Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 2 Feb 1945

Vol. 95 No. 16

Customs (Amendment) Bill, 1945 —Second Stage.

Minister for Finance (Mr. O Ceallaigh)

I move:—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The necessity for it arises very largely if not entirely out of the emergency. The powers that are sought will be of considerable value to us during the emergency, and perhaps afterwards; it is most likely that some of the conditions with which we are acquainted now will continue after the emergency. I think members of the House generally are aware that we have what may be regarded as pretty ample powers to deal with people who try to import into this country, without payment of duty, goods which are subject to duty —to smuggle them, in other words. Our revenue authorities, and our customs authorities in particular, have ample power to deal with illegal activities in regard to the import of prohibited goods. Under present conditions—conditions which, as I say, will probably last even after the end of the emergency—we want similar power to deal with the export of prohibited goods. We cannot say that we have ample powers to deal with the export of prohibited goods at present. That has been our experience during the last few years.

The provisions of this Bill are, in the main, intended to form a complete code relating to procedure, penalties and seizures in the case of the illegal exportation or attempted exportation of goods subject to any export prohibition. In the case of goods imported irregularly, whether so imported with intent to evade payment of duty or with intent to evade some import prohibition or restriction, the Customs Consolidated Act, 1876, as later amended, provides a comprehensive and detailed code. That Act, however, makes no corresponding provision for goods subject to export prohibitions or restrictions, as at the time that the Act was passed prohibitions on exportation were practically non-existent. From time to time, however, such prohibitions came into force and an attempt to provide the legal machinery necessary for control was made by the adaptation to export conditions of certain import provisions. These adaptations were, however, very limited in scope and it was not until the passing of the Scrap Iron (Control of Export) Act, 1938, that more extended powers, based on adaptation of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, were taken. Cases of irregular exportation then began to occur with a certain regularity. They were, however, few in number and no practical difficulty arose until the wide range of export prohibitions which it has been found necessary to impose as the result of emergency conditions made the question one of major importance.

Prohibitions and restrictions imposed on goods as the result of emergency conditions are, as a rule, based on Emergency Powers Orders made under the powers conferred by Article 31 of the Emergency Powers Order, 1939, which enable a Minister to provide by Order, for regulating, restricting or prohibiting the importation or exportation of any articles. Section 5 of the Emergency Powers Act, 1939, makes any contravention of such an Order an offence punishable with specific penalties, and further provides for forfeiture, by order of the court, of any goods involved. This procedure, however, was not sufficient to invest the Revenue Commissioners with such powers as revenue practice requires for adequate control and to remedy this defect the penal procedure provided by the Scrap Iron (Control of Export) Act, 1938, viz., adaptation to export conditions of existing customs law in relation to prohibited imports, was, by Emergency Powers (No. 52) Order, 1940, made applicable in the case of goods being or attempted to be exported in contravention of an Order made under Article 31 of the Emergency Powers Order, 1939. Accordingly, in such cases, proceedings, whether for penalties or for seizure of the goods, are grounded on the Act of 1938, as applied by Emergency Powers (No. 52) Order, 1940.

This adaptation of customs law was the best device that could at the time be found to meet the needs of a pressing situation. As far as it goes it has proved a satisfactory device, but it remains merely an adaptation and it is clearly anomalous that the wide range of goods subject to export prohibitions should continue to be dealt with under import procedure devised by an Act of 1876 and converted so as to control exports by an Act which imposes a prohibition on the exportation of scrap iron. Again, as it is only since the beginning of the emergency that detections, seizures and prosecutions have to any extent taken place in the case of the irregular exportation or attempted exportation of prohibited goods, it follows that the Revenue Commissioners have, for the first time, encountered the various difficulties which beset the administration of the law in this direction. Many of these difficulties are of a special nature— they arise from problems which of necessity manifested themselves only in actual experience. It is desirable, therefore, that a permanent legal basis of a general nature should be found to meet the whole situation. The provisions of the Bill are designed to remove the anomaly and the difficulty referred to and thus to provide the Revenue Commissioners with such powers as are deemed essential for them to carry out their duty to suppress this traffic in the export of goods vital to the community. The general nature of the Bill will make its provisions applicable to any goods which are at present or which may be hereafter prohibited, and the powers sought, including those which shift the onus of proof to the defendant, and those which require certain persons to give all relevant information which is in their possession or knowledge, are, in the main, the counterpart of the powers conferred on the Revenue Commissioners in the case of import smuggling by the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, and by Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1936.

Opportunity has been taken to effect some improvements and to rectify some deficiencies in existing law. Thus a general provision has been made which will bring any goods prohibited to be imported within the terms of Section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act, 1876, the effect being that the mere fact of prohibition will automatically apply the existing provisions dealing with irregular imports to any goods at present prohibited or which may hereafter be prohibited to be imported. This will make for simplicity of drafting in future legislation. Again, in the case of certain goods weight per given superficial area is a determining factor in deciding liability to duty or the application of the Control of Imports Acts. Ordinarily no difficulty arises, but the Revenue Commissioners feel it to be necessary that to avoid the possibility of dispute they should have the power to make regulations prescribing the method by which weight is to be ascertained in any particular case. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

General Mulcahy

The Minister told us in his opening statement that the circumstances which suggest the presentation of this measure to the House arose out of the present emergency.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Largely.

General Mulcahy

The Minister may make any additions he likes to his statement——

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I said largely.

