The amendments, of course, are out of order.
Bill put through Committee and reported without amendment.
Finance (Special Drawback) Bill, 1936. - Committee and Final Stages.
When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?
Now.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be received for final consideration."
I should like to know if the amendment in my name has been ruled out of order?
I thought the Deputy heard the Chair state distinctly that all the amendments were out of order.
I was not here at that time. I should like to know the reason why they are out of order.
If the Deputy reads the Money Resolution, he will find that it does not cover any of these amendments.
Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
On that, will I now have an opportunity to reply?
I should be glad to hear the Minister propose that the Fifth Stage be taken now, and then discuss anything he may have to say on it.
I thought the Deputy had agreed that we should take the Fifth Stage.
I agree, Sir, that the House will be prepared to hear the Minister for Finance move now that the Fifth Stage be taken.
Oh, no. If the position is that the Deputy wishes to go back on his consent, simply because I am going to reply to the arguments made here, I should rather have the Bill than have my speech.
The Minister has asked leave to take the Fifth Stage now, and the House graciously consented. But the Minister is not prepared to move that the Fifth Stage be taken. He asks the House to allow him now to make a statement to which no one will be allowed to reply. I take it, Sir, that if the Minister is moving that the Fifth Stage be taken now, the orderly thing for him to do is to speak to that motion, and reply to anything that may be said in comment on that.
In conclusion?
In conclusion.
I am afraid I misunderstood the Deputy, and I apologise.
This procedure will not deprive other Deputies of the right to speak after the Minister?
I think not.
The motion is "That the Bill do now pass."
We are going to hear the Minister on that motion?
Deputy Davin rose.
On a point of order——
I take it Deputy Mulcahy does not arrange the procedure of the House?
The matter is very simple. Permission has been asked to take the Fifth Stage of this Bill now. Leave has been granted, on certain conditions with which the Chair is not concerned.
I should like to explain the position to Deputy Davin. I understood that the Minister for Finance wanted to conclude——
Oh no.
——and hear nobody else after him. We now wish the Minister to move the motion that the Fifth Stage be taken; then that Deputy Davin or anybody else can comment on what he says, and that the Minister will have another chance to reply. If Deputy Davin intervenes now before the Minister, we will not have an opportunity to comment on what the Minister says.
Can Deputy Mulcahy give an assurance that the Minister will reply to the subsequent discussion? This is a sort of tea party arrangement.
I am quite willing to accommodate myself to the wishes of the House in this matter. I am not burning to make a speech.
The Minister is moving that the Bill do now pass— he has not been called on to conclude.
I move that the Bill do now pass. The reason I do that is in order that we may give effect to the announcement which was issued on 21st January—an announcement which either has, in good faith apparently, been misunderstood by some people who are interested in this coal business, or else has been well understood and is now being dis regarded. This matter arises out of a statement which, as I have already said, was issued on 21st January, 1936. It was worded as follows:—
"In view of the increase in coal prices consequent on the dispute in the coal industry in Great Britain, the Government has decided on the withdrawal of the duty of 5/- per ton on imported British coal. For this purpose an Order under the Emergency (Imposition of Duties) Act, 1932, will be made at next Friday's meeting of the Executive Council. It is proposed to refund the duty paid on the coal held in stock by registered importers as at midnight on Friday, January 24th."
That was the undertaking. This Bill is here in pursuance of that undertaking, and in order to fulfil it. It relates only to those who are mentioned in the announcement—registered coal importers. If a minor officer of the Government approached any person who was not a registered coal importer, that person presumably had this notice before him because he must have realised that it affected his trade one way or another, and if he were asked to sign any form or give any undertaking he could have pointed out that he, to his own knowledge, was not a registered coal importer, and if he had any doubt as to whether he came within the terms of that declaration or not, he could have communicated with responsible people and have cleared up the position. But now, almost one month after the issue of that statement, Deputies come here and ask us to do an impossible thing: ask us to repay duty on stocks which we could not possibly check, and which were alleged to be in existence on the 24th January last.
Now what is the position, and why was it decided that this concession would have to be confined to registered coal importers? Because the registered coal importers are the only people in this country whose stocks could be checked with any certainly.
Is the Minister sure of that?
I am advised that that is so, and I presume that my advisers in this matter are in a better position to know than anybody else.
Government by the permanent officials.
Government by the officers appointed by the Dáil, through the Ministry, to carry on the administration of this country: the people who have responsibility for answering to the Public Accounts Committee and of accounting to the Comptroller and Auditor-General for the proper expenditure of public money. They have advised me, and I think on good grounds, that if the proposal to make this drawback were not to be confined to the registered coal importers, it would be virtually impossible to make that drawback and to safeguard the State from fraud.
