The Minister in an interjection made some comment about a narrow gauge railway in Clare. Are we to take it that the turf cutters in the bogs of West Clare are to be penalised because of the railway company's failure to provide a uniform line in that county?
In Committee on Finance. - Turf (Use and Development) Bill, 1935—Committee (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the question: That Section 15 stand part of the Bill.
What I said was that the cost of transporting turf, where it has to be taken from one class of waggon and put into another, is considerably increased when that turf is transported loose instead of in sacks.
The Minister realises that, notwithstanding that there is a narrow gauge railway in Clare, the railway company does not get any more than the standard rate under his own scheme.
It is not my scheme.
Under the Government scheme.
These charges are laid down by the Railway Tribunal.
The Minister knows what I mean quite well. Turf purchased from the co-operative societies is carried at a flat rate.
All turf transported in sacks is carried at a flat rate.
Very little turf is transported in sacks except the turf transported in what is known as "Government sacks."
Practically no turf is transported by rail except co-operative society turf.
I grant you that but, as regards the point about the narrow gauge railway, are the people to be penalised because of that?
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 58; Níl, 32.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corbett, Edmond.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Everett, James.
- Flinn, Hugo. V.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Dowd, Patrick.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Broderick, William Joseph.
- Coburn, James.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Curran, Richard.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Davis, Michael.
- Desmond, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Keating, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Rowlette, Robert James.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:— Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Question proposed: "That Section 16 stand part of the Bill."
As this is a very long and rather involved section, perhaps we might have some short explanation from the Minister as to the meaning of it.
It is necessary to have some such powers as the section confers in order to make other provisions of the Bill effective. The purpose of the section is, I think, obvious. It is to ensure that if a coal retailer has not purchased from an approved source sufficient turf to enable him to discharge his obligations under the Bill, he can, by Order, be required to purchase under penalty the amount of turf necessary to fulfil his obligations. It is a section which confers powers which may not have to be utilised, but which are necessary in order to make other provisions of the Bill effective. Without possession of these powers it would be possible for a coal retailer who wished to do so, successfully to evade, without punishment, other provisions of the measure.
If the Bill is going to be operated, I have not any objection to any reasonable provision which will ensure that it will be observed, and that, so to speak, the person who wants to evade it is not going to be put in a privileged position over the retailer who desires to carry out the law, once it is the law. I should like, however, to draw the Minister's attention to one of the sub-sections which says that the notice served on the retailer shall, until the contrary is proved, be evidence of the several matters of fact stated in it, and a further sub-section says that an error in the statement or notice will not invalidate such notice. There seems to be something rather loose about that. The Minister seems to want to have it both ways, and I should like him to deal with that point.
There is another matter, and perhaps this is the most appropriate place to raise it. It is, perhaps, a small point, but it is of some importance. I take it that when the Act comes into operation, credit will be given to retailers for whatever stocks of turf they may have on hand on that date. There will be certain stocks which may not have been acquired from an approved source or from one of the societies, and I take it that full consideration will be given to whatever stocks they may have at a particular time. As I say, it is perhaps a minor point, but it is important in a sense. I would like the Minister to deal with the other point as to the notice being taken as evidence, and the provision whereby that notice is not to be invalidated by any error in the notice.
Paragraph (a) provides that the notice shall be evidence, until the contrary is proved, of the several matters of fact stated in such notice in respect of the quantities of turf obtained by, in the possession of, or sold and delivered, or which ought to have been sold and delivered by such retailer; (b) an error in the statement of all or any of the said matters of fact in such notice shall not invalidate such notice if the quantity of turf which such coal retailer is required by such notice to obtain does not exceed the quantity of turf which he could law fully have been so required to obtain if all such matters of fact had been correctly stated in such notice. That is merely a legal provision to see that a mere misstatement of fact does not invalidate the notice if the notice does not require the retailer to do more than he would be required to do if the facts had been properly stated.
I can see the Minister's point but this is a completely new departure. In an ordinary court of law if a summons is found to have been technically wrong, that summons, as far as I know, is thereby invalidated. In this case even though the notice may be wrong it may be taken as evidence. It seems to me that this is very loosely drafted. One thing that does emerge is this, that even if the notice is wrong on the face of it, it is to be produced as evidence.
Oh, no.