General Mulcahy

At any rate, what I heard the Minister say was that they arose out of the present emergency. He added that the provisions of this measure if passed into law would be of considerable value during the emergency and perhaps afterwards. While opening on that note, at the end of the statement he said that he requires, in connection with the matters he wants to deal with, a permanent legal basis of a general nature. When the emergency began, the House gave the Government every possible power it could require and gave it the right to assume these powers by Order without any reference to the House at all. The only matters on which the House withheld power from the Government to legislate by Order were the imposition of taxation and the imposition of conscription either for military or industrial purposes. Outside of that, over the whole gamut of Governmental activity we swept aside the Constitution and all popular rights in order to give the Government every single power they could want. On the question of difficulties arising out of the importation and exportation of certain commodities many cases occurred during the past two or three years and attention was drawn to abuses in connection with the Border—in connection with the export of sugar and the import of flour, and exchanges of one kind or another—pretty voluminously in the House without very much being done at that particular time. There is no power the Minister is asking for under this Bill that he could not get under an emergency Order for emergency purposes, but we are completely opposed to the proposal that such powers as are now being sought should be placed on the Statute Book as a piece of permanent legislation.

Whatever the Act of 1876 may have implied with regard to the inhabitants of this country, we think it is too early for an Irish Parliament to pass legislation which would suggest that the people of this country are tricksters, racketeers and smugglers of a very highly developed type. I suggest to the Minister that if a case had to be made at any time either during the emergency or afterwards for passing some of the provisions of this measure, very substantial details would have to be put before the Dáil as to some of the abuses that were alleged to be occurring. Section 3, sub-section (3) of this measure says:—

"Where—

(a) a person is charged with the offence of exporting on or about a particular date any goods in contravention of any enactment or statutory instrument and,

(b) it is proved in the proceedings—

(i) that the goods are goods the exportation of which is prohibited or restricted by such enactment or statutory instrament, and

(ii) that the goods were on or about the said date exported, and

(iii) that such person prior to such exportation, owned, possessed or had the control of the goods,

such person shall until the contrary is proved be presumed to have exported the goods on or about the said date in contravention of such enactment or statutory instrument".

Then the section goes on to deal with the offence of attempting to export, and the section says that if a person is charged with the offence of attempting to export something, and if it is proved that the goods are of the kind that should not be exported, then such person, until the contrary is proved, shall be presumed to have attempted to have exported them. I think that, just as in the spirit in which the House met the Government at the beginning of the emergency, no Party is going to take exception to anything that the Government may do in order to preserve essential supplies either of food or other commodities for the people here, and I do not think the Government can complain that they have been criticised unfairly in any way in regard to anything they have done in that particular matter. I think that in consideration of that attitude towards the Government and the spirit in which the Government has been met by the House, the Government should not ask the House to pass this measure as a permanent piece of legislation.

As I understand the Minister, either by the Act of 1876 or some additional emergency Orders that have been issued and that have been bolstered up by that Act in some way, the import situation has been held in control. If that is possible on the import side, I suggest that the export side should be dealt with in the same manner and that we should not enshrine in permanent legislation the principle that people are presumed to be guilty until the contrary is proved without knowing very well what we are at and without getting out of the emergency atmosphere. It is most undesirable that in an emergency atmosphere we should undermine the general outlook on personal rights and liberties and on democratic feelings. The Government have ample powers to deal with all these matters by emergency Order, and, if they do not think these sufficient by temporary legislation, but we should hesitate very much to deal with these matters by permanent legislation in the present atmosphere. We are completely against passing the present Bill. It introduces a principle that is absolutely new in the first place. Secondly, it is unnecessary, because the Government has ample powers to deal with the matter other than by permanent legislation.

Mr. Dillon

As a Deputy from a Border constituency, I find myself very much in sympathy with the Leader of the Opposition in his reluctance to see legislation of this kind incorporated in the Statute Book of this country. He appears to think that this Bill introduces an entirely new principle. I do not think it does. I think the Revenue Commissioners already have the power, in regard to imported merchandise, to go to the person in whose possession they find it, and, unless he can prove that duty has been paid upon it, they can make him responsible if, in fact, those goods passed across our national Border without the duty having been paid.

General Mulcahy

We might get some specific and detailed information about it.

Mr. Dillon

Quite, but I think the Deputy will find that that deplorable principle is already accepted.

General Mulcahy

We do not accept that.

Mr. Dillon

Perhaps the Minister will elaborate that matter. The Revenue Commissioners have very strange powers of shifting the burden of proof from themselves on to the person charged with revenue offences, particularly with regard to customs duties on incoming goods. I wish I agreed with the Leader of the Opposition that when the emergency is over the grave evils that have arisen on the Border will come to an end. I do not think they will. The Leader of the Opposition will, naturally, say of himself and his colleagues: "We were responsible for the Government for ten years and we had to deal with the Border, and, with the law at our disposal at that time, we were able to carry on and enforce the regulations; nobody ever got very excited, and 50 per cent. of our total imports were then subject to tariff."

He can say that truly, but what he forgets is that the tariff policy of the Government of which he was a member was a moderate one. The tariffs at that time were modest tariffs, very carefully chosen to control only certain kinds of goods. There were no quotas and there was no question of racketeering being established here behind tariff barriers of 75 per cent. and quotas—racketeers licensed to rob our people night and day in the prices they are charging for the commodities they are producing behind those tariff barriers.