Now, the purpose for which it was decided that a drawback should be given was this: in the normal course of events, when a duty is being removed, it is removed as from a date which gives those who hold stocks an opportunity of clearing those stocks. The reason for that is easily understandable, because if sufficient time were not given to clear stocks, as a rule it would be those who held the stocks and not the general public, on the one hand, who have to purchase a commodity which carries duty, or the Exchequer, on the other hand, for whose benefit the duty was imposed, but it is those middlemen between the Exchequer and the consumer who would reap the profit as they reap a profit when a duty is imposed. No person here has denied that when this coal duty was first imposed those who held stocks in the country immediately advanced the price of coal to consumers. They made a profit then which was an uncovenanted profit. If any people who held stocks then and made a profit by reason of the duty having been imposed, and if, by reason of the duty having been removed now, they suffer, not an absolute loss on the sale of the coal because no person here has ventured to say that—certainly not the Opposition, in view of the propaganda that they were carrying on through the country for three or four weeks preceding the removal of the coal duty, propaganda which started significantly enough as soon as it became known that, pending the conclusion of the discussions which were then proceeding, a renewal of the coal-cattle pact had been agreed on. Certainly the Opposition and those in the country who had been contending, during the three or four weeks that preceded this announcement, that there was undue profiteering in coal, could not come here and try to tell the House that those who held stocks of coal were going to have to dispose of those stocks at a loss in consequence of the removal of the duty. Therefore I do not think that any substantial injustice, or any injustice, is being done to those who held coal in stock even if they were not registered coal importers.
Now, why was it decided to make this concession at all? It was decided to do so in order that the poorer consumers might get the benefit of the reduction at the earliest possible moment. It would be an impracticable thing, as even Deputy Belton himself has admitted, to grant a remission to everyone. Not merely would it be an impracticable thing but it would be a foolish thing. This tax was imposed for revenue purposes.
Not in the beginning.
It was continued last year, and it was very definitely stated that it was continued for revenue purposes.
It was a retaliatory tariff from the beginning.
It completely changed its character, as Deputy Davin himself was one of those who contended, and as we never denied, from the moment that most of the coal imported into this country fell under the tax we had to impose upon it. Otherwise, we were not going to be in a position to provide the social services for which Deputy Davin and his Party were continuously clamouring. It was only when it became clear, as I said the other day, that the budgetary position would justify and would permit a remission of this duty, that the duty was removed. Now the point is this, that in removing the duty we had regard to the position of the poor. I may say that, so far as the personal approach of every member of the Executive Council to this problem was concerned, we had regard to the circumstances in which, owing to the threatened dispute in the coal trade in England, the poorer sections of our people would have found themselves, and we did decide that some extraordinary step would have to be taken, and should be taken, if possible, in order that this remission of the duty might become immediately effective so far as those who buy coal from bellmen and others of that class were concerned. Because it was the case of the bellmen that was being held up in order to arouse public opinion on this question, and the people from whom the bellmen in general buy their coal are the registered coal importers. Accordingly, there were these two facts to be borne in mind.
I am advised, and I believe, that it is only the stocks of the registered coal importers that could be checked in order to find out what coal did actually pay duty. Now, when Deputies talk about this matter they quite forget that even when the duty was imposed for revenue purposes there was coming into this country a very large proportion of coal duty free. It is possible that not more than two-thirds of the total imports of coal paid duty, and the only people who keep registers which would enable us to check what quantity of coal they had imported duty free and what quantity of coal came in paying duty, are the registered importers. The making of a revenue check on stocks of coal is not like making a check on stocks of tea or sugar. People like Deputy Dillon, who mouth so easily terms such as "incompetence" and "ignorance" ought to realise that. If the Revenue Commissioners have to check, say, a tea merchant's stock, their officials go down and see the tea neatly packed in boxes or cases, or whatever it may be, and these boxes or cases can be weighed and checked quite rapidly and easily. Send an official of the Revenue Commissioners, however, into a coal merchant's office, as distinct from that of a registered coal importer, and let him look at a heap of coal—let any Deputy here, if he likes, go down and look at a heap of coal, perhaps of many tons—and let that official or any Deputy say to himself: "How am I going to determine, with the obligations imposed on me of not making a mistake, what amount of this coal has paid duty and what has not; how am I going to assess the weight of coal in that heap; am I going to bring in ten or 12 navvies and start checking the coal and weighing it, ton by ton; and, if I am to do that, at whose expense will it be done—will it be at the expense of the coal merchant or at the expense of the State?" I am giving this as an instance of the practical difficulties in the way of those who say that everybody in the community— Deputy Belton would not have stopped even at the merchant, but would have us go to every coal cellar in the country in order to try to find out what amount of coal was in stock on the night of the 24th January—these are the difficulties in the way of the people who say we should be able to check up on all this.
I did not suggest that.
Surely, the coal consumers are just as entitled, and better entitled, to get a rebate.
