Finance Bill, 1936—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question proposed:—"That Section 15 stand part of the Bill."

General Mulcahy

Perhaps the Minister will tell us what will be the financial effect of this section?

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

Section 7 of the Finance (Customs and Excise Duties) Act of 1933 provided for the payment of road tax at the rate of £20 in lieu of £30 in the case of a commercial vehicle which exceeded one ton but did not exceed one and a quarter tons in weight unladen, and in respect of which it was shown to the satisfaction of the Minister for Industry and Commerce that such vehicles were assembled in Saorstát Eireann in a manner and to an extent for the time being approved by the said Minister. Section 7, paragraph 5, of the same Act, provided for the payment of road tax at the maximum rate of £16 in lieu of the rate of £1 per horse power, limited in the case of private motor car vehicles in respect of which it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister for Industry and Commerce that such vehicles were likewise assembled in Saorstát Eireann in the manner and to the extent for the time being approved by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. The view is now being adopted that this concession should for the future be limited to vehicles which are not only assembled in the Saorstát to the extent required but are also to the extent required by the Minister for Industry and Commerce assembled from parts manufactured in the Saorstát. I should like in that connection to emphasise that certificates issued under the law as it existed prior to May of this year do not lose their validity and will still carry the benefit of the concession to the vehicles in respect of which they were issued as long as those vehicles are in existence. As to the financial effect of the resolution, it is not expected that the revenue derived from the road tax will be affected by it, as it is understood that manufacturers will comply with the amended law.

Once back on his pedestal, I should like to ask for a little information from him. From what the Minister says, the requirements that are going to be made on the manufacturers of motor cars are going to be progressive. According as firms manufacturing parts of motor cars extend the line of parts they are manufacturing here, manufacturers of cars are going to be required, by regulations made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to extend the use of these parts in order to become qualified for the relief under the section. From the 13th May certain requirements have been made on the manufacturers of cars. The section says:—

"... in respect of which it is shown to the satisfaction of the Minister for Industry and Commerce that such vehicle was assembled in Saorstát Eireann in a manner and to an extent for the time being approved of by the said Minister and was so assembled, either wholly or to an extent for the time being approved of by the said Minister, from parts manufactured in Saorstát Eireann ...."

I should like to ask the Minister what is the general range of parts that are available manufactured in Saorstát Eireann and which are covered by the regulations that have been brought into force and are operative from the 13th May? I think the House is entitled to hear, generally, when this change is being made, what progress has been made in the manufacture of motor car parts here—whether it is limited to a small range of the most important parts of the car, or whether it has developed in small parts even to a considerable extent.

Mr. Haslett

I think, Sir, the House would welcome a further statement from the Minister as to what extent this section would apply. It has been the general experience of motor manufacturers that the Free State market did not warrant a manufacturing plant in the sense that it did in other places; for instance, the Ford Company ceased the manufacture of parts in Cork because it was not economic to do so. If this applies all round, it would seem that we are making for a factory which could not be economic. The House, I am sure, would welcome a further statement from the Minister as to whether his Department or the Department of Industry and Commerce is going to insist on all the parts being manufactured here or only certain of the parts that can be economically manufactured here.

Mr. MacEntee

Naturally, the Department of Industry and Commerce, in pursuance of the policy which the country has approved and which the Dáil has already sanctioned when, in 1933, it permitted us to incorporate the existing provision in the law relating to motor vehicles duties, will insist that parts which can be manufactured economically in this country will be utilised, and no others. Of course, we are not going to impose an undue burden on any section of the citizens, and I think I can say this: That notwithstanding all the opposition which the Minister for Industry and Commerce experienced here from certain quarters in this House and outside it when he embarked on this task of establishing the motor assembling industry in this country, everyone to-day in the country is satisfied with the result of the Minister's efforts.

Mr. Dillon

I really feel that it would be of material assistance, not only to the House, but to all interested in the business generally, if the Minister for Industry and Commerce would make a short statement clarifying exactly what the position will be under two heads: one, the comparative position of the different types of motor assembling; that is to say, those who have factories capable of manufacturing parts in Saorstát Eireann, and two, those who act exclusively as assembling agents of motor cars manufactured in Great Britain or in the United States of America. We are all aware that, very recently, two or three new models of cars have been put on the market here in Saorstát Eireann from Germany, the United States, and Great Britain. Whether these assemblers will have any facilities whatever for getting parts, suitable for their cars, manufactured in Saorstát Eireann is something that we know nothing about.

I am not aware that there is any tendency of wages to fall, and I feel sure that any figures supplied to the Deputy will not show that. I think the Deputy is making the same mistake that he made on other occasions. He is dividing the number of persons employed in October in the years in which the Census of Production is taken with the amount of wages paid for the whole year. Obviously the average wage figure which that calculation will give is bound to be less than the real figure if the number of persons employed has been increasing during the year, and it has been the case in this industry particularly, in which there has been a substantial increase in the number employed and in the total amount of wages paid.

Mr. Kilroy

I should like to point out to the Minister that for the last two years representations have been made to me by coach builders here in the city that as a consequence of the importation of cars for commercial vehicles, there has been a large decrease in employment in that particular business, with consequent loss both to the coach builders and their employers. I should like to ask the Minister if he now intends to have cars which are attached to commercial vehicles manufactured in this country.

Mr. Lemass

That is the intention and that is why this power is taken in paragraph (a).

Section 15 put and agreed to.