May I inquire from the Minister how he is going to ascertain the quantity of coal which by Section 16 (1) has been retailed by a coal retailer during any period?
By an inspection of the records and the books relating to the retailer's business.
It is open to any coal retailer who desires to evade the obligation under this section to so arrange his books that his deliveries of coal may appear as deliveries of less than 2 cwt. If a man delivers, say, 10 tons of coal he can have his books so arranged that it will appear he delivered in consignments of not more than 2 cwts. He does not make any entry of these for under the Act he is not compelled to do so. How can an inspector check up on that?
That can be easily got over. The powers of this section only arise when, from observations carried out by an inspector, or from the records, it is obvious that somebody is successfully evading the Act. There would be little difficulty in finding out if the records are faked in the way in which the Deputy suggests. Faked records have been passed as genuine in the past and probably will in the future, but it will be possible to check up on these.
The Minister has an exactly analogous system operating on which he will possibly get the Revenue Commissioners to advise him as to the checking of frauds. The licensing laws require that a wholesale spirit dealer will not send to any spirit dealer a quantity of spirits of less than two gallons in any one consignment. I think the Revenue Commissioners will tell the Minister for Justice that they have long since abandoned any attempt to enforce that regulation because they know that very small publicans get a half pint or a pint of spirits, not being in a position to provide cash for a larger quantity, and when they draw 16 pints they get the necessary revenue licence. In the case of this Bill what will be done will be that the retailer will make deliveries of 2 cwts. of coal until——
Somebody whose business will be prejudiced if the fraud is successful will be bound to complain.
In this case the man can deliver 1 ton of coal and report that he has delivered ten 2 cwts. The retailer is not bound to keep a record of every transaction of coal. If a man pays him for 2 cwts. of coal he puts the money in the cash till. Let us suppose the man is under suspicion; he is challenged and the inspector says to him: "You apparently sold more coal than you ought to have sold for you bought turf from an approved source," and the retailer answers: "No, the coal I sold carried with it the requisite quantity of turf, but I did sell a great deal of coal in 2-cwt. lots to small purchasers." There will be no record of these. The inspector may say: "The obligation will be on you in court to prove this," and the retailer will answer, "I could not prove it to my own shop assistants. I could not tell you how much coal I sell in any one day." There are some people in this country who believe that they have not only a statutory but a moral obligation to obey the law. Such men will obey the law and the result will be that the person who believes there is a conscientious obligation on him to obey the law will refuse to break the law and to send out a quantity of coal to a customer without a corresponding quantity of turf. What will happen in that case? The customer will say: "So and so down the street will do it and will make no difficulty about doing it." A quarrel will ensue and the man who is trying to obey the law loses a customer. There is no means of bringing the law breaker to justice because there is no way of proving the case against him. The end of it is that the man who is trying to evade the law has to choose between losing his trade and obeying the law. There are limits to the strain that you are entitled to put upon a man's public spirit. I submit that in dealing with a merchant of whose business the coal trade forms only a part, you are putting too great a strain upon that man in getting him to quarrel with his customers. That is the position in which you are putting people who are trying to obey the law.
If these people know that the law is being broken by another merchant there is a moral obligation on them to report the matter. We are talking about people who have a strong moral sense.
Let us take the Minister's view. Let us assume that these people have a heavy moral sense of responsibility, and that they report to the inspector another merchant for evading the law—that such a man is selling coal without the corresponding quantity of turf—and the inspector goes in and says to that merchant: "From information received I believe you are evading the Turf Act." Thereupon the evading merchant makes the defence I have just outlined. He will say: "I am not evading the Turf Act; I am supplying turf with every order of coal, except orders which I have received for less than two cwts. of coal. I have no record of those orders, and nobody in my establishment has any record which would inform me how many cwts. of coal I have actually sent out. We took cash for those orders, sent them out without question, and I kept no record of them." He cannot be trapped. The Minister may say: "We will get a few of them." You may get an odd one, but the evasion is going to go on generally through the country and it is going to operate to put an entirely unjust burden on the merchants who are trying to keep the law. It will act in the direction of driving every merchant into evading the law, in so far as his customers are bent on making him do so. Trading in this country is hard enough as it is, and to carry on trade on scrupulous lines, abiding by every statute passed in this House, is rapidly becoming almost impossible. I put it to Deputies that they should not pass further legislation which will make it absolutely impossible for the conscientious traders to carry out the obligations this House imposes on them.