Than who?
Than those who made a profit when the duty was first put on.
And did not the coal importers make a profit?
Is there not a special justification in the case of the coal importers? If, as is now admitted, a rebate could not be granted in the case of the consumers who have had to bear the burden of the duty, surely, in equity, those who were able to make a profit when the duty was put on, and who still are able to dispose of their stocks, cannot be granted a rebate. As has been already admitted by Deputy Belton, there are practical difficulties in the way of granting a rebate to everyone.
Agreed.
The line has to be drawn somewhere, and it appeared to us that the only place in which the line could be drawn, with security to the Revenue and in justice to the House— because the House does not want to give the Minister for Finance or anybody else power to pay a drawback of duty to people who are not entitled to it——
Quite right.
——it appeared to us that the only place in which the line could be drawn, where the Revenue Commissioners would feel that no drawback, in general, was being paid on coal on which duty had not been paid, was at this very carefully-defined list of the registered importers of coal.
Deputy Dillon, when speaking, said that the registered importers were only a small minority. That was apparently what he wanted the House to believe. He did not say so in so many words, but he said that, in his opinion, the coal merchants far outnumbered the registered coal importers, and, when I challenged him on that, he replied, with equal jocoseness, that, if he were asked to compare the number of hairs on one Deputy's head with the number of hairs on another Deputy's head, he might answer so-and-so. The fact of the matter is, however, that the registered coal importers do far outnumber the coal merchants, as distinct from importers, in the country. The essential thing is that substantial justice is being done, and that is all that can be asked for as well as being all that we can guarantee to do.
I have never been so highly amused as on this occasion in listening to the innocent suggestions put forward by this innocent Minister for Finance. The Minister wants the House to believe that the officials of the Revenue Commissioners have advised him that the registered coal importers are the only people, affected by this measure, whose stocks could be checked with certainty. I wonder does he believe that statement himself?
I am reasonably sure of it.
The Minister knows perfectly well that a lot of the coal merchants in the provincial towns in this country are not alone coal merchants, but are carrying on other businesses associated with the sale of coal. The Revenue Commissioners have been watching these people very closely, and rightly so, for the purpose of checking their sales and finding out what profits they have made in the businesses they are carrying on. In carrying out these operations, the Revenue Commissioners are able to check the stocks that the merchants have taken in, the prices at which the stocks are being purchased, and the prices at which these coal merchants sell their stocks to the local people. In that way they can check the profits of these people in just the same way as they can check the profits of the registered coal importers.
I am not talking of checking profits. Is the Deputy talking of checking stocks?
Yes, but checking stocks means that, with the proper books being kept, they can check the stocks that came in on a particular date, knowing perfectly well what duty was paid, and they can also check the price at which the coal has been sold to the local people. I am sure that any local person, who has any right to call himself a coal merchant, will have books to show which will satisfy the Revenue Commissioners and the Minister as to whether or not the benefit of this reduction has been conveyed to the local consumer. I would be the last person, and my colleagues here, I am sure, would be the last persons, to appeal to the Minister for any consideration for either importers or merchants who have been charging such unduly high prices for a long time. I want the Minister, however, to reconsider whether or not he is doing an injustice to some of the coal merchants in the way this Bill is about to be administered. I know of the case of one merchant, who works on a large scale, and who, on the very day this announcement was made, telephoned to the Minister for Industry and Commerce in Dublin and advised him of the amount of coal that he had in hands on that day. In the statement made by this particular coal merchant he indicated the actual tonnage of coal on hands on the date in question, and stated quite definitely—and, I believe, can prove it—that as from that particular date he dropped the price of coal by 5/- to the consumers in the town concerned. Now, I contend that, in fairness to coal merchants of that type, provided that these statements can be checked and can be proved to be accurate, such merchants are just as entitled to the rebate as the registered coal importers; that is, provided that the facts can be proved.
Had that merchant much coal in stock?
Yes. The only mistake he made was that he did not take the trouble of registering before this concession was granted.
Yes, I see.
I am not making any appeal for any merchant of that type unless the officials can be perfectly satisfied—as I am sure they can be— from the records available that the position is as stated. Registered importers have been making the same profits, and have been taking advantage of the threat of the British coal strike, in the same way as the coal merchants, and, as far as I am concerned, there is very little difference between the registered coal importers and the coal merchants in that connection, either in Dublin or in the provinces. If, however, the Minister wants to be fair and wants to give this benefit to the people who are properly entitled to it, in my opinion they are the people who can produce evidence that they have extended this benefit to the community in the present operations. I would not ask this for any of them unless the Minister were satisfied that that was the case, but the Minister should make up his mind that almost all the coal merchants in the provincial centres are carrying on operations in other spheres and that their books are available and can be checked in the same way as the books of the registered coal importers can be checked by the Revenue Commissioners for other purposes. I appeal to him to look at the matter from that point of view and to take into consideration, in the administration of this measure, the claims of coal merchants who can satisfy the Minister's officials that, from the date of the announcement of this concession, they passed on the 5/- reduction to consumers to whom they sold coal. These are the only people for whom I am asking consideration.
