Committee on Finance. - Post Office (Evasion of Postage) Bill, 1937—Committee Stage. – Dáil Éireann (8th Dáil) – Thursday, 25 Feb 1937

Committee on Finance. - Post Office (Evasion of Postage) Bill, 1937—Committee Stage.

Section 1 agreed to.

SECTION 2.

Question proposed: "That Section 2 stand part of the Bill."

Mr. F. Lynch

I wonder, Sir, if the Minister appreciates the effect of sub-section (2) of this section. Sub-section (1) says:

Save as is otherwise provided by this section, this Act applies to every postal packet which (a) is posted outside Saorstát Eireann, and (b) is addressed to the addressee at an address in Saorstát Eireann, and (c) purports to come from or to be sent by or on behalf of a person residing or carrying on business in Saorstát Eireann.

Now that is quite clear, but then sub-section (2) comes along and says:

Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-section of this section, this Act shall not apply to a postal packet which purports to come from or to be sent by or on behalf of a person who carries on business both in and outside Saorstát Eireann unless such postal packet purports to come or be sent only from an address, or all the addresses of such person in Saorstát Eireann.

I think the effect of that sub-section is that a firm which carries on business here and has a branch or branches in Northern Ireland or England can circularise their customers here in the Free State from their addresses abroad. I think it is perfectly plain that that is so, and, if that is so, I think it is very unfair to persons who are Saorstát Eireann traders only, and who are prevented by this Bill from sending their circulars in from outside the country and thus evading the difference in the postage as between this country and, say, Great Britain or Northern Ireland. I think the Minister can hardly desire that, say, some of those multiple firms, who have branches both here and in Great Britain or Northern Ireland, should be placed at an advantage as against competitive traders here, who are entirely confined in their trading activities to the Saorstát.

Minister for Posts and Telegraphs (Mr. Traynor)

First of all, we have a reciprocal arrangement with other foreign countries whereby we carry their postage for them and they carry our postage for us. Now, if a legitimate business concern posts from an address outside of Saorstát Eireann we do not interfere with that particular postal packet; but if, by any chance, a firm in England does post a packet and it purports to come from a branch only in the Saorstát, then we would take action. That, however, would hardly arise—I do not think it would arise—because naturally, as the Deputy himself mentioned, multiple shops will have their ordinary type of letter headings and it would be clear on that that the particular parcel or packet or circular was emanating from the branch in England and not from a branch in Ireland that was sending its post to England to evade the postage in Ireland. I think that should make that clear.

Mr. F. Lynch

No, I am afraid not.

Mr. Traynor

Well, I cannot make it any clearer.

Mr. F. Lynch

Perhaps the Minister would bear with me for a moment. Let us take, say, well-known firms such as the Home and Colonial, or Lipton's, or firms of that kind. They have headquarters in England or somewhere outside the Saorstát. Suppose they send out a circular from their headquarters, drawing the attention of a great number of people in this circular to Home and Colonial tea, or Home and Colonial this, that and the other, or Lipton's teas, on the other hand. They will not purport to come from the branch here in Ireland by any means, but at the same time everybody who gets that circular will know the local Home and Colonial stores, or the local Lipton's store or the local multiple store, which has a headquarters from which this circular comes.

Mr. Traynor

That is agreed.

Mr. F. Lynch

I do not say that they will do it, but they are put in a more favoured position thereby than the native firm which does all its trading in this country because, undoubtedly, if they wanted to circularise the customers in particular areas in a big way—I do not say that they do that— they could, in that way, certainly save a good deal of money on postage.

Mr. Traynor

We could not legislate against any concern that has a business headquarters, or a business, in England or Northern Ireland or any other foreign country. We are under obligation to the International Postal Convention to carry the legitimate postage of these particular nations. As I say, therefore, we cannot take any legislative action against that particular type of person because of the fact that we have that reciprocal arrangement. It might appear, as the Deputy suggests, not quite fair, but what I would like to point out is that we are only, through this Bill, attempting to make people here in the Saorstát do what we believe is their bounden duty, that is to give the administration here the revenue that they are sending to foreign countries.

Mr. Good

The Minister undertook when this Bill was under consideration on the previous occasion that he would have an estimate prepared for us by his staff showing the approximate loss that his Department suffers at the moment through this system. Would he let us have that estimate now?

Mr. Traynor

I do not think that I said I would give an estimate, but I said that I would do what I could. What we have found out is that in one case, of which we were aware, there was a loss of £500 per annum. That was a regularly recurring happening, an annual happening. In another case which does not appear to have been an annual happening, there was a loss of £160 approximately. There was a number of other such cases which we have not followed up from the point of view of forming an estimate of the loss.