Section 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SECTION 17.

The Revenue Commissioners may, subject to compliance with such conditions as they may think fit to impose, allow any of the following articles, imported into Saorstát Eireann after the passing of this Act and chargeable on such importation with a duty of customs (whenever and however imposed), to be imported without payment of such duty or repay any such duty paid on the importation of such article, that is to say:—

(b) an article in respect of which the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied that it is part of the personal estate of a person who has died outside Saorstát Eireann within 12 months before the importation of the article, and that the article is being imported by the personal representative of such deceased person or by a person who was related by blood to or connected by marriage with such deceased person and has become entitled to the article under the will or by virtue of the intestacy of such deceased person;

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 35:—

In paragraph (b), page 12, lines 16 and 17, to delete the words "within 12 months before the importation of the article".

The purpose of this amendment is to delete certain words which would deprive certain persons of the concessions which it was intended to grant under the section. This clause is designed to enable the Revenue Commissioners to exempt certain articles from duty, largely articles which are left to people under certain wills, family heirlooms and things of that description. The point is, of course, that executors are allowed a period of 12 months for the settlement of an estate and for the distribution of legacies. If they have not settled the estate, and legacies have not been distributed and imported within 12 months, in order to comply with the section as it at present stands, the limiting words might impose a very great hardship upon the executors, on the one hand, and would prevent the legatees from obtaining the advantage of the section on the other hand.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Section 17, as amended, put and agreed to.

SECTION 18.

Precisely. The section is brought in because we have decided that the law, in so far as it relates to smuggling, must be strengthened.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 19.

(3) Whenever an officer of customs or excise or a member of the Gárda Siochána reasonably suspects that any goods to which this section applies have been imported into Saorstát Eireann or have been so imported without payment of a duty of customs chargeable on such importation or without a licence or other special authorisation required by law for such importation, such officer or member (as the case may be) may require any person in whose possession or control or on or in whose land or premises or in the immediate vicinity of whose land or premises such goods are found by such officer or member, to give to such officer or member all information relevant to all or any of the following subjects of inquiry which is in the possession or knowledge of such person and to produce to such officer or member all documents relevant to any such subject of inquiry which are in the possession or custody of such person, that is to say:—

(a) whether such goods were or were not imported into Saorstát Eireann, and

(b) if such goods were so imported, the person by whom and the place and time at which they were so imported, and

(c) if such goods were so imported and were chargeable with a duty of customs on such importation, whether such duty was or was not paid and, if such duty was paid, the time and place of payment, and

(d) if such goods were so imported and a licence or other special authorisation was required by law for such importation, whether such licence or authorisation was or was not obtained.

(5) Whenever a person is guilty of any such failure or refusal as is declared by the next preceding sub-section of this section to be an offence under this section, such failure or refusal (whether such person has or has not been prosecuted for such offence) shall, in any proceedings against such person for an offence against or contravention of the laws relating to Customs alleged to have been committed by him in regard to the goods to which such failure or refusal related, be evidence until the contrary is proved that such goods had been imported into Saorstát Eireann by such person and had been so imported without payment of the duties of Customs (if any) chargeable on such importation and without the licence or other special authorisation (if any) required by law for such importation.

(6) Whenever a person, in whose possession or control or on or in whose land or premises or in the immediate vicinity of whose land or premises any goods to which this section applies were found by an officer of Customs and Excise or by a member of the Gárda Síochána, is charged in any legal proceedings with an offence against or a contravention of the laws relating to Customs alleged to have been committed by him in relation to those goods, such goods shall, until the contrary is proved by such person, be presumed without further evidence to have been imported into Saorstát Eireann by such person and to have been so imported without payment of the duties of Customs (if any) chargeable on such importation and without the licence or other special authorisation (if any) required by law for such importation.

The following amendments were on the Order Paper in the name of Deputy Costello:—

36. In sub-section (3), lines 35 and 36, to delete the words "or in the immediate vicinity of whose lands or premises".

37. In sub-section (5), to delete lines 8 and 9, page 14, and substitute the words "refusal related, shall not be evidence until it is proved that such goods had been imported into Saorstát Eireann by such person and".

38. In sub-section (6), to delete in lines 15 and 16 the words "or in the immediate vicinity of whose lands or premises".

39. In sub-section (6), to delete lines 21 and 22 and substitute the words "goods shall not be deemed without further evidence to have been imported into Saorstát".

(3) Whenever an officer of customs and excise or a member of the Gárda Síochána reasonably suspects that any goods to which this section applies have been imported into Saorstát Eireann or have been so imported without payment of a duty of Customs chargeable on such importation or without a licence or other special authorisation required by law for such importation, such officer or member (as the case may be) may require any person in whose possession or control or on or in whose land or premises or in the immediate vicinity of whose land or premises such goods are found by such officer or member, to give to such officer or member all information relevant to all or any of the following subjects of inquiry which is in the possession or knowledge of such person and to produce to such officer or member all documents relevant to any such subject of inquiry which are in the possession or custody of such person, that is to say:—

(a) whether such goods were or were not imported into Saorstát Eireann, and

(b) if such goods were so imported, the person by whom and the place and time at which they were so imported, and

(c) if such goods were so imported and were chargeable with a duty of customs on such importation, whether such duty was or was not paid and, if such duty was paid, the time and place of payment, and

(d) if such goods were so imported and a licence or other special authorisation was required by law for such importation, whether such licence or authorisation was or was not obtained.