There were portions of the Minister's statement which it was rather difficult to follow. First of all he appeared to make the case that as the Government had made a statement on the 21st of January, this House was bound by that statement. Let him get rid of such hallucinations as that. We are not bound by any decree, order or decision of the Executive Council. That is for Parliament to decide. That the Minister has a majority to support his Executive Council we do not dispute, but the fact that he has a majority to support him in connection with this matter is no indication whatever that there is either sense or meaning in the precise terms of the statement they made or in their conduct in connection with this matter. There is the usual explanation that we get from amateur Ministers that there are administrative difficulties in doing anything else.
Was the Deputy a professional Minister?
I had a little longer experience in administration than the Minister or any member of his Executive Council. I might say I had even that advantage over the members of my own Executive Council. I am not boasting of it, but it happens to be the fact. I would advise the Minister, further, not to make such charges as he made here against one set of traders about whom no Minister can know enough to make such a statement. It has often been said in this House that traders make profits on certain goods the moment a duty is imposed on them in this House. People who make that statement do not know what they are talking about. Quite a number of such traders do; quite a number do not. Having been in business for a number of years, and having had dealings with firms whose goods were subject to fluctuating duties of one sort or another—even having had on more than one occasion dealings with coal merchants—I found that these wholesale traders and importers passed on whatever concessions they received on their stocks to their customers. It is not the invariable rule, but it is a rule from which reputable firms do not depart. It is nonsense to say that because coal merchants had stocks on their hands at the time the duty was first imposed, they forthwith imposed that duty. Why, even small traders do not do it. Any advantage they obtain they pass on to their customers. I believe it is only fair to the customers, and perhaps fair to themselves, that when they do not have to pay the extra duty they should not charge it to their customers.
We are told there are enormous administrative difficulties in connection with this matter. The same explanation was put up a couple of weeks ago. The Minister complains that we are dealing with this matter on the 20th of February when this valuable statement was issued a month ago. It is not the fault of this House that we are considering on the 20th of February, a matter which the Government decided on the 20th of January. At the very first opportunity the House got, this proposal to exclude from the rebate certain coal merchants was criticised here. The explanation that was given was that there were too many of these merchants and that it would be impossible to check the huge quantities or the small quantities, as the case might be, which they had in stock. Any man who has been in the coal business and who has been looking at his coal stocks, day in, day out, could give to an approximate stone, certainly to a cwt., what quantity he had in store on a certain day. It is one of those things you can do by instinct after many years experience at the work. It might not satisfy perhaps the Comptroller and Auditor-General but if the Comptroller and Auditor-General had a few examples before him of these men's competency to judge stocks and check them, perhaps he too would be satisfied that that was the best method. Nobody wants anything unreasonable but we do say it is unreasonable that where there are two traders alongside each other, or perhaps in different parts of the same town, one, who had perhaps only five tons in stock, is called upon to bear a loss of only 25/- by this transaction while the other, who had 100 tons in stock has to bear a loss of £25. That sort of fluctuating business on the part of the Ministry gives rise to lack of confidence, distrust and dissatisfaction and it is bad from every sense of the word.
We are told that it is difficult to get after a large number of these merchants. Yet you can get after them with regard to income tax. The police can get after them if they contravene the law by neglecting to have lights on their motor cars or carts. We are told that it is impossible to trace them now. Why, if there is only an attache case lost in O'Connell Street, it is probably found by the police within a week. They are useful for doing things of that sort but apparently they are no use in going round to interview coal merchants to find out what stock they had on a particular date. Three or four years ago a duty was imposed on tea and at that time, certain quantities then in stock were made liable to the charge. That was quite easy. Why? Because the Revenue wanted all the money. The Revenue has no divinity about it. The Minister, I suppose, does not need a lecture in this House as to what led to the unpopularity of kings or what brought down despots. Executive councils and cabinets are taking the place of kings but there are means of disposing of them.
Such as in the case of the last Administration.
We need not go into what happened the last Administration. Certainly if the same attacks, the same falsehoods or the same maliciousness, were employed against this Ministry they would not last half the length of time.
Not even the Blue-shirts.
I would not dishonour myself by taking office in these circumstances and Deputies are welcome to the office they got by these means.
Sour grapes.