Mr. Good

I do not think it fair that the trader of Saorstát Eireann should be put at a disadvantage as compared with the trader who has only a branch establishment here. It appears to me that he is put at that disadvantage and the Minister has not put forward any proposal whereby that state of affairs can be levelled up. I would be glad if he could tell us some way of getting over the difficulty.

Mr. Traynor

We cannot do that, because, as I pointed out to Deputy Lynch, these outside people are acting legitimately in their own country. What we strongly object to is the practice of our nationals going over to a foreign country and utilising the cheaper postal rates there to the detriment of our revenue. We are bringing in this Bill to prevent evasions of that kind. Practically every other country in the world has some legislation of the same type dealing with this problem.

Mr. Good

The Minister told us that he would stop this practice. What is to prevent Liptons or any other firm from sending out a circular from London?

Mr. Traynor

We cannot stop them.

Mr. Good

You cannot stop them and the local trader who has to compete against such firms has to pay 25 per cent. more for his postage.

Mr. Roddy

It certainly does appear unfair to the ordinary Deputy that the Minister should in present circumstances introduce a Bill for the purpose of penalising some few people who are trying to evade the postal regulations in this country at the moment. We hear a good deal recently in Dublin about multiple shops. Apparently these multiple shops are about to increase their activities in Dublin. They will be assisted in that direction by the fact that they can evade the postal regulations here and avail of the cheaper postal factlities on the other side. There seems to be a certain element of injustice in that as far as our own traders are concerned. The people whom the Minister is trying to penalise by this Bill have to live in competition with these other large traders who are being facilitated by an international convention to build up their trade in this country. I think that in the circumstances the Minister would have been better advised to leave this Bill alone altogether and try to meet the difficulties with which the Bill is intended to deal by some other method or by availing of some Departmental regulations. Obviously there is an element of injustice in it so far as native traders are concerned.

Mr. Traynor

What about the injustice to the State? Deputies are arguing in favour of people who have been evading their obligations to the State.

Mr. Roddy

The Minister said on the Second Reading that there were only a few.

Mr. Traynor

We can only submit a few estimates.

Mr. Roddy

You are creating a fresh evil in order to redress a minor one.

Mr. Traynor

We do know that there is considerable evasion. I do not think it is any hardship to any firm which is getting its profits from the citizens of this country to be asked to deal with the Post Office of this nation. That is all we are asking them to do. I do not think there is anything wrong in it.

Mr. Good

I see everything wrong in it.

Mr. Roddy

Does the Minister not admit that competition in trade has increased very much in the City of Dublin? We have heard a lot in the last few months in relation to the fact that proprietors of multiple shops from outside the country are increasing their activities here. By this Bill you are depriving local traders who have to compete with these people of one advantage which gave them a better chance of competing with them. It does seem to me undoubtedly unfair in these circumstances to penalise the native trader and to allow the foreign trader to get away with it.

Mr. Traynor

Is the Deputy suggesting that this Bill should not have been brought in and that these people should be allowed to continue their evasion? I should not like to think he was.

Mr. Good

I want to see it stopped if it can be stopped, but I want to see it stopped for everybody

Mr. J.I. Maguire

I take it that it is too late to object to the general principle of the Bill, but at the same time one can make the same point on sub-section (2) as was made on the Second Reading of the Bill. The Minister, I recollect, quoted some figures showing the profits of the Post Office over a number of years, and he said that for last year it had shown a greater profit than ever before. I think the figures were in the region of £400,000.

Mr. Traynor

£317,000, I think.

Mr. Maguire

I do not know what view is generally taken as to what the aim of the Post Office with regard to profits should be, but it seems to me an extraordinary proposition, at first sight, that the Post Office should aim at making profits at all seeing what the nature of the service is. It is a monopoly, of course, but it is supposed to be conducted entirely for the benefit of the people. Why should it be the aim in any such service to make a profit seeing that it is for the service of the people? Surely the Minister would be able to overcome the necessity for introducing this Bill by devoting portion of the profits towards reducing the postal rates? I understand that one-third of the profits would be sufficient to enable the postal rates to be reduced to the British level, thus obviating the necessity for such a Bill as this. I am not aware of what the Minister's outlook on this matter is, but he is head of the Department and on Second Reading he appeared to glory in the fact that the Post Office, which showed a deficit of £1,000,000 at one time, has now got into the position when it can show a profit of £317,000. He has bettered his position by £1,317,000 in the course of ten years. I think when it was seen that the Post Office had a credit balance that was the time to start out to see if anything could be done to reduce the postal rates. For my own part, I may be abysmally ignorant on this subject, but I do not see why every penny made over and above the achievement of a balance should not be put into reduced postal rates. I would like to hear the Minister on that point, if he thinks it relevant at this stage.

Mr. Traynor

I do not think I can add anything to what I have already said on that particular section.

Sections 2 to 6, inclusive, and the Title, agreed to.

Bill reported without amendment.

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 25 Feb 1937