intended precautions.

I am wondering if on this question the Minister has told us all the facts. Is this the position, that if the price of matches is increased to the public the result will be that a certain sum of money will be brought in and that there will be a very substantial increase in profits? Would a very small increase result in a tremendous increase in the amount of money received? That seems to me to be a possibility the Minister has not mentioned. I wish to associate myself with what other Deputies said, that this is a most undesirable precedent.

To increase matches by even a halfpenny per box would be costly on consumers and would bring in a much larger revenue to the company than at present. It would meet the problem. We think the company should get this. We do not think it possible to ask consumers to pay an additional amount for matches.

A halfpenny a box on matches. That would terrify the Minister.

It would. The Minister does not buy many boxes of matches and is not much of a smoker, but it would be a very heavy cost on the poor man who buys tobacco.

The Minister is now gravely concerned about consumers.

I am always gravely concerned about them, much more than the Deputy and his friends, as consumers all over the country know quite well. They proved that to the Deputy many times in my constituency and will prove it again.

Who made representations to the Minister about this matter?

The company.

Not the wholesalers or retailers?

The company only. I am, quite satisfied from the representations made by the company and from the figures that they justify what I am proposing.

I thought that the wholesalers' position was brought in.

The Deputy brought in that.

The Minister is satisfied that the consumers' position is such that they could not pay the extra halfpenny a box?

I would not ask them. I think this is the fairer way, to come to the House to ask them for this amount.

Because of the shocking conditions to which the consumer is reduced.

I did not say shocking. I did not use the word "shocking". The Deputy is not going to put that word into my mouth.

I am interpreting the Minister, that he agrees that the consumer is reduced to such a condition generally that he cannot bear another halfpenny.

I do not agree at all. If that is the Deputy's view, it is not mine.

The Minister has implied it.

I have not.

I take it we will get the details to-morrow?

Yes. Whatever details have been asked for here, I will try to get them as far as I can.