While I appreciate the fact pointed out by the Minister that much of the details of this Bill can best be discussed in Committee, there are one or two matters on which I would like to have more enlightenment because they affect the question whether an amendment should be put down and also the character of the amendment. I do not know whether the Minister for Finance would be able to answer fully some of my questions with regard to Section 7. He probably will. The provisions of Section 7 seem to me to have been prepared rather hastily and I am not at all certain that they are not amendable. They may, to some extent, defeat what is the object which the Government has in view. I take it that the principal object is to try and encourage the assemblage of motor cars in this country and that it is considered by the Minister probable that certain American cars may possibly be assembled in this country. I assume that the Minister recognises that while there are many reasons why American cars are suitable for this country and suitable for the roads in this country, they are manufactured in a country where taxation is completely on a different basis with regard to the technical horse power, which is so high as to make the rate of tax prohibitive here, certainly in the case of the lower priced cars.
I am very much afraid that unless some amendment takes place in these provisions it will be very difficult indeed for, at any rate, some firms who would be anxious to take advantage of this, to take the matter up with the American manufacturers for whom they are agents. I am very anxious to see whether some arrangement could not be made to clear this matter for agents engaged in the sale of cars here. That is rendered difficult because of the arrangement of the sections.
I do not know whether the Minister could tell me the meaning of the words "to an extent for the time being approved by the said Minister." I do not know what is the meaning of "to an extent for the time being" but I think I can explain the difficulty by giving a hypothetical case. Those who know anything at all about the ordinary retail motor business know that in a very large number of cases the customer, though he may take months to bring himself to the point of buying a car, yet, once he buys it, wants to bring that car home at once and take his family out in it that evening. He expects to take the car home that evening. Those engaged in the trade say that their experience is that as the law stood they could find out whether the £16 tax was the tax that was to continue for a period. But under this section as it stands the customer would have to find out the Minister's mind that day.
In putting forward this matter I am not trying to raise some points on the Bill, but there is here a serious difficulty. That is, as to whether for the time being the Minister would regard as an assemblage the putting together of certain parts, some of which would be partially assembled before they came over here. I gather from the Minister's speech in introducing the Bill that certain partial assemblages which may be necessary now might not be necessary afterwards, and it may be possible later on to have the whole engine put together. I take it his idea is that the complete engine might come in. Would it not be possible to provide some method by which the certificate of the person assembling might be attached to the car, so that you could go and get your licence at £16 for the American car? That is the difficulty.
In the future this will certainly be hypothetical in the sale of cars, and I think there should be some provision which should provide to have that matter cleared up and not have the section reading: "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." A certificate should be attached to the car in a prescribed form. As the section stands now it is not workable. You do not pay your tax to the Minister for Industry and Commerce, you pay it to the Department of Local Government and Public Health, and there must be some way by which you can produce a certificate. I think that could be very easily provided for if this Bill were amended.
There is another difficulty which seems to me more serious still. It certainly is not made clear in Section 7. This, again, bears upon the meaning of the words "for the time being." Assuming for the sake of argument that a car is assembled and that, in the opinion of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the tax will be put at £16. Now most people expect a car to last for several years. Assume that they are getting a car of 26, 28 or 30 horse-power and assume that they want to buy that car because they know that the tax will be £16. They want an assurance that the licence on the car the following year and the year after will be £16.
If an engine and a complete body shell are to be regarded as parts it need not be completely assembled here. That is the Minister's point of view at the moment, but I think in twelve months' time there is a possibility that the Minister would view it on a changed basis as to what is "assemblage" in the case of a particular car. It may be that what may now be regarded as an assembled car would cease to be regarded as such. The question is, will the car in a year or two years' time come within the 26, 28 or the 30 horse-power? I doubt if it will. I doubt if that is what is intended. It should be a car which at the time of assembly complied with the regulations.
Another point in connection with that is that agents for American manufacturers are anxious to see if it is not possible to take some advantage of the section to do that and to do it fairly as between the different manufacturers. I think it would be necessary for the Minister to make an order, amendable, of course, by a further order which would set out what is an "assemblage." The agent here could then send that order to the manufacturer in America and say: "If you are prepared to comply with that and allow your parts to be assembled here, then your customers will get the benefit of the £16 tax." There would, unless this were done, be a serious disadvantage with regard to the tax.
On the other hand, if it is only something that is to come and you have to negotiate with the Minister for the time being, and if the thing is liable to sudden change, there would not be the same attractiveness from the point of view of the American manufacturer. There will still be a considerable uncertainty and, what is more serious still, there will be an extreme difficulty in the case of the agent ascertaining the exact provision. I would like to know the Minister's attitude towards an alteration in this section which would provide that the tax would be payable on a certificate by the actual assembler.
In another section it is provided that the word "manufacturer" can mean an "assembler." At any rate the tax should be paid on a certificate attached to the car, the certificate to be signed by the assembler, and secondly the Minister should make an order providing what was to be regarded as an assemblage at that time. It would then be a very easy thing for the assembler to give a certificate that such and such a car was assembled in accordance with that order. It is a matter that could be tested. If that order was changed in 12 months' time, which I think the Minister has in mind, then it would be quite easy to go back a year and see if a car made in 1933-34 complied with the assemblage order in that year. I think it is essential, if this is to work, that a car which qualifies now for the £16 tax should remain for the life of that car subject to that rate of tax. If it is going to be affected by a later order, which will restrict the amount of assemblage that can take place, then it will defeat its object. I raise these matters because I think the Minister may be able to tell us what is really the policy of the Government. If I knew that, it would be much easier for me to frame amendments along the lines I have in mind.