The Minister must realise that, silly as he was, there are a great many people nearly as silly.

Mr. MacEntee

Surely the Deputy is not making my silliness an excuse for his being sillier?

Mr. Dillon

In certain cases. The Deputy may try to make points which are not really relevant to the principle at issue, which is, whether an officer of customs is entitled to ask a person, who is in the possession of goods which the officer suspects of being smuggled, to tell him whether or not the goods were imported into the Saorstát. Is there any difficulty about that? If the person takes up an attitude different to that Deputy Dillon suggests and, without having recourse to a solicitor, says: "I do not know, but I can tell you from whom I got the goods," is there any great hardship in asking a person in the possession of goods suspected of being smuggled to tell the officer of customs, if he is not able to tell him whether the goods were imported or not, from whom he got them? The person upon whom the onus of showing whether the goods were imported or not really rests ought to be in a position to prove that the duty was or was not paid and, if such duty was paid, the time of the supposed payment. He will have customs receipts for every one of these duties if he conducts his business properly. I am certain that Deputy Dillon conducts his business properly and that he will not be subject to all the imaginary terrors with which he has tried to endow this section. The person who conducts his business honestly within the law will be prepared, if he has reason to believe that goods have been smuggled, to assist the officers of the law in the discharge of their duty. Again, I come back to the point that I think the House, which has imposed certain customs duties, would stultify itself if it did not give the officers of the State the powers which they advise me are essential if these customs laws are to be enforced.

Mr. Bennett

The Minister, in reply to Deputy Dillon, said it was not unreasonable to give the Revenue Commissioners certain definite powers, where they find goods in the possession of a person, to discover whether duty was or was not paid on them. I would like to put in a word for the amendment more than for the section. To use the Minister's words, it might not be unreasonable to ask a person who is in possession of goods to give certain information, but I am thinking of the person who is not in possession of anything. I have no idea, of course, of how the words "in the immediate vicinity" might be interpreted by the Revenue Commissioners, but take the position that certain goods which are subject to duty are found on land contiguous to my place. If I am asked for information whether the duty has been paid on them, it would be impossible for me, or for people in my position, to give the information, and yet if I refuse to do so I am liable to the penalty set out. That, surely, is not right. I do not think that we should leave it in the power of anyone to put such interrogations to people. People who did not know anything about the importation of the goods might, as Deputy Dillon said, give an evasive answer, and then get themselves into serious trouble. For the reasons that I have given I support the proposed deletion of the words "in the immediate vicinity of land or premises." In the case of a person found in the possession of goods, it is perhaps reasonable that the Revenue Commissioners should have power to get some information about them, but it would be undesirable, I think, to place the unlimited powers asked for here in the hands of any authority.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister has sought to draw an analogy between stolen goods and smuggled goods. There is no analogy between the procedure adopted by the representatives of the law in regard to these two categories of things, because the law specifically recognises that, in many circumstances, the possession of stolen goods is no evidence of guilt whatever. It clearly says that, if goods are bought in good faith, no crime is committed. If they are purchased in market overt they become the legitimate property of the purchaser. They may be recovered, but if bought in good faith they carry no shadow of guilt to the person who has bought them.

Mr. MacEntee

And so far as persons affected by this section are concerned, that would still be the position. If he shows that he bought them in good faith he is not liable to any penalty.

Mr. Dillon

As I have said, there is no analogy at all between the two classes of goods. The Minister went on to say that it is a crime to smuggle goods, and that it is no hardship to require persons to tell the officers of the Revenue Commissioners whether they have committed that crime or not. That is all they are asked to do, he says. If a citizen of this State murders his mother-in-law and is brought into the dock, does this House think it would be no hardship to put on him the statutory obligation of telling the judge that he had murdered his mother-in-law? Is it not the very essence of our law that he is entitled to plead "not guilty" and to assert and maintain within the law to the very last hour that he did not murder his mother-in-law? Would it not be a perfect absurdity to make it a statutory crime for a person to deny criminal guilt when put upon his trial?

Mr. Coburn

I want to say a few words in support of the amendment. As a representative of a Border county, I can see that many difficulties will arise if this section is passed as it stands. It is rather peculiar that the Minister should want such powers at the present time. I should like to ask the Minister if smuggling has been on the increase during the past few months and, if so, why has it been on the increase? Is there a sufficient staff along the Border to cope with the smuggling business? I am strongly in sympathy with the views expressed by Deputy Dillon. I venture to suggest that Deputies who do not happen to know much about the Border cannot have the faintest conception of all the trouble that can be created amongst the traders in Border towns as a result of the passing of this section.

We may as well be candid with ourselves. We are not the great people we are supposed to be. There are certain types of people with very narrow minds, selfish types of people, people possibly who want to get their own back on their fellow-man, on neighbouring traders along the Border, possibly as a result of a long-standing agrarian dispute or some other form of dispute between their families, their fathers and grandfathers. A particular man may be in business. What is to prevent an individual giving secret information to the preventive officers that such a man has imported goods, say, from Northern Ireland, thus exposing that man to a visit from the officers, perhaps on a day on which he is extremely busy with other business? I can visualise the feelings of a trader who has to contend with many difficulties that have not to be contended with by traders in other parts of Ireland, having to answer such questions as: "When did you import such an article?""From what country have you imported it, Northern Ireland or Great Britain?""Can you give me the receipts in respect of the duties payable?" and so forth. I can imagine the feelings of such a man, and what his answer would be. I think it would be the usual answer, to go to a hot place, and I believe that would be the correct answer, too.