As regards this notice, surely the Minister is not in earnest? A notice is to be served for a prosecution and certain things are to be alleged in that notice. A man is brought into court on certain facts, and possibly he will have a solicitor to defend him. When the facts are recited it can be argued: "That does not matter; the facts are wrong; we are protected by paragraph (b) of sub-section (4)." Whether the allegations are right or wrong the man can be prosecuted. Is not that the net result of the section?
It is not the net result of the section.
The paragraph sets out: "an error in the statement of all or any of the said matters of fact in such notices shall not invalidate such notice." You are going to be prosecuted on certain allegations, but even if they turn out not to be true you will be prosecuted all the same and this sub-section protects the Minister and his Department. Is there anything in the form of tyranny that one can suggest to excel that? You are brought to court on certain allegations and later these may turn out to be all wrong, but yet that will not invalidate the notice.
The Deputy read only one sub-section. If he reads the whole section he will find out what the notice is about.
I go into court and I disprove the facts alleged in the notice. The Minister's Department then says: "We will rely on this sub-section and even though the facts are wrong we have power to prosecute you."
If the Deputy reads the whole section he will understand the matter.
Some of the difficulties that the Minister will be up against in the country in connection with this may be emphasised by what happens here in the City of Dublin. I have come up against cases which would seem to indicate that the practice is general. When bell-men go to buy coal from an importer they take the coal and pay their money, but the importer refuses to give them a receipt. It is a transaction in fact there. The beginning and the end of it is, that the bell-man takes the ton of coal and pays his money, but there is no record. I have come across cases which indicate that is a fairly general practice.
The Deputy should draw their attention to the provisions of the Control of Prices Act which requires that a receipt must be given on demand.
I understand what was possibly at the back of the idea at the time was that they did not want to come under the control of prices, although the Controller of Prices was pretty soft with regard to the price of coal. I gather from the Minister that approved societies are going to complain that such and such a merchant appears not to be carrying out the statutory duty of buying the necessary quantity of turf, and then there is to be an inspection of that merchant's records. What type of inspector will carry out the inspection?
An inspector of the Minister—somebody appointed by the Minister.
Will it be some existing official or some inspector to be newly appointed, and will he be directly responsible to the Minister?
I do not contemplate that it will be necessary to appoint any additional inspectors in the immediate future. By the immediate future I mean this year or possibly next year. If turf production should continue to increase at a fairly rapid rate, then at some stage additional staff would have to be appointed.
Will the Minister cite any previous example of sub-section 4 (b)—any similar legislation?
I have a recollection of seeing it, but I cannot recollect where.
It is rather strong to describe it as "an error in ...all... matters of fact."
If, in the opinion of the inspector, a merchant has failed to carry out his obligations——
That is not my difficulty.
If, in the opinion of the Minister, on the report of the inspector, a merchant has failed to carry out his obligations, in that case a notice is issued to the coal retailer requiring him to purchase the quantity of turf which he should have purchased if his obligations were to be fulfilled. It is only when the retailer fails to act on that notice that a prosecution arises. In connection with such a prosecution—a prosecution for failure to act on a statutory notice issued in accordance with earlier provisions— sub-section 4 (b) provides that the notice will not be invalidated merely by reason of the fact that some of the statements in the notice are erroneous. The notice holds good provided that the amount of turf which the coal retailer was required to purchase did not exceed the amount which he could legally have been required to purchase if all the facts had been properly stated.
That is merely repeating what is set out in sub-section 4 (b). But is it not strong to describe an error in all the facts as a mere technicality?
It is obviously a mere technicality, provided the retailer is not required to purchase more turf than he could legally have been required to purchase if all the facts were properly stated.
What it means is that what should be matters of fact need not be facts at all; they need not be more than mere allegations, mere opinions of the inspector.
Provided the retailer is not required to purchase more turf than he could have been legally required to purchase—surely that is merely a technicality.
But he may have got the turf.
If he did he would not be prosecuted. The facts are set out in the notice and the notice is issued long before there is any question of a prosecution.
If the inspector forms the opinion that the facts are so and so, it may later be proved that he is entirely wrong, but yet he can bring about a prosecution.