They are finding out the mistakes they made in their charges and their criticisms, as we observe from the altered statements that are being made now and the changed outlook that has come about. If there is one thing more than another that will shake them, it is conduct such as is being pursued here. What after all is the principle guiding, or the principle which should guide, Ministries? Is it not justice? Very good. Justice postulates that men should be treated fairly and equally. Is this fair treatment as between the two merchants I have mentioned? Assuming there were two such merchants, is it fair that a man who had 30 or 40 tons of coal in stock upon which he had paid tax is to be denied the rebate, while a far richer man is going to be allowed the full rebate? It is not. And to put up the excuse, the very lame excuse, that there are administrative difficulties in the way, makes the matter really worse. A decision was taken on this matter on the 21st January. We are not affected by it in the least; but if the decision were wrong, if it were an unfair decision, then it is unfair to tax people for certain things which they in turn are not entitled to pass on to others.
The Minister has come badly out of this whole coal business. The thing from beginning to end has all the appearance of dishonesty about it. The tax was put on, in the first instance, as a retaliatory tax. It was then changed to a revenue tax. The Minister tells us now that it was necessary to supply the social services. We have heard that about other taxes, about every tax that has been imposed by this Minister. They have imposed £6,000,000 by way of extra taxes, and they spent £3,000,000 on social services. Where are the other £3,000,000?
The widows and orphans are not getting it.
The Deputy and the other members of his Party have been long enough supporting the Government and it is largely due to the support of the Labour Party that they are there now. The Deputy has the same complaint now as we have, and I wish him joy of it.
The Minister has explained that the reason that dictated the taking off of the 5/- tax was in order to bring relief to the poor who were suffering as a result of high prices. I want to charge him that he is losing an opportunity of bringing further relief to the poor and to other classes of people, by dealing with this refund of the 5/- on coal in the way in which he is doing it and without co-operation between himself and the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I agree that so far as we on this side are concerned we have found the Minister for Industry and Commerce quite truculent and impossible with regard to coal prices. It may be the Minister for Finance has endeavoured to get more reasonable co-operation on his part and has failed. I doubt, however, that he can have sought it, because there has been no evidence given in the discussion that a very important aspect of the matter has been taken into consideration and that is, that the classes to whom this refund is being paid as a matter of justice are, in fact, making substantial profits entirely arising out of the imposition of the tax and the quotas and licences that follow. The opportunity should have been taken, when the Ministry was prepared as a matter of justice to hand back a certain substantial amount of money to them, to put up to them the case that is sticking out, and that is that they are not giving to other people the justice that the Ministry is prepared to give to them, and that they are now charging prices for coal of a high character that they would not have been able to charge if the operation of this coal tax and quotas and licences had not intervened to cloud up the situation that surrounds the coal importers.
I want to put three facts before the Minister to show how just is the charge that is being made against him. Two years ago the Controller of Prices intervened when the import price of coal was 21/4 and said to the importers: "You are charging the bellmen too much for coal; 8/8 above the import price is too much and you must reduce it." Two years ago 8/8 was too much. To-day the Controller of Prices, by a recommendation, endorses and approves of coal importers charging 11/- more than the import price. Manufacturers in this city have drawn attention to the fact that coal can be quoted to them in lots up to 1,000 tons to the Port of Dublin, c.i.f. for 24/-. The importers are charging 9/6 more than to the manufacturers. To manufacturers buying substantial quantities of coal they are charging 9/6 more than the port price, whereas two years ago the Controller of Prices considered 8/8 over the port price too high to sell to retailers.
There is a third class much worse off than the bellmen or the bellmen's customers, or even the Irish manufacturers. I refer to the ordinary householder who can buy coal by the ton. The prices charged to bellmen or Irish manufacturers are comparatively reasonable, if they could be called so, compared with the astoundingly high price charged to ordinary householders. The bellman has figured prominently in this discussion, because his price was a price easily available. The class he serves includes people upon whom the price falls heavily. Also, the bellman was a person who suffered very considerably in that he was the man who had to go to the poorest class of people in the city and collect the tax and the profits on the tax. Therefore, he figured large in this discussion on coal prices. But outside him and his customers and the Irish manufacturer who has the complaints I speak about, there is the wide circle of coal users who buy by the ton. Before the Minister set about to refund this money to the importers he should have taken some steps with the Minister for Industry and Commerce to sit down with the coal importers and examine what the situation was, and draw their attention to the discrepancy that exists between their profits to-day and their profits two years ago. I hope the discussion that has ranged around this and the further representations that will be made to the Minister and the Minister for Industry and Commerce in this matter will drive him to be as quick in dealing with the relief of the coal consumers as he has been in dealing with the relief of coal importers.
