Deputy Sweetman.
Committee on Finance. Finance Bill, 1962. - Financial Resolution—Imposition of Duties Orders (Resumed).
Debate resumed on the following Financial Resolution:
That the Government may make Orders under the Imposition of Duties Act, 1957 (No. 7 of 1957), applying qualifications, limitations, allowances, exemptions or preferential rates in relation to any customs duty, excise duty or stamp duty and applying drawbacks in relation to any customs duty or excise duty and may by Order revoke or amend any such Orders.—(Minister for Finance.)
I had finished my observations for the moment. We are in Committee, are we not?
I do not agree with Deputy Sweetman with regard to my functions vis-à-vis the Revenue Commissioners. The Revenue Commissioners have the duty of carrying out the law with regard to customs——
That is what I said.
——and revenue and if they say a certain custom duty is payable, I accept that. The fact that I may put that in writing is no proof whatever that I am trying to hide behind the Revenue Commissioners. I am saying what the Revenue Commissioners have decided and that is that. With regard to amending the law, that is a different matter altogether. In the particular case to which the Deputy refers, I am not satisfied that amending the law is justified. The particular device that was imported by the person referred to by the Deputy would in the ordinary way be regarded as part of the equipment of the lorry concerned and would therefore be subject to duty and I do not see why an exemption should be sought. The exemption was sought for two reasons: one, that it made for efficiency, and secondly, that it made for safety. If the person concerned thought it was very necessary from a point of view of safety, it is up to him then to refuse to pay the duty or not as he decides. I do not see that the Revenue Commissioners or I can be held responsible for the fact that he did not import this article because duty had to be paid on it.
May I say that the Revenue Commissioners certainly cannot be held responsible because it is their job to administer the law as it is, but the Minister could, if he wished, change the administrative law in this respect. If there is responsibility, and there is, it lies fairly and squarely on the Minister's back. For the Minister to say, as he did in the letter, that there is nothing further he can do to be of assistance is frankly not true because he could make a new order or get the Government to move a new order, if he wanted to. I do not accept that the responsibility is solely that of the Revenue Commissioners. The Revenue Commissioners have carried out the law as they see it and if the law covers this safety device and the Minister feels that the safety device should not be introduced duty free because of its assistance in the production of timber, number one, and because of the safety element number two, the remedy is in his own hands and if he does not adopt it, the blame is equally on him.
I tried to make it plain to the Deputy that I could ask the Government to change the law, if I thought it right, but I did not think it right.
Why not say so?
I did. I said I was not prepared to recommend a change in the law because the plea was made of greater efficiency and safety. The safety matter could be carried a long way. A person might apply for a permit for tyres which were not made in this country but which were much safer, or for a type of brakes which were not made in this country because they were safer than brakes made here, and for many other things like that. If the person thinks it is going to make all the difference in regard to safety, it is up to him to pay the duty.
In other words, the Minister will not do anything about it.
Mr. Ryan
There is a very big difference between degrees of safety with regards to motor cars and the safety element in the equipment which is under discussion here. Suppose some person is injured by reason of the absence of the equipment, it would be open to the person, or the next of kin, if the person dies from the injuries, to bring the matter before a court of law and any judge or jury in the circumstances would say these persons were guilty of negligence because they did not have available a safer system of working. If an issue were to arise as to whether or not a particular make of tyre was safer than another, I cannot imagine any judge or jury accepting the boast of the advertiser that one tyre was safer than another. There is a vast degree of difference and I do not think it was good enough for the Minister to seek shelter behind regulations which I believe were never intended to discourage Irish employers from making available to their workers a safe system of working. What the Minister is doing is utterly deplorable. The Minister should bear in mind that if he refuses to do anything about it, he will not have heard the last word about it. For instance, we had duties put on safety belts and crash helmets here, but in the long run the Department gave way——
The Minister gave way.
Mr. Ryan
The Minister personally, of course, is involved in the making or not making of these regulations. I am quite certain that if the Minister is not prepared to give way on this point, the trade unions will quite properly raise a storm about it. It is deplorable that where employers are prepared to go to the expense of providing a safe system of working, they should be penalised. That is what the Minister is doing.
That is all very fine. If Deputy Ryan were on the jury, he could blame the Minister, but the first letter that came from this firm was based on the plea of efficiency and there was not a word about safety. When it was rejected, however, they turned to the safety device in order, I suppose, to get sympathy and evidently they have got it from Deputy Sweetman and Deputy Ryan.
And from the country.
Have they? I wonder. If it is so terribly important to save lives, why would they not pay the duty? It would not cost them very much.
What is the rate of duty involved?
Fifty per cent.
Question put and agreed to.
This Resolution and the previous two Resolutions reported and agreed to.