The acute scarcity of certain commodities is making it well worth certain people's while to bring stuff in, to smuggle stuff in from Northern Ireland, and the acute scarcity of certain commodities in Northern Ireland is making it well worth certain persons' while to smuggle prohibited goods out of this country into Northern Ireland. Fundamentally the urge in both cases is profit. The reason these people take the risk is because they make a portentous profit. It is hard for Deputies without experience of the Border to realise that one lorry load of goods travelling across the Border in either direction may be worth from £2,000 to £3,000 at the black market prices which these gentlemen can secure for the merchandise in which they are dealing.

The Leader of the Opposition may, owing to the position he occupies, having contact with Deputies from all parts of the country, appreciate that fully. He says this is purely an emergency situation and, therefore, we should deal with it by means of an Emergency Powers Order, but do not allow the Statute Book to be blotted with a piece of emergency legislation which has to deal with a purely temporary situation. Let us remember what these fellows want is not to relieve human necessity in Northern Ireland, or suffering and want in Eire. These gentlemen want profit and, when the emergency is over, it will not be in sugar transferred to Northern Ireland that they will be dealing; it will not be in white flour or white bread transferred to Northern Ireland that they will be dealing. When the tariff racketeers get their quota put on Indian meal, it will be a load of Indian meal that will be brought in, purchased in Northern Ireland for 5/-per cwt. The tariff racketeers here, under the tariffs and quotas imposed and fixed by Deputy Seán Lemass, will be charging the farmers here 8/-a bag.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

May be more.

Mr. Dillon

Very likely. At any rate, it will pay the smuggler to buy his Indian meal in Northern Ireland for £4 15/- a ton and sell it in Cavan or some other parts of Eire for 7/6 a cwt., thus making 2/9 a bag on his load. If he has four tons on the lorry he is making £2 15/- profit on each ton—that will be £2 15/- multiplied by four. Take flour as another example. In pre-war days a bag cost about 12/-in Northern Ireland and the price here was 21/-. That works out at £9 a ton, and four tons of flour across the Border in one night would mean £36. They do not worry; the gentlemen in this trade do not give a damn, but the poor devils earning 24/- a week have to make up the extra profit made here.

The gentlemen engaged in this business say that if the native racketeers are allowed to get away with it, why should not they take a hand. Think of the commodities the importation of which is prohibited in order to give the native racketeer full licence to rob our people behind quotas. The gentlemen operating across the Border are going to get in on the racket. They will not be respectable racketeers. They will not have conventions in the Gresham Hotel to which the Taoiseach goes to speak. They are the fellows who travel by night and they will be charging the people less for the commodities they bring across the Border than our own native racketeers. If they did not charge less they could not find a market for the commodities.

I am afraid the Leader of the Opposition must make up his mind to the fact that so long as we have a Fianna Fáil policy of 75 per cent. tariffs, and quotas, and tariff racketeers eating seven-course luncheons and ten-course dinners in the Gresham Hotel, we will have humble, simple, plain little racketeers running to and fro across the Border in lorries. They will not get the dinners; they will not get as big profits as our native products, but these simple little racketeers will get a profit which they think quite adequate to justify taking the risks that they do take every night of their lives. Let us make up our minds that if you are going to have a continuation of the Fianna Fáil policy of greasing the fat pigs of tariff racketeering, you are going to have smuggling racketeers on the Border. If you are going to have a system in this country in which tariff racketeering is to be esteemed an honourable profession, then you had better make up your mind that you will have to pass penal legislation to prevent traffic across the Border, of a character which would disgrace any democratic country in the world.

I had hoped that this country would come to its senses and make up its mind that the ordinary people are no longer to be exploited by the tariff racketeers. If you eliminate the tariff racketeer there is no necessity for this legislation, because it will not be profitable to carry stuff to and fro across the Border. No man will risk that business if he is seeking to avoid only a 15 per cent. or a 20 per cent. tariff. It is not worth his while. No man will engage in illicit traffic across the Border, except for the prize of being permitted to join the ranks of the tariff racketeers through the back door. All that these men aspire to do is to get in under the tablecloth of the tariff racketeers' banquet table and eat the crumbs that fall therefrom; but so long as the tariff racketeers' banquets are served with Government approval in this country, you will have the gentlemen under the table plying to and fro across the Monaghan border collecting their share of the crumbs.

Now, make up your minds. Adhere to the customs system which begets tariff racketeers and you will require this legislation and the hell of a sight more. You will want a 15-feet barbed wire fence, with an electric charge in it, all along the Border to stop smuggling if the tariff racketeers are to be maintained in this country. Eliminate the tariff racketeers and you no more require precautions of this kind on our Border than they do on the Canadian-American Border. It sometimes makes me laugh when I hear the Minister for Finance explaining the awful burden he has to carry in enforcing the revenue regulations, bearing in mind the terrible length of a border stretching all the way from Donegal to the Irish Sea. There are 3,200 miles of border between Canada and the United States of America, and there is not a guard every hundred miles along it and they are able to get along; but when they instituted a system in America which gave rise to a native product, the beer-barrel racketeer, the liquor racketeer, the father and progenitor of all racketeers, no amount of legislation or protection could prevent smuggling across that Border. Is that not so?

Is it not true that the Border presented no revenue problem on the Continent of America until the racketeers were established by legislation in the United States of America? Is it not true that, up to 1932, no revenue problem of a serious character —I say "revenue"; I am not speaking of political problems—was created by that Border; but the moment the prototype of the beer—barrel racketeer of America was created in this country by the tariff policy of Fianna Fáil, the moment the tariff racketeer was created here, then and then only did we begin to experience on our Border the same problems as the United States of America and Canada experienced on theirs during the prohibition period.