I think this is really putting the law too far, giving too much power to the Revenue Commissioners, power which in my opinion they do not want to have vested in them. Why should they want such power if the officials are doing their duty? Let us suppose that a man is lucky enough to get a thing across the Border and he is not caught by the preventive officers. I cannot see why the law should be extended in such a way that that man is going to be pilloried, even though he is guilty. This section gives power to the Revenue Commissioners to question a man who is not guilty of smuggling in any shape or form. Knowing the difficulties that traders in those towns have to encounter as a result of the setting up of the Border, the loss of trade they suffer, and the many other difficulties with which they have to contend, I think the least the Minister might do is to show a little sympathy with them, and not make it more difficult for these people to eke out a living. At present they find it difficult enough to make ends meet.

I am honestly of the opinion that this section will create a great deal of hardship, and possibly very bad relations between the preventive officers and the various traders. The Minister may or may not wish that, and quite probably the Revenue Commissioners may not realise the full possibilities of this section. If we consider this matter from a selfish point of view, the point of view of votes, I think if this section is put into operation it will make the Government very unpopular. From the point of view of commonsense alone I suggest that these traders should not be unduly worried by visits from preventive officers, pimping into their business, possibly in nine cases out of ten on information supplied by people who, through a personal grudge, would be only too willing to give information. It is a power that should not be given to the Revenue Commissioners.

No; I think we ought to have the section as it stands, without amendment. I am advised that any other form than that in which it appears on the Paper would be valueless.

Mr. Dillon

The law of evidence provides that a police officer who is about to put questions to a person whom he suspects to be guilty of the gravest crimes known to the law, the answers to which might incriminate that person, must first say to him: "I warn you that you need not answer my questions now, but, if you do, your answers will be taken down and may be used in evidence against you." Unless he takes that precaution, any answers that are given will be disallowed against the defendant at the Bar. I say that if this House enacts legislation to provide that a person who is admittedly guilty of a breach of the law can be asked by an officer of the law a question which places him in the dilemma that whether he says "Yes," keeps silence, or says "No," he has committed an offence, it is bad law, and is a departure from all principles of human liberty and decent administration. It can be defended if the alternative to adopting such a position is that the whole State will be undermined and destroyed by persons who are using the law not for the purpose of vindicating their liberty but as an instrument to destroy the State. Then I admit that a case might be made for revolutionary departures from the accepted fundamental principles which govern our system of society, but short of such a claim there can be no justification for legislation of this kind. I sometimes despair of trying to make appeals on principle to members of the Fianna Fáil Party, because they seem to have lost all sense of principle, and to have surrendered themselves, body and soul, to the doctrine of expediency, but I certainly will resist a proposal of this kind with all the available resources provided by the Constitution.

Amendment No. 36.

Question put—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

Professor O'Sullivan

Are amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 39 also being put?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

It is presumed that amendment No. 36 will govern amendment No. 38 but not amendment No. 37.

Question declared carried.

Amendment No. 37.

Question put—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand."

The Committee divided: Tá, 42; Níl, 20.

Tá

Aiken, Frank.
Beegan, Patrick.
Blaney, Neal.
Boland, Gerald.
Brady, Brian.
Briscoe, Robert.
Carty, Frank.
Concannon, Helena.
Crowley, Timothy.
Daly, Denis.
Derrig, Thomas.
De Valera, Eamon.
Flynn, Stephen.
Gibbons, Seán.
Goulding, John.
Houlihan, Patrick.
Kehoe, Patrick.
Kelly, James Patrick.
Killilea, Mark.
Kilroy, Michael.
Kissane, Eamon.
Lemass, Seán F.
MacEntee, Seán.
Maguire, Ben.
Maguire, Conor Alexander.
Moane, Edward.
Moore, Séamus.
Moylan, Seán.
Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
O Briain, Donnchadh.
O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
O'Grady, Seán.
O'Reilly, Matthew.
Pearse, Margaret Mary.
Rice, Edward.
Ryan, James.
Sheridan, Michael.
Smith, Patrick.
Traynor, Oscar.
Victory, James.
Walsh, Richard.
Ward, Francis C.

Níl

Bennett, George Cecil.
Burke, James Michael.
Coburn, James.
Cosgrave, William T.
Dillon, James M.
Doyle, Peadar S.
Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
Keating, John.
MacDermot, Frank.
McFadden, Michael Og.
McGovern, Patrick.
Morrissey, Daniel.
Mulcahy, Richard.
Nally, Martin.
O'Leary, Daniel.
O'Reilly, John Joseph.
O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
Redmond, Bridget Mary.
Reidy, James.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Smith and Moylan; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.

Question declared carried.

Amendments Nos. 38 and 39 not moved.

Question proposed: That Section 19 stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Dillon

Ordinarily, Sir, I would challenge a division on this section. At the beginning of our debate we had a slight difference with the Ministers and I suggested that, if they were prepared to give the information we asked for, we would cooperate in getting through the business as expeditiously as possible. In the light of that, I am prepared to let the section pass.