Question—"That Section 16 stand part of the Bill"—put and carried.
Question proposed: "That Section 17 stand part of the Bill."
The Minister in this section proposes to take powers to exempt any person that he thinks proper from the compulsory purchase of turf. What is the idea?
I indicated that the purpose of inserting this section was to have power to grant this exemption in exceptional circumstances which might arise. If this section were not in the Bill we would have no power to grant exemption. There may be a case where a medical certificate would be produced to show that it was undesirable that turf should be used, having regard to the circumstances of a particular dwelling. I do not contemplate exemption in many cases, but the powers should be there.
To whom should applications for exemption be addressed?
To the Minister.
Is the exemption to apply to an area or to an individual?
Only to the individual. The Bill does not apply to any area until an order is made appointing it an area for the purposes of the Bill.
The whole country does not become an area when the Bill passes?
No. Orders have to be made for each area to which the Bill applies.
The Minister is taking a very wide dispensing power and could make the whole Bill operative or inoperative.
Question put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 18 stand part of the Bill."
There is an amendment (No. 2) in the name of Deputy O'Sullivan.
I thought all these amendments were consequential.
If the Minister holds they are consequential I do not. My interest in them is consequential.
I thought that without the Deputy's earlier amendment they have no bearing.
Surely the Minister can distinguish between power and source? Has he not read his own Bill?
Yes, but the purpose of the section is to provide that if a person is purchasing turf from the Turf Board such person could get a certificate of exemption from purchasing turf from the coal retailer when purchasing coal.
All my amendments stand or fall together. The Minister will not allow similar powers to be given to one of the recognised sources.
It is not necessary.
Why not give the power of exemption to cases mentioned in the paragraphs (b) and (c) of Section 2?
Take the case mentioned by Deputy Finlay, who pointed out that he buys two ricks of turf annually at a higher price than the Minister fixes in the Bill. On turning to the Bill he will be compelled to buy his turf from an approved society. Will he not be able to get a certificate that will relieve him of the necessity of buying turf when he buys coal as well?
If we were to give exemptions to all these people we would have to give them in tens of thousands of cases to people who described themselves as sellers of turf.
Sellers of turf are not in the amendment. I am dealing with the section in general. I am not moving my amendments because for my purpose they have fallen. This is a question of approved sources which might be co-operative societies or limited companies for the manufacture of briquettes. Why could not a briquette company issue a certificate of the type mentioned here?
It might be necessary.
What about the case of a man who sells turf himself and uses coal as well?
He is the best off. The best fire is a turf fire with a covering of slack.
But he cannot buy it. He must buy from an approved society.
Even if he has turf of his own.
I would like to put the matter to the Minister in this way. There are small areas of turf in my district, or at least where turf has been, and where it is possible for householders to cut a small quantity of turf. Would the Minister not give the same exemption in that case as he is giving to persons purchasing supplies of turf from a retailer?
First there is no restriction in any area unless it is an appointed area under the Bill, and, secondly, it is going to be a very long time before the proportion of turf to coal is going to be anything like what was mentioned here this evening. Before we get to the position requiring a person who purchases 10 cwt. of coal to purchase 10 cwt. of turf, we must have more than twice the present production in the country. I do not expect that position to be reached in the next five years.
The Minister should look to the future. The point is that where a person is able to make some turf but not enough, surely it is not wrong for him to do so if he is able to procure his own turf on his own land?
That point has been raised about 500 times in 50 speeches in about three weeks. I have discussed it at length on all these occasions. I refer Deputies to column 691, etc., of the Official Reports.
The only references I heard to the matter were some flippant remarks.
As the matter has been raised so often and as the answer has been so obscure, may I ask this? If there is a farmer in Monaghan with turbary of his own by which he is able to supply his own house, and if Monaghan is made an approved area, and if he wants to buy coal from a coal agent will he have to buy equal quantities of turf as well?
Subject to all the "ifs," if he purchases coal beyond two cwt.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 19.
Question proposed: "That Section 19 stand part of the Bill."