They sensibly said: "Let us not try to erect a 40-feet barbed wire fence along the Canadian-American Border, but let us eliminate the legislation which gives rise to the racketeers." Let us abolish the condition of affairs in our own country which made it profitable for men to cross and recross our Border with contraband goods. The Minister for Finance has a peculiarly intimate knowledge of the revolution which was required in the whole of American thought to get the reform of the repeal of prohibition carried in the United States, but it was done, and when it was done, the revenue problem of the Canadian-American Border vanished overnight.

There is one means, only one effecttive means, of surmounting the revenue problem on the Border between Northern Ireland and this country, that is, to strike at the root of the evil. The root of the evil is the tariff racketeer in Eire. Eliminate him and you do not require this Bill. An emergency powers Order, to endure for the period of the emergency and artificial scarcity, will suffice. Leave the tariff racketeer in possession of his right to suck the blood of our people and you will want this Bill and ten other Bills, as well as a 14 feet barbed wire fence connected with a high-power line of the Electricity Supply Board in order to prevent illicit crossing of the Border. It is up to the House to make its choice. I know what I would do: I would make an emergency powers Order for the duration of the emergency and I would wipe out the tariff racketeers the following morning.

Mr. Burke (County Dublin)

I wonder would the Deputy wipe out the Border?

Mr. Dillon

I wish to God I could. I wonder if the Deputy and I tried to wipe out the Border and secured the assistance of Deputy Rice beside him, which I know would be easy to do, would the tariff racketeers join us. What subscriptions would we get for our movement for the abolition of the Border from the tariff racketeers? I suggest that the Deputy should put on his considering cap and think that over. Maybe when he has finished thinking, he will come round to my point of view and join me. I will draft the necessary Bill, if he will undertake to second it, to abolish the tariff racketeers and take the first essential step to abolishing the Border as well. Its stoutest prop are the tariff racketeers in Eire. Let us knock that prop away, and if he and I collaborate to that end, our names will go down in letters of gold in the history of this country.

Mr. Coogan

I rise to object to the Bill largely on the legal principle involved. I appreciate that to prevent smuggling inwards or outwards the Revenue Commissioners require extraordinary powers. The smuggler's art is one practised in the dark and you have to outwit him by stealth and sometimes by enterprise of doubtful character, but whether or not the principle has been enshrined in the Customs Consolidation Acts of 1876 and upwards is beside the point. These Acts were passed by an alien Parliament imposed upon this country, but we here who have some respect and reverence for the common law consider it improper that, in any piece of legislation passing through the House, the principle should be established that a person's guilt is presumed and the old common law principle of presuming innocence reversed. That is what we are doing in this Bill. You are presuming guilt and putting the onus on the person charged of proving his innocence. Throughout the centuries, the common law of this country has been that a charged person's innocence is presumed——

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That was British law, too.

Mr. Coogan

——and that the onus is on the State of discharging the duty of proving that an accused is guilty of an offence.

Now, I say that I disagree with the principle of this Bill. I also think that the Bill is too wide in scope. There is no defined or prescribed area within the Bill, and whilst I appreciate that very drastic powers have to be taken so long as the present emergency conditions continue, and, perhaps, for a period after the emergency, nevertheless, I feel that if you give those powers everywhere throughout the State, you are making them too wide. I do not think they are necessary, and I should prefer to see the operation of this Bill restricted to a given area adjoining the boundary between Éire and Northern Ireland. For instance, a man may bring goods to an emporium near the Border; he may shift them only 100 yards, and yet it is possible, under this Bill, to charge that man with bringing goods to that emporium for the purpose of export. This charge of "attempting to export" is such that I cannot see how any court in the land could decide upon it. An attempt to commit an offence is an inchoate act, and it certainly would be very hard to define. It really depends on the mental condition of the person in charge of the goods for the time being, and are you, under this Bill, to ask your courts of competent jurisdiction to determine what was in a potential smuggler's mind at a given place and in a given time? That seems to me to be the only inference that can be drawn from the section in the Bill which deals with attempting to commit an offence, and I do not see how any court could pass judgment on such a matter.

Apart from that, I think that this Bill, if it is to be passed by this House, should have a limited period of duration. If, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, the emergency conditions on the Border are so bad that they do need those powers, I would seriously suggest to them and to the Minister that they should consider seeking those powers only for the period of the emergency and, perhaps, for a short time after the emergency. I do not think it is right or proper that we should give those powers for all time to the Revenue Commissioners; largely because, as I say, I disagree with the principle enshrined in the Bill. There is a danger that if we accept the principle enshrined in this Bill, we may find ourselves in the position of having to fight the same principle in other Bills which may come before this House. That is the danger that I see here.

Deputy Dillon, who has just spoken, referred to the high tariff policy as being responsible for the intensive smuggling which, apparently, exists at the moment; and his remedy for that, apparently, is an all-round reduction of tariffs to such an extent that the prices of goods on both sides of the Border, at all times, will be level. I cannot see how, in existing conditions, you can bring about a condition of that kind in this country, or, rather, in this State. If there is anything in the remarks made by Deputy Dillon, the logical conclusion to be reached is that we should attempt some form of customs union between North and South. If, in existing circumstances, there is no hope, either immediate or remote, of shifting that Border, then let us face up to that fact and do the next best thing. In other words, let us attempt to bring about some sort of understanding with the Government in Belfast, and to bring about some form of union on the question of customs. I do not think that that is a matter we should shirk.