Question put and declared carried.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 40:—

Before Section 20, page 14, to insert a new section as follows:—

Whenever the Minister for Finance so thinks proper, the Revenue Commissioners may, subject to compliance with any conditions which they may think fit to prescribe, permit the importation or delivery without payment of any duty of customs or of excise of any article required for or in connection with any of the following things, that is to say—

With regard to Section 20, I do not know whether the House would permit an amendment to be made at this stage, but in case there should be any difficulty about it, I should like to give notice that, on the Report Stage, I propose to bring in an amendment to delete the word "receipt" in line 41 and substitute therefor the word "posting." The reason is that it may be difficult to prove receipt.

Mr. Dillon

I would sooner leave that to the Report Stage. I am not quite sure that it is a more sensible method than the purpose the Minister has in view. Will the section alter the existing situation under which, if one desires to pay duty by cheque, one must get the cheque certified by a bank?

Mr. MacEntee

As far as the licence is concerned, yes.

Mr. Dillon

This does not refer to customs duty at all?

Mr. MacEntee

No, only to payment of licence duty by cheque.

Question put and agreed to.

SECTION 21.

General Mulcahy

I move amendment No. 42:—

Before Section 21, in Part II of the Bill, to insert a new section as follows:—

The Minister for Finance shall cause to be laid before the Dáil within 21 days of the end of each month a schedule giving particulars of the licences issued by the Revenue Commissioners during that month for the importation without payment of duty of goods otherwise liable to customs duty, and including the name, address and occupation of the licensee, and the number of the articles in respect of which in each case the licence was issued.

The gravest possible dissatisfaction and very grave suspicion exist amongst certain manufacturers in the City of Dublin that discrimination is made between various manufacturers in the issuing of licences. I have had one manufacturer in particular with me who makes various articles of women's clothing, and he indicates happenings in the mantle and gown industry and other articles of women's clothing that suggests that there are manufacturers in the city who are allowed to import certain fabrics or various pieces of partly manufactured clothing which other manufacturers in the city are not allowed to import. The Minister very likely heard of this. There are others as well, and there is a general atmosphere of suspicion that licences are being issued to some people and not issued to others. I have had it put up to me that it is impossible to get information, that it would require a court order to discover documents in Dublin Castle to get to the bottom of this matter, and that there is certain differentiation in prices charged for various commodities that indicates that quantities of stuff are coming in under licences that are not given to others.

It is very essential, in the general situation here, where traders of all kinds are suffering grave disabilities through Government interference, that any shred of suspicion, even if it is nothing but suspicion, should be removed. It is a matter that vitally affects the interests of the State generally, that manufacturers should not be left labouring under suspicions of this kind. They can be completely swept away, if they are nothing but suspicions, if a monthly schedule of the licences granted were placed in the library here. If discrimination was being made we could see what exactly that discrimination was and have an explanation given. Even though the Minister might for particular reasons of his own be pursuing a policy of discrimination, at any rate, we would have a statement of the facts, and to these facts he could add any explanation as to why it was necessary to have discrimination of this kind.

Mr. Lemass

I do not think the amendment could be accepted for two reasons: One, because it would be almost completely impossible to give effect to it without adding very considerably to the staffs of the various Departments and incurring very considerable expense. Furthermore, if the necessary records were to be published it would mean considerable delay in dealing with applications. Apart from that, there are obvious reasons for refusing to publish, in the manner suggested, information which might be very damaging to persons concerned; that is, information of the extent to which they are importing goods of the class dealt with in the return. I do not think that information concerning an individual's private business should be published, nor do I think there are any reasonable grounds for contending that there are circumstances which justify the adoption of that course. If Deputy Mulcahy takes the opportunity, which, I am sure, will be given him, to ascertain the views of responsible organisations of traders on the issue of licences, I think he will find that they will not allege that any discrimination is shown as between one person and another in the same circumstances. They sometimes complain of slowness, and complain of the policy when we do not issue licences as they think we should, but they make no allegation of discrimination. It is undesirable that an individual allegation of that kind should be mentioned without reserve. I think I know the particular person who was speaking to the Deputy. He made that allegation before and sent the Deputy letters.

General Mulcahy

He sent them to the Minister for Finance.

Mr. Lemass

And sent them to me. My advice to the Deputy is to take anything he says with considerable reserve. In any event, the circumstances in that particular case are different from those described. He is a man who is manufacturing certain articles of clothing. He is the only man doing so, and apparently he is not getting orders from particular firms, and alleges that they must be getting licences. He does not consider apparently the possibility of persons preferring to pay the duty to purchasing his goods. There is no foundation whatever for the allegation he made that licences are issued to Protestant firms and refused to Catholic firms, and other wild statements of that kind. I have had frequent discussions on the question of the licensing policy with important trade organisations such as the Drapers' Chamber of Trade and manufacturers' associations, and I think we have got the system relating to the consideration and disposal of applications on a basis which eliminates all these little causes of complaint. In fact, testimony to that effect has been given by responsible officers of these associations on occasions during the past year.

Mr. Dillon

The Minister refused to grant this concession on the ground that the extra work involved in his Department would be more expensive than the concession would be worth. That is palpably absurd, as there must be a record of licences kept, if chaos does not obtain in the Department of Industry and Commerce. I have no doubt such a record is kept and that there would be no difficulty in ascertaining every licence issued by the Department of Finance since this system of licensing began. The revenue accounts could not be kept in order unless such a register existed. All that would be necessary would be to publish extracts from that register at monthly intervals. The second ground on which the Minister rejects the proposal is, that it would be quite wrong to reveal the quantity of goods that a merchant was importing. No one wants to reveal the quantity of stuff that anyone is importing.