Will the Minister explain a point raised on Second Reading? He said then it did not matter. I am taking the case now of the merchant who sells to the bellman. This section is what I might call the bellman's section. The coal merchant who sells to him must buy turf. Is he a turf merchant at present? He must become a turf merchant for that purpose. Supposing there is an intermediate man down the country who sells coal to people to dispose of it in small quantities. He has to buy turf which he cannot dispose of compulsorily. He will have to dispose of it somehow. I think there is a great deal in the point raised on Second Reading by Deputy Belton, I think, and to-day by Deputy Dillon. He now enters into competition, because he has stuff that, in the ordinary way, does not belong to his business and he will sell it at a sacrifice if necessary, thereby interfering with the market of the ordinary turf retailer, so long as he is left in existence at all after this Bill. You are compelling a man to buy turf and you are not giving him any compulsory power to dispose of it. Is not that the position so far as this man is concerned? That seems, at first blush at all events, an extraordinary provision which would seem to require a little more justification than the Minister gave in his reply on the Second Reading.
I know plenty of cottiers who have horses, ponies, or jennets, and who buy coal in bulk, not in the local town but further away because it pays them, and they sell that coal by the cwt. or 2 cwts., as the case may be. I should like to hear from the Minister if they will be compelled to buy turf.
In what quantities do they sell the coal?
Perhaps in quantities of 1 cwt., 2 cwts. or 3 cwts. They buy it by the ton or the half ton, as much as their animal can carry, and they sell it to the cottiers in the country.
It would be difficult on the Deputy's description to say whether those people whom he describes are coal retailers or sub-retailers. I put it this way. I have no desire whatever to put this obligation upon the bellmen. I represent a City of Dublin constituency and, for many reasons, I would prefer to avoid having to enact that obligation; not that I think it is going to be any great inconvenience to them, but obviously such a provision as this is necessary. We must put the obligation upon sub-retailers to purchase turf from the retailer, otherwise any coal retailer will just resell all the coal he purchases to his son or brother or neighbour, and the whole of the provisions of the Act are nullified. If we do not put in a provision that a sub-retailer purchasing coal from a retailer must purchase the appropriate quantity of turf, then there is an obvious way of evading the obligation. Therefore, to make the Act effective there must be a provision like this. The only objection there could be to this provision is that it might impose some difficulty on the bell-men who hawk coal for sale in small quantities.
It will put them out of business.
It will not, because turf is sold by them as well as coal. The hawking of turf is a common feature. They sell turf in small quantities, frequently by the sod. As they are the same people who sell coal in small quantities, they will have very little difficulty in disposing of whatever quantity of turf they will be required to take as well as the coal. It will be a comparatively small quantity, certainly for some time to come in the cities, if the Act is in fact applied in the cities, which is not very probable in the immediate future. My answer to the arguments put up is that obviously some such provision must be there. The Act could be made completely inoperative by a simple device in the coal retailers' office, if that obligation were not put upon sub-retailers.
That is the most extraordinary statement I have heard for a long time. The Minister said that turf is hawked in Dublin at present.
Yes, and sold by the sod.
Can the Minister say how many bellmen hawk turf? Does the Minister realise that, under this section, he is going to compel every bellman in Dublin, and other cities and towns, to hawk turf? He is overlooking this fact, that so far as bellmen are concerned, and I think this applies to the vast majority of them, their total storage capacity is the length and breadth of their cart. Will the Minister tell us where they are going to store this turf? Turf is hawked in Dublin and is sold by the sod, but for what purpose? Merely for the starting of the fire in the morning. It is used as a sort of fire lighter and not for any other purpose. It seems to me that this is the most absurd and most unworkable section of the whole lot. You are going to compel every bellman, it does not matter whether he has a converted perambulator, or an ass's or pony's cart, to take a certain amount of turf.
I am not saying that I have any great knowledge of Dublin City beyond what I can observe in the ordinary way. We have all seen these bellmen on their rounds in the city and we know that their carts are small. At the very utmost, they may have a couple of cwts. of coal as well as the scales on the cart, and there is no room on it for turf. It would be no use for them to cart it round anyway, because they could not sell it. There is no obligation on those to whom they sell the coal to purchase it. But, in order to get the coal, these bellmen must also buy turf. Will the Minister tell us how these people are going to dispose of the turf he will compel them to purchase?
By sale.
