DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - CUSTOMS ARRANGEMENTS IN SAORSTAT. – Dáil Éireann (4th Dáil) – Friday, 19 Jun 1925

DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - CUSTOMS ARRANGEMENTS IN SAORSTAT.

Mr. BLYTHE

Before we take up the Estimates, I would like to say a word or two in reference to the question raised by Deputy Myles yesterday. I have not been able to find any further information in regard to the particular case he mentioned; it is being looked into. The only thing I can say is that if it was found it was a case of personal luggage, and if there is nothing disclosed in the case he mentioned, the duty paid will be refunded. We admit personal luggage, on a very reasonable scale, free with all passengers entering, and as far as I am concerned I have heard of no complaints. In fact I have heard quite a number of commendations as regards the way the work at Dun Laoghaire and other ports has been dealt with by the Customs Officials. It is the officer on the spot who must judge what is reasonable. That depends on quite a number of circumstances, including the length of stay of the passenger and the locality where the passenger is coming from. A person coming from Belfast for a day or two obviously would not be entitled to bring as much luggage as an American who would be doing a European tour. There will be no stringency in the matter.

In regard to the admission of personal luggage sent in advance of the passenger, that will be admitted free of duty, just the same as if it were accompanied by the passenger. It cannot, however, be brought in and delivered without the payment of duty, if it contains dutiable articles. It must be detained by the Customs authorities until the owner or some properly authorised person declares and opens it. The Customs officials have no authority to open baggage; it must be opened by the owner or his agent. Luggage would therefore have to be detained pending the arrival of somebody who would open it for the Customs officials and who would satisfy them in regard to the contents. Normally the passenger should come, but we do not hold to that rule in every case. We are prepared in suitable conditions to let the luggage go through with the attendance of some person authorised by the owner.

I can say in general that there has been no cause of complaint. If any particular trouble arises at any point it will be cleared up as quickly as possible. Passengers coming through need not have any fear that they will not be facilitated. The case that Deputy Myles mentioned is being looked into. If it is found that it was a genuine case of sending on personal luggage in advance, the duty paid will be refunded. We hope it will be possible to make arrangements whereby no misunderstandings will occur in future. If luggage is sent in advance it will simply be detained, and will be immediately released if the owner or an agent applies for it. We will see under what conditions we can release it without the personal application of the owner of the luggage.

Mr. JOHNSON

At what point is it customary to pay duty in the case of luggage sent in advance?

Mr. BLYTHE

At the point of entry, or at some place where there is a Custom House. It must be a place where there is an officer who can deal with the matter. The normal place would be the point of entry.

Mr. JOHNSON

I am not familiar with the practice in those matters, but it occurs to me that it is going to cause a lot of annoyance and trouble to people who are not in the habit of paying duty when going on their holidays. It would be very desirable if it were possible to avoid the necessity of putting down money.

Mr. BLYTHE

Normally there should be no putting down of money for personal luggage, but luggage cannot go through if it is not accompanied by the passenger. For instance, luggage could not go through to Tullamore from London unaccompanied by the passenger. It would be detained at Dun Laoghaire until the passenger arrives. When the passenger arrives and claims the luggage which came in advance, it would go through. We are considering whether in certain cases it might not be possible for luggage to go through without the passenger appearing.

Mr. COLE

Supposing that luggage were to go from the North Wall on to Ballyshannon, would it be necessary to have it examined again at Ballyshannon, or would it be sealed up at the North Wall?

Mr. BLYTHE

That raises another problem. If it were thought worth while by the railway company, in view of whatever traffic there might be, to provide sealed wagons, of course the luggage could then go through in the sealed vans without any further trouble. Without a sealed wagon it would not be possible to avoid a second examination. If there were sufficient traffic to justify railway companies providing sealed wagons, we would be only too glad to avail of those waggons for the conveyance of articles.

Mr. COLE

Could not the baggage be sealed?

Mr. BLYTHE

It would not suffice to seal the baggage only. You could not adequately seal the baggage. The way the matter is dealt with in the case of other goods is that the articles are put in a wagon and the wagon is sealed. Various undertakings are entered into and the wagon is not touched in any way; there is no further examination. The goods are not regarded as having gone out of the Saorstát.

Mr. DAVIN

Will the Minister, when dealing with this matter again, consider the question from the point of view of endeavouring to secure what would be a concession and a considerable advantage to passengers? I refer to what applies on the Continent—that there should be a declaration made in regard to the luggage when it is sent in advance. The Continental arrangements are such that luggage sent from Florence or Venice, say, to London, passes through all the barriers. Would the Minister undertake to get into touch with people who would enable that arrangement to be applied to Ireland? It would save a good deal of the trouble that arises at the present time. Under that arrangement luggage coming from the Continent could go through Dun Laoghaire, the North Wall, Cobh or wherever the passenger would be arriving. It is necessary, I think, that the arrangement would be made between the Governments and railway companies concerned, with the consent of the Revenue Commissioners.