Mr. Lemass

That is what the amendment suggests.

Mr. Dillon

It would be sufficient if the class of article was given in the register showing simply the merchandise the licence referred to, and the name of the licensee. The Minister stated that he had discussed the matter exhaustively with the Drapers' Chamber of Trade and other responsible bodies. I do not know what negotiations have gone on between the Minister and the Drapers' Chamber of Trade. The Drapers' Chamber of Trade represents a very small section of the drapers in this country, as 90 per cent. of the drapers operating in rural Ireland do not belong to it. A small draper down the country has just as much right to live as big drapers in the City of Dublin and the City of Cork. I hereby allege that to my own personal knowledge differentiation has taken place between merchants in this country who are exactly similarly situated. I have no intention of referring to the case of anybody who has given me information, for I have reason to know that if I do so in this House, that person becomes identified in the Department of Industry and Commerce, and, in due course, will get to realise that the Department will give him the strict letter of the law, give him just what he is entitled to under the letter of the law, no more and no less.

There is no valid complaint against the Department so long as it fulfils the strict letter of the law, but merchants who have to depend for their livelihood on getting a licence and on getting a little latitude such as human creatures expect, know that that latitude can be perfectly legitimately withdrawn if the Department makes up its mind that any particular individual is a nuisance. If any individual makes himself the spokesman of such merchants for the purpose of criticising the Department, that individual is in the eyes of the Department a nuisance. I am not suggesting that anything to which he is legitimately entitled is taken from him, but I am asserting that he gets the letter of the law and no more. I do not ask from the Department any more than the letter of the law, but I shall take damn good care to get that. I know I shall get no more; I do not want it, and I will take no less, but I say that there are cases in which discrimination has been used. I say there was a period in which licences were being issued for the importation of thread to certain parties and being refused to others. I say there was a period when persons were getting a licence to import sewing cotton into the country and I could not get it.

I think that if you examine into it closely you will find that the letter of the law was being complied with. I am not sure how far the letter of the law was being strictly complied with there. The Minister had absolute discretion to issue licences in the matter of sewing cotton. There was a period in which he expressed himself as having been satisfied by the Drapers' Chamber of Trade that the Westport Thread Company could not supply the demands of the country. Finally there was an arrangement arrived at under which the Westport Thread Company would import all the thread and distribute it from Westport, but there was a period in which the Minister either gave a licence to members of the Drapers' Chamber of Trade or to certain selected parties. For a short period certain rural shopkeepers brought in thread on licence, and I could not get it at the same time. Whether that was due to an oversight I am not in a position to say. I have repeatedly pointed out to the House that for those who are not engaged in the trade it is almost impossible to understand the difficulties which arise.

Take this case. The Minister decides on the 1st April that he will not issue licences for the importation of a commodity like flannelette. I write on the 2nd April and ask for a licence to import flannelette. There is a delay, and then I get a letter to say that the Minister, having carefully considered the representations made in the application, cannot see his way to recommend the issue of the licence. That is the end of it so far as I am concerned. I have to get the flannelette somewhere else and I pay duty on it. On that day fortnight the Minister changes his mind. He makes up his mind that he is now going to issue licences for the importation of flannelette. My next-door neighbour then writes for a licence. The Minister writes back and says: "Let me have a pro forma invoice for what you want and I shall recommend the issue of a licence." He gets the licence and brings in the flannelette free of duty. Now the picture presented to me is that when a few weeks before I asked for a licence I was refused it. I paid the standard price for flannelette in Manchester and I had to pay a duty of 33? per cent in addition. Having paid that, I cannot sell it at less than 1/2 per yard. It cost me 11 7/8d., duty included. I walk down the street a few days later and I see flannelette being carried from boxes outside my competitor's shop into the window, with a ticket marked 1/- per yard on it.

Mr. Moore

The amendment does not alter that situation.

Mr. Dillon

I say to myself immediately "Here I have been refused a licence but this man obviously got a licence or he could not sell it at 1/-." It immediately occurs to me "There must be some hanky-panky about this." I say to my friends "There is the written evidence. The Minister has refused me a licence." Bear in mind that we are talking about two merchants down the country who are not members of the Dáil and who cannot come in here and put down a Parliamentary Question about the matter. A bitter sense of grievance resides in the man who has been refused a licence.

He feels that his neighbour has a preference over him to which he was not entitled. I say that if the Minister published at the end of the month "Licences in respect to the following persons were issued for the importation of flannelette during the month"— immediately those aggrieved could come forward and say: "Well, we were refused a licence" whereupon the matter could be raised here and the Minister would be afforded an opportunity of saying: "Circumstances altered and I changed my mind." It would be open to us then to say that justice demanded that any duty paid in respect of the importation of flannelette prior to the Minister changing his mind should be refunded. At least all the facts would be before the public and the Minister would be put on his proof to satisfy the House that he was justified in changing his mind in that way.

In connection with this system of licensing, may I put it to the Minister that the present practice of not stating a reason for refusing a licence is not a good practice, particularly when it is not final? Frequently a licence is refused with the idea of getting the applicant to make a more substantial or a more elaborate case. It is not clear always what ground the Department had in mind for the refusal. It is too much to expect a business man to know the reason for the refusal when it is not set out in the refusal. I submit the Department could well afford to give a hint that if a proper case was made the matter would be again considered.