There is an obligation on the Minister, as he is compelling these men to purchase turf, to satisfy the House that he is not going to penalise them. I suggest that he is going to penalise them. He said that if this section were not inserted the whole Bill could be evaded, but he has not explained how. I should like to hear him explain how it could be evaded. You have two operations under this Bill, one under Section 13, I think it is, and the other under Section 19. One relates to quantities of coal over 2 cwts., and the other to quantities under 2 cwts. The position is quite clear that any person engaged in the coal trade, with the exception of bellmen, you might say, can sell any quantity of coal from I stone up to 2 cwts., without any obligation so far as turf is concerned. The bellmen cannot do that. There is no obligation on the larger coal merchant or the larger retailer to purchase or sell turf in respect of any quantity of coal up to 2 cwts. But the bellman, who has no storage capacity whatever, cannot buy coal from one of the coal yards in the city, or any other city, without taking a certain quantity of turf as well. It seems to me that that is not only absurd but unjust and unfair. In my opinion, it is going to put a terrible burden on people who already have enough to do to eke out a living in the rather miserable way they have of doing it.
I cannot follow the Minister fully when he says that the Bill would be unworkable. There are two points raised; the first is the effect of the Bill—whether it will drive those people out of trade.
It will not.
Why will it not if they have no storage place for the turf? Take the case referred to by Deputy Curran in the country districts where you have a particular place in which no turf is used. My own county is not one of those, but I understand that there are places in which no turf is used. If coal is to be bought by anybody in greater quantity than 2 cwts., turf must be bought with it. Will not the enforcement of that provision be sufficient to secure that all the way up along the line the requisite quantity of turf will be bought?
Except that we have no record of or no power of supervision over those sub-retailers. If this section were not there, what would happen in Dublin if the Bill were applied in Dublin is that the sub-retailers would go around hawking coal by the ton. They would call and say "I can sell you a ton of coal without any obligation to purchase turf along with it." There would be nothing in the Bill to prevent them.
They would be breaking the law.
Not the sub-retailer.
If anybody sells me, a private individual, a ton of coal——
For household or domestic use.
Yes. Surely if I buy it without buying the turf I am breaking the law?
If you buy it for resale you are deemed to be buying it for household or domestic use.
I am buying it as a private individual, and I must buy turf with it. Is not that so? The person who sells it to me must sell turf with it?
Quite.
Very good. That makes the obligation compulsory all along the line.
If you could enforce it.
If you could enforce it? But you are going to see that this particular man does not sell more than 2 cwts.?
How can you do it?
The Bill says so.
Not in the case of sub-retailers.
It prevents anybody from selling more than 2 cwts. of coal without turf being sold with it.
The case of those sub-retailers is different. They are regarded as the purchasers of coal, and they purchase the turf with it, but they can sell the coal themselves in any quantity they like.
Now you know!
They can sell any quantity they like?
In fact, that is so, but they will have the turf, and in their own interests they will have to dispose of the turf as well.
I am a private individual. If I go to buy coal from a coal merchant I must buy turf with it. If I go to one of those men I need not?
In practice, that would be the case.
That is a revelation of the Minister's mind which we have not got up to the present.
The Deputy will appreciate that if this section were not here that would undoubtedly be the position in practice. Because of this section those sub-retailers will be in the position that they will refuse to sell you the coal in large quantities without the appropriate quantity of turf, unless they are able to dispose of the turf otherwise.
Let us take the sub-retailer who disposes of his coal in quantities of 2 cwts. and less. He is saddled with a quantity of turf and he must dispose of it. If he disposes of half a ton of coal to me without giving me any turf the Minister will say that he is left with turf which he would have to dispose of. But his whole business lets him in for that. The Minister insists that he shall become a turf merchant as well as a coal merchant. As a bellman, those two avocations must be run separately —the selling of turf and the selling of coal.
Why?
Because he cannot compel a householder who buys 2 cwts. of coal to buy turf from him.
Quite.
Therefore, he must dispose of the turf not as a coal merchant but as a turf merchant. I think the Minister is quite clear that we are agreed on that. Why should he not give me a ton? He is in no worse position. He will have to get more coal, but if he goes in for being a turf merchant he can dispose of it.
Except, of course, that if there is evasion it is evasion to which it is very hard to apply penalties.
If you come to the question of evasion——
But if the Deputy gets rid of the section there is going to be widespread evasion.