So far as I understand the question, this matter of customs is under the control of the British Imperial Parliament, and, if a proper approach were made in that direction, I have no doubt that we could achieve some result and that, in that way, we could get rid of the smuggling racket. I do not know if that racket has reached the proportions that we have been told about, and that we have become a nation of racketeers. I do not know that, and I have no evidence of it. Of course, certain cases go through the courts from time to time in connection with smuggling, but that would not suggest that the whole population, or, certainly, all the people in the Border counties, or in districts adjoining the Border, are engaging in smuggling activities. I do not think that that is the case, and, for that reason, I do not think that those powers should be taken for any prolonged period. I would ask the Minister seriously to consider restricting those powers to the end of the emergency or until such time, after the emergency, as the Revenue Commissioners feel that they need them.

As I have said, I oppose the principle of the Bill, largely because we fear that once an Irish Parliament embarks on a policy of presuming the guilt of a person until he is proved innocent—putting the onus on an accused person of proving his innocence—we may find ourselves in a very sorry plight in the future. That is a responsibility that we should not place on any Department or Minister of State without serious consideration. The principle that a person must be presumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty is one that has been fought for throughout the centuries. That is the principle that was fought for when the common law of England was established, and it is a principle that has been and will be fought for in every country in the world.

Mr. McMenamin

I think that the Minister was rather unfortunate in presenting this Bill, because, as I read the Bill, it seems to me that its introduction is due to matters that have arisen during the last couple of years in regard to the question of supplies. The Minister quoted a whole series of Emergency Orders and, of course, nobody in the House knew the first thing about them. I would even venture to say that the Minister himself did not know one solitary iota about them, because, so far as I can make out, all those Orders are issued by the Minister for Agriculture or by the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Minister for Supplies—who is one and the same person—and nobody had an opportunity of understanding them. If circulars had been issued, pointing out the meaning of these various Orders, I think we may presume that there would not have been so much criticism. Now, the Minister has spoken about powers in regard to exports and imports, but there are powers taken here in regard to exports which are not necessary so far as imports are concerned; just as there are powers taken in regard to imports which are not necessary for exports. I refer, particularly, to the Scrap Iron Act, and references to exports under that Act.

For example, owing to the increased tillage policy, an Order was made by the Minister for Agriculture, prohibiting the export of horses. The strange thing about the Order was that prosecutions under it had to be taken under the Scrap-Iron Act, as I understand, because the horses have iron shoes. There was no other machinery for bringing such prosecutions. If the Minister had circulated a White Paper with this Bill it would have simplified matters. In my opinion the Bill does not refer to any outstanding question of racketeering, but to prosecutions that take place in court affecting imports and exports. These prosecutions arise because in the Six Counties they want certain things that we have, such as clothing, sugar or butter, while our people may want tea or articles in supply there. All this arises because of the scarcity of supplies. What I really object to is the machinery in this Bill. That can be dealt with in Committee. When prosecuted under the Scrap Iron Act a man may be involved not only if he brings horses to his own land but by somebody else bringing them to an adjoining farm which may be let in conacre. In such a case a customs officer could bring a charge against a man of having the intention to export horses. He could call upon him to explain why they were on the land, and to produce information to show that they were not going to be exported. Why should he be called upon to do that? It recalls provisions in the Distillation Act of 1851. In my opinion a proviso of that kind is going too far. It should be sufficient if a man gave an explanation as to the animals found on his land or premises.

It is monstrous to ask a citizen to account for property found on adjoining land. That is going too far. If somebody bought an animal from me and said that he would take delivery a week hence, how could I know the purchaser's intentions? It might be for export purposes. Am I to cross-examine the purchaser to ascertain what he intends to do with the animal? Would any purchaser submit to such cross-examination? So long as there is a bona fide purchaser and vendor that is all that should be required. I suggest that the wording of the Bill should be modified to “knowingly sells goods”. The remainder of the Bill is not too drastic. As far as I know this Bill arose out of prosecutions during the emergency period, owing to the limited supplies available and not because of tariff policy. If the Minister had explained that in a White Paper, instead of giving references to emergency Orders, it would have simplified matters. In my opinion, the machinery of the Bill is too drastic. I also direct attention to the definition section. The expression “statutory instrument” means an order, but it does not say by whom it is to be made, whether by the Minister or the Revenue Commissioners.

Mr. Coburn

I agree that the Revenue Commissioners and their officials must have means at their disposal to carry out their duties efficiently. Living close to the Border as I do, I know that there is smuggling going on. I come in touch with the smugglers occasionally. Some of them are decent people and the others are the other type. Of course they are all innocent! Nobody will admit he is engaged in smuggling, but there is a type of smuggler that I would not be a bit sorry for if the Revenue Commissioners could get after him. He is the fellow who takes advantage of high tariffs on this side of the Border, but when he wants to buy anything goes to the Six Counties, if he can get it there cheaper by the 32nd part of a farthing. That is a peculiar characteristic of a large number of people, 99 per cent. of whom, I regret to say—although it may not be pleasant for Fianna Fáil Deputies to hear—are ardent supporters of the Taoiseach. In fact they would knock you down in the street during the last election if you uttered a disparaging word about the Taoiseach or his Party, and yet, they are the first people to pop across the Border to get stuff there and, incidentally, to bring it back to this State. Some of the greatest racketeers along the Border are men who, when prosecuted, got off on some technical point because of defects in the existing law. If this Bill does anything to get a hold of that type of people it will be a good job.