Mr. Lemass

I have no idea of the class of licence Deputy Moore is talking about. That is not the practice of the Department so far as licences attaching to customs duties are concerned. It may have been done in relation to applications for a licence to import British goods, such as machinery and things of that kind free of the special duty. I take it that is what Deputy Moore is referring to, but in ordinary cases that is not done. In cases of application to import machinery of British origin free of duty the application would, in the ordinary course, be refused until evidence is produced that the same machinery cannot be procured from sources to which the duty does not apply, or some other good reason for the granting of this concession is advanced. These are entirely different circumstances, because the application would be of the kind not likely to be repeated and would relate to a particular industry or class of machinery. Applications for licences to import are considered by the Department, and I determine the circumstances in which a licence is issued. These instructions are followed and there is no discretion whatever beyond that.

Question put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 21; Níl, 41.

Tá

Bennett, George Cecil.
Bourke, Séamus.
Burke, James Michael.
Coburn, James.
Cosgrave, William T.
Dillon, James M.
Doyle, Peadar S.
Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
Keating, John.
McFadden, Michael Og.
McGovern, Patrick.
Morrissey, Daniel.
Mulcahy, Richard.
Nally, Martin.
O'Leary, Daniel.
O'Reilly, John Joseph.
O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
Redmond, Bridget Mary.
Reidy, James.
Rowlette, Robert James.

Níl

Aiken, Frank.
Beegan, Patrick.
Blaney, Neal.
Boland, Gerald.
Brady, Brian.
Briscoe, Robert.
Carty, Frank.
Concannon, Helena.
Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
Crowley, Timothy.
Daly, Denis.
MacEntee, Seán.
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.
Derrig, Thomas.
De Valera, Eamon.
Flynn, Stephen.
Gibbons, Seán.
Goulding, John.
Kehoe, Patrick.
Kelly, James Patrick.
Killilea, Mark.
Kilroy, Michael.
Kissane, Eamonn.
Lemass, Seán F.
Pearse, Margaret Mary.
Rice, Edward.
Ryan, James.
Sheridan, Michael.
Smith, Patrick.
Traynor, Oscar.
Victory, James.
Walsh, Richard.
Ward, Francis C.

Tellers:—Tá, Deputies Doyle and Bennett; Níl, Deputies Smith and Beegan.

Amendment declared lost.

Question proposed: "That Section 21 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Dillon

What does Section 21 do?

Mr. Lemass

It comes after Section 20.

Mr. Dillon

I thought that was all that the Minister for Industry and Commerce knew about it. The Minister for Finance may know more.

Mr. MacEntee

As I explained on Second Reading, Section 21 is a purely drafting amendment of Section 27 of the Finance Act of 1934. The purpose of that section was to impose a penalty of £50 for breach of any condition in relation to a duty of customs which the law imposes or which the law authorises the Revenue Commissioners to impose. It has been found that the provision applies only to powers conferred by the Act of 1934, to Orders made under that Act and to Resolutions, and that no mention was made of powers directly conferred by other Acts. It is in these other Acts that the powers are mainly to be found.

Would not the Minister at this moment give a slight description of the ramifications of this section?

Mr. Lemass

Deputy Dillon spoke about this incident at least 25 times in the last two years, while I was chained down here listening to him.

Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.

SECTION 23.

(1) The several enactments specified in the Fifth Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed, to the extent mentioned in the third column of the said Schedule, as on and from the 13th day of May, 1936.

(2) The repeal of paragraphs (b) and (f) of Section 7 of the Finance (Customs and Excise Duties) Act, 1933 (No. 52 of 1933), is without prejudice to the validity or effect of any certificate given by the Minister for Industry and Commerce for the purposes of either of those paragraphs before the 13th day of May, 1936.

Mr. MacEntee

I move amendment No. 43:—

Before Section 23, page 15, but in Part IV, to insert a new section as follows:—

With a view to providing moneys to meet charges which will fall upon the Central Fund in relation to schemes for the provision of employment and the relief of distress, the sum of £100,000 shall be transferred and paid from the Road Fund to the Exchequer at such time or times in the financial year ending on the 31st day of March, 1937, and in such manner as the Minister for Finance shall direct.

The purpose of this amendment is to give effect to the proposal in the Budget whereby a sum of £100,000 is to be transferred and paid from the Road Fund to the Exchequer in the current year for the relief of distress.

What is proposed here in this new section indicates that money that would be normally spent under the direction of one part of the engineering machinery in the State on a definite class of work that we know the general lines of, is now going to be spent on another class of work. Reference has been made to the fact that there are certain areas in the country which, more than others, require to be assisted in this particular way. I submit that we ought to be told the general lines of the work on which it is proposed to spend this £100,000, and in what particular areas it is proposed to spend it.

Mr. Morrissey

The section moved by the Minister sets out that the object of it is to provide moneys—

"to meet charges which will fall upon the Central Fund in relation to schemes for the provision of employment and the relief of distress."

Therefore, what the Minister is proposing is to insert a new provision in his Finance Bill to enable him to provide money for the provision of employment and the relief of distress. The Minister is taking the sum of £100,000 out of the Road Fund to do that. Deputies are well aware that the procedure at present is that moneys voted out of the Road Fund are spent under the supervision of the county council officials. I am not at all satisfied that, if this sum of money is transferred to the new Employment Fund to be administered by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance, as high a rate of wages will be paid to workers employed on the schemes undertaken as if the Road Fund moneys continued to be administered in the ordinary way by the county council officials.