Why?
Because those retailers will not even have the turf to hinder them.
If they sell coal in larger quantities than 2 cwts. they will be breaking the law unless they have the turf.
How are you going to prove that?
You are proving it in all the other cases.
In the other cases you are dealing with registered dealers who have premises and records which can be inspected. Those people have not.
You will allow those people to break the law, but not the others? Well, the Minister's explanation of this section—I am glad we got it—is certainly the most astonishing he has given us up to the present.
One might expect to find anything in a Bill which is going to require a person who has turbary of his own, and uses it, to buy turf as well if he buys coal.
We heard the same about the Cereals Bill.
I say we may expect to find anything in the Bill when we find that in it. When we do find those things, let us be straight about them. The Minister says that to force bellmen in the City of Dublin to buy turf with their coal is not going to be any great inconvenience to them. I want the Minister to picture a bellman going off in the morning to get his supply of coal down at the importer's. He draws his supply of coal; he pays for it. Not only has he to get a supply of coal, which is usually limited by the size of cart, but he has to take the turf on the cart with the coal. The Minister says that is going to be no inconvenience. The bellman travels through an area like Dominick Street, selling his coal, and his turf if he can. The Minister says bellmen sell turf at the present time, but I should like to know if the Minister has investigated the case of any single bellman in the City of Dublin who sells turf, and considered the quantity of turf that he sells in relation to the quantity of coal that he sells. The Minister will probably find that those of them who do sell turf are people who have small shops as well, and that they sell the turf at the shops in the way which Deputy Professor O'Sullivan has referred to. At any rate, he starts off in the morning, taking his coal and taking his turf. He disposes of his coal, and is left in the evening with his turf. He has no place to take the turf except to his home. He starts off again next morning, and his space for coal is limited. He takes less coal than in the past, and he takes his turf as well.
The Deputy is assum ing that he can sell his coal but not his turf.
I am asking the Minister can he imagine a bellman going his rounds in a street like Dominick Street, with his quota of coal and his quota of turf, and disposing of the turf as well as the coal?
Certainly. If standard turf, purchased at the price fixed by the Turf Board and retailed at ordinary profit, is sold by the bellmen at ordinary profit it will be sold at about half the price at which turf is being bought by similar residents in Dublin at the present moment.
Will the Minister say if he has made any examination as to the quantity of turf used in a street like Dominick Street, compared with the quantity of coal used?
The Deputy has no reason to assume that the proportion of turf fixed in relation to coal will be any higher.
That means the Act is all right if he does not enforce it.
We are agreed about one thing——
It is a good Act if he does not enforce it.
We are agreed about one thing—it is a good Act.
If the Minister wants us to attach any kind of credence to his statements, he should not tell us that the bellman who goes down to a coal importer in the morning, and has to take a quantity of turf as well as coal, is not going to be put to any great inconvenience as a result of it. He either knows nothing of what he is talking about or he is simply misleading us.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 53; Níl, 33.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Brian.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Flinn, Hugo. V.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corbett, Edmond.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred, Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Davin, William.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- O'Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Broderick, William Joseph.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Curran, Richard.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Desmond, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Keating, John.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Reidy, James.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Question proposed: "That Section 20 stand part of the Bill."
Section 20, Sir, provides for the purchase of land to be afterwards taken over and paid for by the board. The section implies that the board has some capital and some income. I should like to hear from the Minister what exactly the board's income is.
The board's income at the moment consists almost entirely of grants-in-aid voted by the Dáil, and any purchases which the board might make under the provisions of this section would be provided for out of the Dáil Vote. It is desirable to have this power, as the board will require to purchase land for the various purposes mentioned. As the Deputy is aware, when the State or anybody acting for the State seeks to do that, the price immediately jumps very high unless there is compulsory power in the background. It would, of course, be better to acquire it by agreement, if possible.
So that the machinery of this House is to be asked to provide the money to be paid over for that purpose.
It is not provided now.
The procedure is that the House will be asked annually for a grant to keep the Turf Board running. That money will be paid over when land is bought by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, but it will be got back again.
No. The Minister for Industry and Commerce will purchase land with money voted by the Dáil for that purpose. The money will be voted on the main Estimate for his Department.
There will probably be a Supplementary Estimate.