Deputy Cosgrave put his finger on the weakness of the Minister's whole case. The Minister spoke of the announcement made on a particular day, as if he were speaking of the Commandments given to Moses. He said that all those people included in that announcement had a right to get the drawback and those who were not included knew they would not get it. Of course, there is where the hardship has come in and the Minister did not touch on that weak spot at all. The arguments he used would be applicable to a case where he was giving no drawback. He attacked the merchants who are not importers and accused them of having got their whack when the tax was imposed; he said that they immediately put up the prices on existing stocks and reaped a handsome reward. I do not know whether they did or not, but if they did, so did the coal importers, because two people in the same business trading with the same people cannot charge different prices, and if the merchants who are not importers reaped a harvest on a former occasion, so did the importers. That would be a sound argument if he were able to adduce evidence against any drawback at all.
I would not be in a position, so far as the information I have now goes, to dispute that case with the Minister. The Minister said that I, on the Second Reading, saw a difficulty. If the Minister made the case that it was impracticable and unprofitable to examine small quantities, I would say there was a lot in that argument, but he would not be brought down into small cellars to examine and give drawbacks on the stocks of merchants. If the merchants, as he contends, are considerably less numerous than the importers, the job of checking them would be considerably less difficult.
Not at all; it would not. I have explained that to the Deputy.
I am in no way critical of the Minister, although I am afraid he lost his temper a little with me. I recognise his difficulty in the matter, but, to my satisfaction, at least, he has not made a case for giving the drawback to the importers and not to the merchants.
He said that he was advised by his officials that it was enough to go to the coal importers, and that they were the only people whose stocks should be checked. I interjected that, then, we were having Government by the permanent officials. He then went on to say that these were the people responsible. They are responsible for carrying out the decisions of this House, and if this House decides to give coal to people for nothing, it is no loss to the permanent officials. They have only to keep their books right according to that decision. Whether the merchants, as distinct from the coal importers, are to get drawbacks or not is a matter for this House and not for permanent officials. The Minister should stand above permanent officials in matter of policy and the making of laws.
The Minister said they were up against a difficulty in respect to the merchants, and asked how could they ascertain what would be in a heap of coal in a merchant's yard. I know it is difficult, and I remember a similar difficulty, as to how much coal there was in a heap, in relation to a matter which I raised at a meeting of the Port and Docks Board. I am not an expert. There was a time when, if I saw a clamp of turf, as we used to call it down the country, I could say to a load what was in it, even if there were 50 or 60 there. I could not do it now—I am not burning native fuel like Deputy Donnelly. While admitting that there is a difficulty in estimating what is in a heap of coal, I put this to the Minister: is he not confronted with precisely the same difficulty in estimating what is in an importer's yard? He has not shown us—I hope he will when he is winding up the debate—that there is any difficulty in dealing with the matter generally in regard to merchants that is not also present in estimating the amount of stocks that an importer has.
It does not carry us anywhere to get into ecstasies about alleged profiteering in the past, and about the profiteering that took place when the duty was imposed now, equating the loss. If there is anything in that, why did not the Minister equate that all round? If he took up that stand, it would be difficult to controvert him or to find fault with his attitude, but the difficulty I feel in following the Minister and the policy of the Government is that this is given to one class and not to another. There is not an argument put up by the Minister as to the difficulty of giving it to the other class which is not equally applicable to the class to whom he proposes to give it. I should be glad if the Minister cleared up that point and gave us a definite, solid reason, a reason which the ordinary man in the street could accept and understand, why he gives it to one class and not to the other.
I appreciate his remarks as to his not doing his duty as a Minister for Finance if he allowed any individuals to make a profit to which they were not entitled in a change like this. He made a point which would be good in different circumstances: that amateurs would be called on to estimate the amounts in the yards of various merchants, that there might be overestimation and that drawback would be given to people in respect of more coal than they had in stock. He claimed that about one-third of the coal imported did not pay duty, and that he could not follow that coal into the various merchants' yards. There is something in that point, but it is very little; and if he finds difficulty in ascertaining whether coal held by merchants paid duty or not, he will find an equal difficulty in ascertaining whether coal in importers' yards paid duty or not I am certainly not satisfied, and I should be glad to see the Opposition challenging a division on it.
Why? Do you not want the importers to get their rebate either?
The Deputy puts up many-sided arguments. He will raise the flag of the poor consumer. There are some people who would not have any political war cry if they could not talk about the poor slum dwellers. The Deputy was on to the poor consumer, but he switches to the poor coal importers. Here is a Bill that gives what is accepted on all sides as a proper drawback to one class. To that extent it should be supported. The same Bill does not give a drawback to another class which is entitled to it. It all boils down to this: that the Bill gives justice to one section of people and injustice to another. To challenge a division upon this matter now, before it finally passes this House, is not opposing the justice done to one section, but it is opposing the injustice done to another section. I do not know if Deputy Donnelly has a clear conscience about voting against injustice. If he stands four-square behind this measure he is voting for injustice, and it is because there is a glaring injustice in the Bill, as it now stands, that I would welcome a division upon this measure, so that an opportunity would be given to Deputies to register their protest against inherent injustice, while in no way voting against the justice that is in the Bill.