Mr. MacEntee

All that can be discussed on the Estimate.

Mr. Morrissey

The Minister seems very anxious to prevent the House from discussing that aspect of the situation on this new section. It is a matter for the House to decide whether or not the Minister is to get this £100,000 from the Road Fund. There is no doubt whatever, in my opinion, that as high a rate of wages will not be paid on works financed out of this money as if the money were voted in the ordinary way from the Road Fund and administered by the county councils. I suggest that the wording of this new section gives the House perfect liberty to discuss the unemployment and distress that prevail in the country.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Sections 23, 24 and 25 agreed to.

FIRST SCHEDULE.

Mr. J.M. Burke

I move amendment No. 44:—

To delete reference No. 3, and all references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.

In moving this amendment I feel that I might as well be addressing my remarks to Nelson's Pillar or the North Pole as to the icy heart of the Minister for Finance. At the same time, I shall take the liberty of pointing out that this deals with a proposal to put a duty of 6d. per lb. on white, red and black pepper, ginger, nutmeg, cinnamon, clove, mace, caraway seed, and the other spices mentioned which are used for various purposes in the very poorest households in the country. This is, to me, the worst of the hidden taxes. It means a heavy imposition on people who find it very difficult to balance their weekly budget, far more difficult than the Minister for Finance finds it to balance his annual Budget. In addition, I may point out that the Minister ought to know, with his extensive knowledge of agriculture, that ginger is very largely used in veterinary medicine, and that an increase of 6d. per lb. in ginger adds to the already overwhelming and oppressive burdens which the farmers of this country have to bear under the present conditions. Perhaps, also, the Minister for Finance knows that in certain parts of the country during the cold months, a mixture of pepper and ginger is sprinkled on stout—so it is supposed to have some healthful effect and save people from various ailments. It is known in my part of the country as a "shake of the lad." For the future I am afraid the "shake of the lad" will become a thing of the past, as so many things have become under the present régime. Quite honestly and sincerely I appeal to the Minister that as this 6d. duty will press heavily on the extremely poor people, he ought to consider the advisability of withdrawing it.

Mr. Lemass

That duty applies only to ground spices. Unground spices will not be affected. The grinding of these spices will be undertaken here, and there will be no increase in price.

Mr. Dillon

Oh!

Mr. Burke

What about caraway seeds?

Mr. Lemass

Anyway, the Deputy's constituents will have no difficulty in getting pepper and ginger to sprinkle on their beer. I want to take this opportunity of correcting a misapprehension that may have been created by some remarks I made on the Report Stage of the Resolutions. I stated then that the grinding of spices was not being done in this country, or that all spices affected by the duty were imported in the ground state. The firm of William Black, Limited, of Shandon Park Mills, Phibsborough, have protested against that statement, and asserted that they have been grinding pepper and spices for some time past, and in fact sold a considerable quantity of ground pepper and spices during the course of the past year. I merely make that statement, as the firm have asked that it should be made. There will be other firms, I am sure, also engaged in the preparation of these ground spices, and there will be no difficulty in getting adequate supplies at present prices.

Mr. Dillon

This just shows the kind of information acted upon in this House. The Minister romps in here and tells us he is going to put a duty on ground spices. He gets quite indignant if any questions are asked in regard to the proposal and he declares that it is a shame that the man-power of Ireland should stand idly by while pepper and other commodities are still to be ground. He declares that the opportunity should be given to the men of Ireland to work. The fact then emerges that the men of Ireland have been grinding pepper and spices for the last six months without the Minister's intervention. Where does the Minister get his information? Does it simply mean that anyone can ramble into Government Buildings and put a proposal before the Minister, or is there any kind of exhaustive inquiry made before tariffs are clapped on? Imagine a tariff being clapped on at the instance of persons who suggest to the Minister that all these commodities were being imported and it then emerges that a firm has been carrying on the grinding of pepper and spices for months.

Does it mean that some inefficient crumpaun, who could not ordinarily compete with anybody, comes in and asks for high protection in order to enable him to establish a business, while an enterprising man, prepared to meet competition and to put in efficient plant to meet competition whence ever it comes, does not come around begging to Government Buildings, but simply sets to work, establishes a little business and forges ahead? Now some incompetent crumpaun is going to be set up under the Minister's ægis to compete with a competent man who starts out on his own to establish a business. The end of it might be that the incompetent crumpaun, under Government patronage, will probably seriously interfere with the business of the efficient man. If that is not tariffs gone mad, I do not know what is.

Mr. Lemass

About 90 per cent. of the ground spices are imported.

Amendment No. 44 put and negatived.

Mr. Burke

I move amendment No. 45:—

To delete reference No. 12, and all references thereto in columns 2, 3 and 4.

This reference in the Schedule proposes what I consider to be a monstrous duty. It is a monstrous thing to tax our offerings at the shrine of Cloasina. It is quite possible that the indirect object of this duty may be to increase the sale of the Government organ.

Amendment No. 45, by leave, withdrawn.

If I am not finished before 2 o'clock, I will move to report progress. The Minister has not yet power to amend the Standing Orders of this House. The real reason why the Minister is so angry is that he does not want to have these matters exposed. According to the Minister, we are to pass these items without discussion.

The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until 3 p.m., Tuesday, 30th June.

Dáil Éireann debate - Friday, 26 Jun 1936

Finance Bill, 1936—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Tá

Níl

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 26 Jun 1936