Section 8 raises another matter which I think is not very clear as the section stands. It provides a very heavy penalty for a person who, having taxed his car at, we will say, the £10 rate uses it for another purpose which would render it subject to the £15 or £16 a year rate. I agree that where that is deliberate, or where there is any attempt at fraud, the penalty is not the tiniest little bit too high, but where it is a bona fide case due either to a misunderstanding or to extreme difficulty in understanding what the law is, I think the penalty is too high. I think, too, that it should be a maximum penalty. I think I am correct in stating that in the case of customs and excise penalties, they are penalties which cannot be reduced by the court. They are fixed penalties. In that case, I think the penalty prescribed here is far too high. If, for the sake of argument, a taxi-driver were, for instance, to take his family out on a Sunday evening and not charge them for the run, he would be rendering himself liable to the higher rate and to the penalty laid down here. That, I think, would be grossly unfair.
There is another class of case in which very considerable difficulty arises. When the difficulty was put to me I was not able to deal with it, but I know of two or three cases where this particular difficulty has arisen. It is the case of where a private car is used occasionally for the bringing, say, of garden produce to market. That may happen ten or 12 times in the year, but it is not the usual use to which the car is put. A case was taken to the court some time ago and dismissed. I am not sure whether it was taken any further. I am not quite satisfied as to what the position is in regard to a case of that kind, but I think that where there are doubts of that kind the penalty provided here is too high. I think the section should either provide that where a person knowingly does so and so, the penalty would be as laid down, or that this should be a maximum penalty, so that the court would have power to deal with the circumstances of particular cases. The section provides that a person found guilty of an offence under it shall "be liable on summary conviction thereof to an excise penalty of whichever of the following sums is the greater, that is to say, £20 or three times the difference." I think I am correct in stating that in such a case the court will have no option but to impose the minimum penalty laid down. If the Minister is able to satisfy me on the points I have raised, it may not be necessary for me to put down any amendment for Committee Stage.
I would be glad, when the Minister is replying, if he would inform me as to the exact position with regard to imperial preference under Schedule 2, Reference No. 2. There you have certain minimum duties substituted in certain cases for the existing duties. You either pay the existing duty or the minimum duty, whichever is the higher. The existing duties, in every case, were subject to one-third British preference and what I want to know is, does the one-third British preference clearly and beyond question apply to the minimum duties? If the minimum duty here is 10/-, will the duty for British goods be 6/8? I think I am correct in stating that when these minimum duties first came into force it was held that the British preference did not apply: that it was the minimum duties, irrespective of whether the goods were subject to British preference or not, that did apply, but that after some weeks the Revenue Commissioners changed their minds. I think the position now is that in the case of certain of these duties the British preference is being applied. There is a doubt in the matter. I think it is correct to state that the British preference was not applied for some six weeks or so, but that it is now being applied: that it is now held that where the minimum duty is 10/-, it is 6/8 for goods if the certificate shows that they have been produced within the British Commonwealth.
This matter is causing some doubt outside, though I think one can be positive in stating that it is now held by the Revenue Commissioners that the British preference applies. The difficulty here is that these are all Acts by reference. When I looked up Reference No. 2, I discovered that it was an amendment to a section in another Act, and that the other Act provided for the British preference. It would be of the greatest possible convenience to traders if the Government would reduce the number of alterations in the tariff law which are expressed in terms of reference to other Acts. The Financial Resolutions which are introduced in the Dáil are nearly always in the same form. I do not remember one single case in which any of the three newspapers published here got the duties correctly in the first instance. That has caused a great deal of chaos, due almost entirely to the fact that the Resolutions which, of course, must be secret until they are introduced into the Dáil, are rushed off in a great hurry to the Press. Someone in a newspaper office hastily looks up the eight Acts that have been amended, so that as a result something is bound to go wrong in a newspaper office with unsatisfactory results so far as traders and others are concerned. One result is that very often you get attempts at hasty buying of goods in stock, due to a mistaken impression got either by a manufacturer or a trader from the Resolution as published, and secondly, prices are marked wrongly owing to the uncertainty that prevails. I know that the best Government in the world, and even the present Minister for Finance would hardly claim that for his Government— I am sure he would not expect me to believe it in any case—could not avoid uncertainty in the matter of tariffs, but when you put a duty on an article, weeks must elapse before the officials can decide exactly what that article means. When you include, as you do in certain of these minimum duties, a phrase such as this: "goods of the nature of certain articles", well, you are asking for trouble straight off. I think very little harm would have been done by waiting a week longer and referring the matter to the officials at the Castle, so that the use of phrases such as I have mentioned could be avoided altogether. As it is, anomalies are inevitable. I had a case myself in which I am not quite sure whether the correct duty was or was not paid. It was a case in which a certain quality of wool was imported by my firm. The English firm, in the kindness of their hearts, thought fit to include three very small window tickets which were invoiced as free. They were value for about ½d. each, but these were held to be "printed matter," so that we had to pay the minimum duty of half-a-crown. Probably we shall take steps to warn that firm not to make any more free gifts of that kind to us, as they prove rather too expensive. That is the kind of anomaly I have in mind. I am not grumbling at that kind of thing, because to a very large extent it is unavoidable. I think, however, that things of that kind could be avoided if the Government were a little more explicit in the definitions. I think if a week or ten days were allowed to the experts at the Castle to prepare explicit definitions it would save people a great deal of trouble and, incidentally, a great amount of expense.