Of course the principle of condemning a man before he gets a chance of providing his innocence is something that I would be against. Everybody is innocent until proved guilty. There is the danger, if the Bill goes through as it stands, that honest people will be sufferers, due to ignorance or want of knowledge of the customs laws. I refer particularly to fellow-Irishmen returning from England occasionally to visit their families, who, having a few pounds to spare, may buy some articles in Éire. I know of cases where certain articles have been taken from these people, for instance, overcoats. I do not wish anything I say to be taken as a reflection on the customs officers, who perform their duties conscientiously and with consideration for the general public. But a few cases of hardship were brought to my notice where overcoats were seized from poor working men and confiscated, or where they had to pay £5. I should say that when appeals are made to the Revenue Commissioners they receive sympathetic consideration.

In most of those cases the officials have, so far as their powers allowed, done their best to mitigate the hardship on people placed in such a position. But that is one of the hardships which may be increased if this Bill becomes law. I suggest that the Minister and his officials might pay some little attention to the type of case to which I refer, which may occur very often in the near future, because, so long as the present war continues and so long as a big volume of traffic exists, which will be for some time, so far as one can see, cases of hardship are bound to arise amongst the many thousands of our people coming from across channel here. If something could be done which would enable the officials to carry out their duties, while imposing no unnecessary hardships on people of this type, I should not be absolutely opposed to this Bill save in regard to the principle of presuming a man's guilt in advance.

This smuggling business is not confined to the immediate neighbourhood of the Border. It is fairly prevalent all over the country. Deputy Coogan might be surprised to learn that, in regard to this matter, there are parts of Kerry as near the Border as Dundalk. There are no limits to it. The people engaged in it are from all "arts and parts" and it has become a sort of profession. As Deputy Dillon says, there is no doubt that, so long as there is such a difference between the prices of commodities here and across the Border, smuggling will continue. As I said at an urban council meeting, it would take Hitler, at the zenith of his power, and all his army to prevent smuggling. I do not know whether he could do it now or not. The Irish people have a happy knack of getting round the law and the present state of affairs will continue so long as the present difference in prices between the two parts of the country continues. That may be as long as the people in the North are so foolish as to have a Border. I hope that soon the Border will disappear and that the government of the country will be carried on by a single body. We do not want the spectacle of two Governments legislating for a small country like this.

I appreciate the responsibility placed on the Revenue Commissioners to safeguard the interests of the State, but it is no harm to remark that it is questionable whether, over a given period, we have not received more than we gave. Possibly, the less said about that the better. What we got across from the Six Counties was very useful to us at certain times, particularly in the spring. If we take drastic measures, there will be competition from the other side. They will introduce drastic legislation, too, so as to ensure that nothing will leave the Six Counties.

There is one other point to which I should like to refer. I raised this point with the Minister for Agriculture some time ago. I asked him would it be possible for unscrupulous creamery managers to export large quantities of butter across the Border. At that time, the Minister was not too sure. I am afraid that that has been the case and that unscrupulous types of persons have devised ways and means by which large quantities of butter can be surreptitiously sent across the Border. Then, they sent notice to retailers in Dundalk and elsewhere along the Border that the milk supplies to the creamery were short for a couple of weeks. That has happened. There was a case in Dundalk some time ago in which a creamery manager, or assistant manager, was caught carrying cases of butter through the town. He got off scot free on some technical point. I do not think that any Deputy would have sympathy with any Irishman on this side of the Border who would do such a thing. I should not have the least hesitation in giving all the powers necessary to the Revenue Commissioners to impose the most severe punishment on people of that type who would send such an important article of food across the Border in such a manner. However, the principle enshrined in the Bill is one to which we could not offhand subscribe. On the other hand, the Revenue Commissioners must have certain powers. I am afraid that, so long as the Border exists, there will be recurring trouble of this nature. I do not like the principle to which I have referred in the Bill and, perhaps, the Minister, when replying, would explain more fully what the intentions behind this section are.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I have not a great deal to say in reply to the debate that has taken place on this Bill. I must say that I was surprised to find that Deputy Mulcahy, speaking for his Party, felt so strongly on this matter and made such strenuous objection to the introduction of this piece of legislation. He said it was introducing new principles, principles, he said, that were unnecessary and that were undemocratic. Some members of his Party who have a more intimate acquaintance with law than either the Deputy or myself did not exactly agree that these were new principles. The principles in this Bill are inscribed in our present legislation and have been acted upon by the Governments in power since this State was set up.

General Mulcahy

Since 1872.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

This has been the law since this State was set up, and has been operated by every Government in power since then. I have never heard anyone in this House protest against it. I have never heard anyone say that it was not a principle in law that it was proper to operate against breakers of the law. Therefore the statement made by Deputy Mulcahy, that this was introducing a new principle, is not correct. The principle is there, and it has been operated by all the Governments in this State during the time that we have had the power to operate our own laws. Deputy Mulcahy said it was unnecessary, but if it were not proved to me by the Revenue Commissioners to be necessary, I would not ask the House to pass this legislation. I am satisfied that it is not only necessary but urgently necessary. The only complaint I have to make is that we did not bring it before the House long ago.

