Vol. 191 No. 9
I move:—
That a sum not exceeding £1,611,000 be granted to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1962, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Office of the Revenue Commissioners, including certain other Services administered by that Office."
Would the Minister please explain exactly how appropriation-in-aid M arises? There seems to be an increase of approximately £10,000 estimated for this year. Of that £10,000, a small amount is in respect of additional attendances but whether that means special attendances at customs posts, I am not quite sure. The appropriation-in-aid is up by some £10,000 this year.
Yes.
A sum of £3,000 is in respect of special attendances — special attendances at customs posts at late hours? That is No. one. As to No. two, why do we anticipate an increase of very nearly £50,000 in fines and forfeitures? That is No. 4 of Subhead M. What exactly is the significance of more than doubling the receipts from the Social Insurance Fund? It does seem rather unusual that the appropriations-in-aid are moving in the other direction from the main expenditure. In the normal course, both go up and down in parallel lines but on this occasion it seems to me unusual.
I want to raise a question which has come up several times during the past couple of years in the House by way of Parliamentary Question: the tightening up of customs regulations effected at Dublin Airport. There have been many complaints of discourtesy and of over-rigorous examination of passengers by the customs authorities. I would suggest to the Minister that an excess of zeal has been shown by some of the staff at Dublin Airport and perhaps at other points of entry into the country. I think it is a fact that a concession is given to Irish citizens coming from England so that they are permitted to bring in up to £5 worth of personal apparel, provided they declare such goods to the customs authorities. I could tell the Minister of cases where £2 or £3 worth of stuff was taken from passengers because they attempted to smuggle it —quite unnecessarily, for if they had been aware of their concessionary right, they would have declared it and had no trouble whatever. I previously made a very simple suggestion to the Minister that a notice should be put up in all customs halls saying that if passengers declare personal apparel worth up to £5, they will be permitted to take these goods in. I have known of small petty seizures of goods from the public which have caused anger, resentment and indeed considerable embarrassment to many people. In two or three cases, or perhaps more, goods purchased in this country were in fact seized from passengers, the customs authorities alleging that the goods were bought abroad. For many years, the reputation of our customs authorities for courtesy has been without parallel but unfortunately that tradition has been departed from.
There is one other matter. The Minister may recall that last Christmas I addressed a number of questions to him on permitting the entry of Christmas presents sent by Irish people in England to their friends and relations, children perhaps, in this country. Apparently it proved absolutely impossible to devise a system whereby such gifts could be admitted into the country without any restrictions whatever. I think it reprehensible that the Minister's officials should play the role of Scrooge at Christmas time. We must face up to the fact that the parents of many Irish children work in Britain and they are morally and equitably entitled to send the traditional type of Christmas gift to their children and it is deplorable that any action by any State body should interfere with that right.
During the past few days, Deputies have received representations from the Income Tax Collectors' Association. The Minister must be aware that income tax collectors are seriously perturbed about developments in the administration of taxes — they feel their position may be jeopardised. They are not established civil servants, although it is a fact that the State has no more loyal body of servants than income tax collectors. A very strong case, I think, can be made for establishing them and giving them superannuation rights and I would ask the Minister to look into that matter.
I do not think it is altogether right that visitors coming in are entitled to bring £5 worth of goods free of duty. I do not think that is granted in all cases. I think there is a rule that a customs officer may allow £5 worth of goods to come in for children, or if they were clothes or something like that, but on the other hand, if a person were to bring in two bottles of brandy, I am quite sure he would have to pay, that they would not be allowed through. In other words, it all depends on what the goods are. If the goods are needed for a man's children or for his wife, they are allowed through, but it is not possible to put up a notice saying we will allow £5 worth through without duty.
Deputy Sweetman raised a question with regard to Subhead M.3. That refers to money we receive from merchants and so on for the attendance of officials at their premises. We made an estimate for 1961 of £37,000 and we actually got £45,000. Therefore, I think we are justified in estimating £40,000 this year. Under Subhead M.4—Fines and Forfeitures—we estimated £11,000 last year and actually got £25,000, so I think we are justified in estimating £15,000 this year.
Can the Minister tell us whether the sum of £15,000 covers the compromise penalties in respect of the wholesale smuggling which was going on in certain business houses in Dublin?
I think that covers all fines and forfeitures.
There was wholesale smuggling. As Deputy Byrne raised the point, I should like to say that I go to Collinstown regularly. I have seen rigour but never discourtesy. I think it is only fair to say that.