That is the safest speech Deputy Belton ever made in his life. If he carries on in this manner he will get nearly as many messages of congratulation on the coal question as Deputy Mulcahy did. Up to a short time ago Deputy Belton used to be a very obedient boy in the ranks of the Opposition. Now he wants to lead the Opposition; he wants to challenge a division. Let him challenge a division himself.
Will the Deputy stand up with me?
I never followed Deputy Belton one yard in my life, and I hope my political career will never be besmirched by being associated with him.
Do you remember the night I gave you the advice to come into the Dáil?
But I did not take it.
Oh, yes, indeed you did. Do you forget 55 Merrion Square?
I was one of the first to instil real sanity into Deputy Belton's head.
There is not a word about it in the motion before the House.
I agree. Deputy Davin tried to make a case about one particular firm. I know that case. I got the same communication as he did. Much as might be said for Deputy Davin's case, I do not see how the Minister could have the stocks in that particular case checked, or have the particular supplies, portion of which was used for manufacture and portion for sale, segregated. That is one of the difficulties. How could stocks be checked in a case of that kind? It is all very well for Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Belton to say that stocks could be checked.
How could he have the stocks of tea checked?
If the Deputy had been here he would have learned all about it.
The Minister made a very complete statement as to how the tea could be checked.
He could send down an adding machine.
We could send down Deputy Mulcahy as an addling machine.
A great many Deputies have interested themselves in this coal question. Deputy Mulcahy will come to be known as the bellman. He has made a good thing out of this from the political point of view. If he ever goes out of politics he will go out with the applause of the bellmen and there will be great bell-ringing.
The Deputy does not understand what a bellman is.
I do, and I know a good deal about the negotiations that went on between the bellmen and the people they purchase their coal from. There are as many people on this side interested in the poor, and trying to do their best for the poor, as there are on the other side, and they do not want any kudos for it. I do not want to go too far in this matter. As Deputy Belton has put it, I should like to see justice and fair play done.
I never heard the Deputy say less in any speech.
I lived in a provincial town as long as any Deputy in this House. Deputy Haslett did not live far away from it, and we know that the slightest little scare in connection with coal always put the price up. That is the state of affairs. These merchants about whom we hear such a wail of woe have not lost so much. No one imports coal as a philanthropist. They were not thinking of the general public when the rumour of the strike was on. I think Deputy Belton said that they would have come in for a very speedy condemnation if it was found there were not sufficient supplies in the country. Was that the consideration that induced merchants to get in supplies? They did not do it for philanthropy at all. In this particular interest the tax has been taken off the importers, and the allegation of Deputy Belton and the Opposition is that the same thing should apply to the merchants. But if you go that far why not go further? If you give the reduction to the importers and to the merchants, what is the argument against giving it to the consumers?
I put in no argument against that.
No one can get coal except through the importers. The rebate is taken off so far as they are concerned, and it affects the price. If it is the opinion of Deputy Belton and others that negotiations should take place about reducing the price to consumers, I should like to hear a concrete proposition put up to the Minister showing how he might reduce the price to the ordinary consumers and to purchasers who buy one ton or two tons for their homes. I should like to hear that explained.
It is very easy to talk to Deputy Donnelly, and so I would like to ask him will he give us a hand if we put up a proposition to take off another couple of shillings.
I am prepared to go as far as anybody in trying to make coal cheaper to the poor.
I am very glad to see Deputy Mulcahy in the House. He made a statement in regard to the profit which coal importers might reasonably make on their imports of coal. In connection with that I should like to know the standard he takes. Deputy Mulcahy said that coal was being imported at 24/- a ton c.i.f., and when delivered to manufacturers they were charged 9/6 per ton more for it. I am not prepared to say whether that is a reasonable profit or not. I have not, perhaps, the same intimate interest in the coal business that Deputies on the other side have. I do not profess to have the knowledge on this subject which Deputy Mulcahy's leader, Deputy Cosgrave, pretends to have. Deputy Cosgrave told us that it was a comparatively simple business to measure up the quantity of coal held in stock. He practically indicated that a person who had been trained to detect breaches of the lighting laws and to recover lost or stolen property —one of the ordinary Gárdaí—could perform this task. According to Deputy Cosgrave, if you lost an attaché case to-day in Dublin the Gárdaí would be certain to find it for you within a week. It is pleasant and comforting information to some of us who are inclined to be absent-minded and to forget things in trams and buses to learn that we need not worry any more, that we are going to get back these lost articles within a week. Not alone that, but these useful retrievers of lost property can now be relied upon to walk into a coal merchant's yard and indicate to the Revenue Commissioners not merely the amount of coal held in stock by that merchant, but, as the result of a glance, the proportion of that coal which has paid duty and the proportion which has come in duty free. No doubt it is as a result of a confabulation with Deputy Cosgrave that Deputy Belton has made up his mind that it would be quite as simple a matter to deal with the stocks held by coal merchants as it would be to deal with the stocks held by registered coal importers.