Mr. BLYTHE

I do not think there would be anything done in that case that would not rightly be done in any case where there is sufficient traffic to justify the provision of a sealed wagon. In most of those Continental places there is not such a big traffic as would necessitate having a sealed van sent right through. With regard to Customs formalities, since this matter was discussed last in the Dáil I have gone into the question of Customs delays. I find that at present there is no delay due to the Customs, leaving out individual incidental cases that might occur. The delay that is really experienced is due to the transit companies. I do not say that if they were accepting abnormal numbers of dutiable articles the Customs staff might not be hard put to it; but with the companies restricting the number of dutiable parcels that they will carry over, the Customs staff is everywhere adequate. One case where congestion occurred was in connection with postal parcels. That has now been cleared away.

I will illustrate some of the cases where blame was put on the Customs authorities, but where no blame was due. A deputation which met the Revenue Commissioners yesterday instanced the case of a parcel despatched from London on 21st May. It reached Dublin on 29th May. The railway company, acting as the consignee's agents for the purpose of clearing the goods through the Customs, notified the consignees on the 5th June of the arrival of the parcel, requesting an invoice in order to pay the duty. The invoice and the duty were sent to the railway company on the 5th June, on the same day. The railway company paid the duty on 16th June, eleven days after. Of course the Customs authorities could not do anything until the railway company paid the duty on the 16th June, although the goods had been despatched from London on 21st May. The real position is that even before these duties the carrying companies had not made sufficient accommodation. In certain cases tremendous confusion arose, and one company had to suspend the reception of dutiable parcels altogether for a time. At the present moment our staffs are able to deal at once with all goods presented to them. If the companies had more accommodation it might then be that a position would exist where the Customs officials would find difficulty in dealing with all the goods presented to them.

Mr. JOHNSON

Would it be possible for the Minister to consult with the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs to consider the practicability of widening the range of routes whereby parcels, for instance, are transmitted to this country instead of all having to go through one or two ports? That may ease the situation.

Mr. DAVIN

I think the Minister is quite correct. I say that from a knowledge of the actual facts with regard to the Customs. There is no blame attaching to Customs officers or the Revenue Commissioners. But I think the Minister could remove a good deal of the irritation and inconvenience to commercial people, as well as the loss of valuable time, if he would see that the Customs office to which people have to go were at the North Wall, convenient to the place of the landing of these parcels, instead of Beresford Place. At present commercial men have to go down to the North Wall and spend some time there to find out where the goods are. Then they have to come back to Beresford Place, where there is an office that is not very up-to-date or convenient for the purpose. I make a suggestion which, if he goes into it, I think he will find a valuable one, particularly to commercial men, and it will save a good deal of inconvenience.

Mr. BLYTHE

Of course, that question of provision of practically a second Customs Office is one that I do not think we could agree to. If you remove the Custom House, particularly down to the quays, there would be inconvenience to people who at the present time do not travel down the quays. There is not a bit of reason, after goods have been despatched and people have got the invoices, why they should not pay duty before they go down to the quays. They would save time, and if they did I believe that an amount of the congestion that there is would be removed. The practice at present is that a carrying office sends a messenger with two or three hundred entries. If the companies, instead of sending all their work about 11 o'clock in the day would make some arrangement to spread it over the day, work would be facilitated. As a matter of fact, the staff at Beresford Place is sufficient to do all the work, but it comes in rushes about 11 o'clock. I think that that could be remedied by people arranging to send up their business at some less inconvenient hour, or at hours when there will not be so much congestion. The allocation of your Custom House is really a matter where you will have to consult the general convenience.

Mr. DAVIN

Would the Minister in that case transfer a small number of clerical assistants, or a collector of taxes, or whatever he is, to some place convenient to the sheds—and they are close to one another? A small office with a small section of the clerical staff at a place convenient to the sheds would enable an earlier clearance to be effected.

Mr. BLYTHE

In many ports people have to go seven times the distance that they have to go here. It is only a matter, in some cases, of employing two messengers instead of one. As far as people other than the shipping companies are concerned, the present office is certainly more convenient than if it were further down. This is a matter I have been looking into, and, so far, I do not see that it is strictly necessary.

Professor THRIFT

I think the Minister is speaking in reference to the point that came up yesterday on Deputy Myles' question. The special point raised in that connection was not at all in reference to inconvenience. I did not refer at all to inconvenience, despite what may have been attributed to me. The point I tried to make was with reference to families sending on their luggage before them.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 19 Jun 1925