General Mulcahy

The Minister has not given a single case of difficulty that he has been up against in the matter.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

We have had thousands and thousands of cases of the attempted smuggling—some of them successful—of goods out of this country, goods that were urgently required here. As Deputy Coburn told the House, in quite a number of these cases—far too big a number—persons attempting to smuggle goods out actually succeeded in getting goods out of this country illegally. And when they were caught, they got away on technical grounds because the law was not as satisfactory as this House would like it to be. I have to deal with the matter, and that is the truth. Deputy Coburn, who, as he admits himself, is in touch with smugglers——

Mr. Coburn

Not officially.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I am sure the Deputy does not suggest that he is in any way assisting smugglers. I take it that if he came across cases of known smugglers who were acting illegally that, as a member of the House, he would report the matter.

Mr. Coburn

Sure.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

But Deputy Coburn, and Deputies generally from the Border areas, do know more than I would know, and more than Deputy Mulcahy would know. They come from and represent Border areas. I know, because I am Minister for Finance. I hear a great deal from the Revenue Commissioners about their difficulties in dealing with this very serious problem. There is not a day in the year in which attempts are not made to smuggle goods out of this country, goods that are urgently required by our people, such as clothes, boots, shoes, soap, butter, sugar and every kind of commodity that is scarce. Deputy Dillon said quite truthfully that it is a very profitable business. We want to make it unprofitable, but we are not provided with all the machinery that we think the Dáil would be quite willing to give us to stop that traffic.

Deputy Mulcahy said that all the powers were there already. It is difficult to set out all the powers which are required under an Emergency Powers Order. We have had difficulty in bringing Emergency Powers Orders into the court as our authority for imposing certain restrictions. There are difficulties in the case of these Emergency Powers Orders which our very able draftsmen find it hard to get over. They are met by able lawyers on the other side, and these able lawyers are able to find holes in our Emergency Powers Orders. They got over them because our legislation was not complete. Yet, Deputy Mulcahy says that all the powers are there. They are not. We need these powers now, we need them badly and we have needed them for a long time. In fact, we should have had such powers long before the emergency, because there were certain prohibition Orders in existence long before 1932— such as Deputy Dillon talked about— prohibition Orders in regard to goods that it was illegal to export from this country. We had not the legislation on our Statute Book that would enable us to deal with people who were breaking these laws. I agree with Deputy Mulcahy when he said that the Oireachtas gave us very full powers when we asked for them at the beginning of the emergency. I quite accept what he said about the spirit in which they were given. I would say that they were accepted in the same spirit, and that the spirit of the House was recognised as being a generous one at that time.

General Mulcahy

There is nothing under the sun that could not be done by writing an Emergency Powers Order.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

There is, and we have proved that over and over again. You would want to be writing new Orders every other week and amendments to them and in the meantime the smugglers would be getting away.

General Mulcahy

Is it not a fact that there is no law on the Statute Book that could not be wiped out by an Emergency Powers Order, and that there is no law which could possibly be put on the Statute Book by legislation that could not be put into force through an Emergency Powers Order?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

It has not worked out like that. We have good officials, good draftsmen and good lawyers working for the Government, but there are good men on the other side who can pick holes in these Orders. I often heard the saying—I do not think I ever saw it in print—attributed to Dan O'Connell that there was no law on the Statute Book that he would not undertake to drive a coach and four through.

Mr. Hughes

What is to prevent the Minister putting into an Emergency Powers Order——

Mr. O Ceallaigh

The Deputy was not here for this debate and he might leave this to those who were here.

Mr. Hughes

Excuse me, I was.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

With all respect to the Chair, the Deputy is out of order.

Mr. Hughes

I am entitled to ask a question.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Not while I am on my feet.

Mr. Hughes

Well, I will ask it at the end.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Another point made by Deputy Mulcahy was that this Bill was undemocratic. I cannot see that at all. Surely to God it is the most democratic thing possible to ask the Dáil to give additional powers to see that the laws passed by this House are observed, and that those who break the law, or attempt to break it, are brought to book. There is nothing undemocratic in that. We are asking for additional powers that, as I have told the House, are urgently necessary to enable us to deal with law breakers. We have not the powers at present, and we want them in the form set out in this Bill. I have had long discussions with the Revenue Commissioners who have to administer these laws. They have told me that they find it impossible at present to deal adequately with the smuggling traffic under the law as it stands, and that they need this legislation. When the House is told that by the Minister for Finance, after he has consulted with the officials responsible, it is reasonable to expect the House to accept it. I deny the statement that there is any new principle involved, any principle that has not existed in the law of this country for the last 20 years.

Deputy Dillon had not much to say against the Bill itself. He talked a lot about the tariff policy of the Government and we are well used to the type of speech he made on that subject. His remarks, however, were not relevant to the Bill we were discussing. It is the policy of this State to impose tariffs— it is the policy of the last Government and the policy of this Government. There is a considerable difference in the extent of the tariffs, some people might say a difference of principle in the tariff policy adopted by this Government and that adopted by the last Government. At any rate, there were tariffs in existence before this Government came in. That policy—extended, widened and amplified in a variety of ways since 1932-33—has been for the benefit and welfare of this country industrially, economically and financially.

It is most unfair for Deputy Dillon to make the charges he has made against the industrialists, who have so splendidly aided the country to come through the difficult times of the emergency and to label each and every one of them as racketeers, to say they are robbing the poor and to talk about their big banquets and big luncheons. I believe these men are working honestly and that any profits they have gained have been as a result of their intelligence, their ability, their industry and their enterprise. Without giving some evidence of racketeering, if it does exist, of undue profits being made or of undue prices being charged for goods, it is not proper to make the charges in the reckless way Deputy Dillon made them here to-day. There may have been smuggling—there was smuggling before ever there were tariffs here— and it is possible that the introduction of tariff laws in 1923, 1926, 1928, 1933 or 1936 did tend to make that smuggling trade grow and make it more profitable. However, it is our job, as the administrators of the law, to make it as dangerous and as difficult as possible for people to smuggle or attempt to smuggle prohibited goods in or out of this country.

