asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state on what date he intimated to the directors of Messrs. Gallaher, Limited, tobacco manufacturers, that in the event of manufacturing operations being resumed in the Dublin factory the Government would be prepared to seek legislative sanction to grant them the benefit of the rebate from the date of such resumption if the firm on its part would arrange for the transfer of the necessary proportion of its capital to Free State citizens to bring it within the terms of the Act within a reasonable period, and if he will state his reasons for having this intimation made to the directors and whether these reasons were before the minds of the Government when the Minister for Finance on the 13th July refused to accept an amendment to the Finance Bill which purported to provide for the granting of such rebate if within twelve months after the passing of the Bill the firm complied with the provisions regarding the transfer of a certain proportion of capital, and if he will also state why the intimation was made to the directors of the firm through the officials of the Irish Trade Union Congress, and what, if any, reply was received.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Concessions to Tobacco Factory.
On September 5th I met a deputation from the Irish Trade Union Congress who submitted a proposal that in the event of Messrs. Gallaher (Dublin), Ltd., recommencing manufacturing operations in their Dublin factory and arranging for the transfer of 51 per cent. of the capital of the firm to the beneficial ownership of Saorstát nationals within a reasonable period of time, the Government should seek legislative sanction for the granting to Messrs. Gallaher of the rebate on tobacco duty, allowed to Saorstát-owned firms, as from the date on which manufacture was resumed. Some days later I intimated to the Irish Trade Union Congress that the Government was prepared to give favourable consideration to the proposal. I understand that representatives of the Irish Trade Union Congress subsequently interviewed directors of the firm, but were informed by them that their Board could not see their way to alter their decision to close the factory.
The Deputy will, I am sure, appreciate that the proposal made by the Irish Trade Union Congress differed from that contained in the amendment to the Finance Bill referred to in the question and which was rejected by the Dáil on the 13th July.
Is the Minister aware that the proposal did not differ from the proposal that was in the amendment?
No.
Is the Minister aware that the proposal was that Messrs. Gallaher, having continued, would receive the rebate as from 12th May, and will the Minister say what was the difference between giving them the rebate in respect of the time they were continuing to work after the new tax came into operation and the proposal that if they restarted they would get the rebate from that date?
The answer to the first part of the Deputy's supplementary question is in the negative. With regard to the second portion of the supplementary, I consider that is a separate question.
Does the Minister persist in saying that there was no difference between the proposal in the amendment to the Finance Bill and the proposal that was put up from the Irish Trade Union Congress?
The answer is in the affirmative.
Does the Minister suggest there was no difference except that the firm would receive payment over a certain number of months, say two or three months?
Yes.
Will the Minister say what was the difference?
That is a separate question.
It has relation to the same question.
Will the Minister undertake to look into this matter again in order that, with a clearer comprehension of what the facts are, he will make another answer?
I cannot see that any useful purpose will be served in view of the decision of the Board connected with the firm that in any event they did not propose to reopen the factory.