In fact it will be only a book-keeping transaction, because the land will have been purchased by the Land Commission.
It may be a book-keeping transaction from that point of view. I am glad to know that the relations between the Government Departments are so intimate. In reality, the Minister will not know at the beginning of the year what to put into the Estimate. There will probably be a Supplementary Estimate.
Yes, we will have one within the next couple of weeks.
Probably on each transaction.
At present they require storage compounds and plots on which to build sheds in connection with development. These are all minor purchases financed out of the Development Vote, but any major development requiring the acquisition of large areas of turbary or any similar purchases will be the subject of a separate Estimate.
As occasion requires.
Yes.
Sections 20 and 21 agreed to.
Question proposed: "That Section 22 stand part of the Bill."
Has a bellman to be registered?
Bellmen are not registered coal dealers.
Sub-retailers come under only one section, but a retailer is so defined in the definition section as to include bellmen.
For purposes of definition we regard bellmen as purchasers of coal from retailers, and retailers as persons who sell coal to bellmen.
That may be what the Minister intends, but I am telling him what is in the Bill. The definition section is the only place where a retailer is defined. There were a few words about that on Section 19. A definite definition is applied to retailers, but there is no such definition of sub-retailers. A bellman is a retailer. The Bill says: "the expression `coal retailer' means a person who carries on the business of selling coal by retail."
It may be desirable to have that defined.
Section 19 deals with the selling of coal and, as Deputy O'Sullivan pointed out, "coal retailer means a person who carries on the business of selling coal by retail."
It is quite clear and simple.
Sub-section 1 requires that records be kept of all coal and all turf bought, received, sold or delivered, and that "within 24 hours after such buying, receipt, sale or delivery, shall make or cause to be made in every such record the prescribed entries in respect thereof." In country towns the busiest day of the week is Saturday, and very often it is late at night before the business is finished. It might not then be possible to have all the sales entered up that night, while an inspector of the Gárda Síochána might be in on Monday morning.
I will look into that point. I think Sunday does not count.
Sub-section 3 says:—
Every record kept in pursuance of this section may be inspected at any time during office hours by an inspector or by an officer of the board authorised for the purpose by the Minister in writing or by a member of the Gárda Síochána.
Sub-section 5 also says:—
(a) inspection of a record or document shall include taking copies thereof or making extracts therefrom; and
I am not at all sure that that is desirable. It may conceivably be open to a certain amount of abuse. An inspector or officer does not require any authori- sation from a superintendent to inspect the records, and he may take copies of all invoices kept by retailers. The wording of the sub-section is open to a certain amount of abuse, as any inspector, officer, or member of the Gárda Síochána could walk into a coal retailer's and take copies of papers dealing with his business and, so far as we know, might make any use he liked of them; perhaps communicate them to other persons in the trade. I do not say that that is likely to happen.
In any event a member of the Gárda Síochána would belong to a disciplined force and would act under the authority of officers. I may consider the question of requiring the Gárda Síochána to be authorised to perform this duty. In any event a member of the Gárda who did it on his own would be liable to disciplinary action within the force. I think it would be no harm in the circumstances to have a member of the Gárda Síochána authorised to perform this duty by some officer in the force.
As far as we are concerned we have to go by the wording of the section, which says: "a member of the Gárda Síochána," while there is nothing about authorisation. While I do not suggest this would be abused by the Gárda Síochána, it is quite possible that it could be abused without being detected. The wording is rather loose, and I should like if the Minister would reconsider it.
Has the Minister any idea of how much inspection this will involve?
My difficulty is that at present I cannot say to what extent the Act will be enforced. Obviously that will be a matter that will change from time to time. In the immediate future it is not contemplated that any drastic enforcement of the Act will be necessary, and consequently the amount of inspection required will not be very extensive, but as the Act is enforced over wider areas, and as the regulations are made more rigid over particular areas, the degree of inspection will increase.
The Minister will recognise that any amount of inspection, to have any reality at all, must involve an increase of staff somewhere. The Minister cannot do it with the existing staffs.
In so far as the ordinary enforcement of the Act is concerned, we shall be relying on the Gárda Síochána.
Section put and agreed to.
Sections 23 to 33, inclusive, and the Title, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported to the House. Report Stage ordered for Wednesday, 10th June, 1936.