Deputy Coogan asked that there should be an area prescribed for the operation of this law. I do not think that would be possible. Indeed, the evidence of Deputy Coburn was that smuggling was as rife in Kerry as it is in Dundalk. That is saying a good deal, since we know fairly well what happens in Dundalk. Perhaps the Deputy has some evidence that I have not got. Smuggling, and attempts at smuggling, go on in different parts of the country apart from the Border and, therefore, it would not be possible to prescribe merely areas along the Border, as Deputy Coogan suggests. There is also the possibility— not a remote one, either, I think—that aeroplanes may be used in import and export smuggling. I do not know whether that happens or not, but we have to take precautions, even now, at our airports.

Mr. Coburn

It would not take an aeroplane long to go to Kerry, at any rate.

Mr. O'Donnell

Smuggling of nailed boots would be very welcome here now.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

If people attempt to smuggle, I hope they will be caught and pay the penalty. Deputy Coogan also suggested that these powers be used for the emergency only or for such period as the Revenue Commissioners may think they are necessary. The law to which I ask the House to give a Second Reading now will be necessary after the emergency, for a long period, I imagine. I believe that, as long as our present economic policy continues, this law will be necessary— probably permanently necessary. After consultation with the Revenue Commissioners, I feel I must ask the House to make this law permanent.

Deputy McMenamin thinks that we are being too drastic. If there are no smugglers, they will not be hit or hurt, but in these times, the laws to prevent smuggling could not be too drastic. I asked the revenue authorities about the story to which Deputy McMenamin referred, of the horse which was exported, where the owner was prosecuted in regard to the scrap iron in the horseshoes. That was a joke which some fertile imagination invented at the expense of the Revenue Commissioners and there is no foundation for it in fact, as far as I know.

There were 13,355 export seizures during the year ended 31st March, 1944. That shows the extent to which smuggling is being attempted.

General Mulcahy

That figure includes tooth-picks, umbrellas and horses.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

Every kind of article is included in that figure, but 13,355 export seizures is a big number, and God only knows how many other people got away with it.

Mr. Cosgrave

What was the value of the stuff?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I could not give the figure now, but if the Deputy is interested I will try to get it for him. I am satisfied that the Bill as drafted is necessary. I urge upon the House to give us the extra powers. Smuggling has grown to such an extent, and such ingenious methods have been used, that it is necessary that the powers we possess to-day in regard to import smuggling should be extended to deal with export smuggling as well.

General Mulcahy

The Minister will not deny that the powers he seeks in this Bill could be got by an Emergency Powers Order drafted in the same way.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do deny it.

General Mulcahy

The Minister does deny it?

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I do. In the form in which we require them now and in which they are set out here, it would be difficult to get them; and in any case, I do not admit that they are required only for the emergency.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may not reopen the debate.

General Mulcahy

I asked the Minister to clear up particular points and he has completely misinformed the House.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy may put a question to the Minister.

General Mulcahy

It is relevant.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

That is a serious charge to make—that I have completely misinformed the House.

General Mulcahy

If the Minister tells the House that he could not take these powers under an Emergency Powers Order, then he is misinforming the House.

Mr. O Ceallaigh

I am not misinforming the House. Perhaps I could get these powers otherwise, with very great difficulty; but knowing what has happened with Emergency Powers Orders, not alone in my own case but in the case of Orders made by other Ministers, when they are not given in exactly the same form as the statutes we are used to, I know it is much more easy to pick holes in them. I believe I am doing the work of the Dáil much more efficiently by getting the law in this form, as it is not for the emergency only but is to form part of the permanent legislation.

Question put.

The Dáil divided: Tá, 44; Níl, 20.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Breslin, Cormac.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Buckley, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick (Co. Dublin).
• Butler, Bernard.
• Carter, Thomas.
• Childers, Erskine H.
• Colbert, Michael.
• Colley, Harry.
• Crowley, Fred H.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Fogarty, Patrick J.
• Furlong, Walter.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hilliard, Michael.
• Kissane, Eamon.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick J.
• Lydon, Michael F.
• Lynch, James B.
• McCann, John.
• McCarthy, Seán.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Morrissey, Michael.
• O Briain, Donnchadh.
• O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Leary, John.
• O'Loghlen, Peter J.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• Pattison, James P.
• Rice, Bridget M.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, Mary B.
• Skinner, Leo B.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Walsh, Laurence.
• Ward, Conn.

Níl

• Bennett, George C.
• Blowick, Joseph.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Cafferky, Dominick.
• Coburn, James.
• Cogan, Patrick.
• Coogan, Eamonn.
• Cosgrave, Liam.
• Dillon, James M.
• Dockrell, Henry M.
• Doyle, Peadar S.
• Hughes, James.
• Larkin, James (Junior).
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• O'Donnell, William F.
• O'Higgins, Thomas F.
• O'Sullivan, Martin.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Kissane and Ó Briain; Níl: Deputies P.S. Doyle and Bennett.

Question declared carried.

Ordered: That the Committee Stage be taken on Wednesday, 14th February.