Would there not be the same difficulty with the importers?
No. I am advised by those who know that they have an absolute check on the stocks held by registered coal importers, while they have no check of any kind upon any other dealer in coal, big or little. I should not profess to be able to tell Deputy Belton the difference between a sugar beet and a sugar mangel. I should be prepared to take Deputy Belton's word if I had to ask him to differentiate between the two roots, because Deputy Belton is an authority on agriculture. In the same way, I take the word of the Revenue Commissioners when they tell me that it is not possible to check the stocks held by one class of merchants, while it is possible to check the stocks held by another class. The Revenue Commissioners are authorities on that question. I am not, therefore, disposed to accept the statement for which Deputy Cosgrave made himself responsible this evening, that a person accustomed to tracing lost attaché cases could quite easily deal with all the problems involved in the granting of drawbacks upon coal stocks. I am certain that when he made that statement Deputy Cosgrave thought he knew everything about the coal business. If Deputy Mulcahy has read the records of this House, he must have some doubt as to the extent of Deputy Cosgrave's knowledge. Deputy Mulcahy thundered last Wednesday, Thursday and to-day about the exorbitant profits which certain interests in the coal business are supposed to be making. I do not know very much about the coal business.
You ought to learn something about it before you hand back all this money.
I do not know a great deal about the coal business, though I was trained to assess, roughly, the volume and quality of coal stocks. It was a subsidiary part of my training as an engineer. I am merely indicating now that even with this training I know comparatively little about the coal business. Deputy Mulcahy appears to know a great deal about it. He regards a profit of 9/6 per ton, to cover all charges—harbour dues, freightage, handling, insurance and everything else—as excessive. It may or may not be excessive. If it is excessive, I wonder how Deputy Mulcahy would regard a profit of 22/- a ton, to cover not half of these charges? What would he think of a case in which, with Government backing, coal merchants imported 25,000 tons of coal and, in order to cover the normal profits of that transaction and other expenses, were allowed not 9/6 per ton but 22/- per ton?
Tell us the details.
Would the Deputy consider that an exorbitant profit? The coal merchants in that case rendered no other service than this—that, with Government backing, they ordered 25,000 tons of coal. When it was found that that coal was of such a quality that it could not be disposed of, the Government took the stock largely off the merchants' hands. The merchants did no more than import 25,000 tons of coal under Government guarantee. The then Government, consisting, as Deputy Cosgrave was careful to point out, of professional statesmen and possibly superannuated business men—they must have been on the retired list so far as commercial transactions were concerned—allowed the coal merchants two and a half times as much as Deputy Mulcahy considers an exorbitant profit.
Will the Minister give us the details?
The details are on the records of this House. They are as I have stated. If the Deputy would like to go a little further, he can investigate the records of the Public Accounts Committee.
This debate has travelled very far, but to go back into the activities of a former Executive Council is carrying it very much farther than any Deputy so far has carried it.
I am merely dealing with the point as to whether 9/6 is a reasonable profit or not.
The Minister has made that point and I think he ought to pass on.
It is interesting to learn that the Minister knows more of the coal situation in 1925 than he knew about the Dáil Eireann Bond situation of 1924, when questions on that matter were in order.
Deputy Mulcahy realises that everything interesting is not relevant.
This matter would appear to be relevant if the Minister would give the details.
I happened to be Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee when this transaction was investigated. I was not in the House in 1924, when the proceedings in connection with the Dáil Eireann External Loan were taking place in America.
The Minister could give us the details of the coal transaction.
Perhaps the Minister would pass on to the discussion of the Bill?
You are making the Minister very happy.
We know the cause of the Deputy's concern for the bellmen.
However, as you said, this debate has travelled very far. I think that people who take the trouble to read it will read Deputy Cosgrave's speech, if it is reported, with a great measure of relief, because the Deputy, in reply to a question by Deputy Donnelly, indicated that if called upon to take office on the same terms as Fianna Fáil took office, he would not do so. I think that an epoch-making announcement, and that now the country can breathe again. The great terror that has hung over it for the last few years has been averted by Deputy Cosgrave's statement. He has informed the House that he will not take office. That statement reminded me of the fable of the ancient Greek. If you remember he told the story of a fox looking up at a bunch of grapes, who tried not once but twice and three times to reach the grapes and, like Deputy Cosgrave, when he couldn't get them, turned and left the grapes behind, saying they were sour.
Question put and agreed to.
The Ceann Comhairle has certified that this is a Money Bill for the purposes of Article 35 of the Constitution.