asked the Minister for Finance if his attention has been drawn to the fact that the premises of Fry and Company, poplin manufacturers, Dublin, have been seized by bailiffs on account of debt due for Income Tax; if he is aware that as a consequence fifty or sixty workers are likely to be disemployed and become claimants upon the Unemployment Insurance Fund; whether the firm in question made a proposal several months ago to pay the amount due, in large instalments, and whether in view of the assurances given by the President and the Minister that no harsh measures would be adopted for the enforcement of payment of arrears of Income Tax where debtors showed signs of making reasonable efforts to pay, he will take whatever steps are necessary to release Messrs. Fry and Company from the stranglehold of the bailiffs.
CEISTEANNA—QUESTIONS. ORAL ANSWERS. - EXCESS PROFITS DUTY—SEIZURE OF DUBLIN FACTORY.
TOMAS MAC EOIN
The Deputy appears to have been misinformed as to the facts of this case. The premises of Fry and Co. were not seized by bailiffs on account of debt due for Income Tax, although a large amount of Income Tax is due to the State. The seizure was made by an order of the High Court as the result of an action against Fry and Co. for sums due in respect of Excess Profits Duty. Prior to the institution of proceedings in the High Court no proposals for payment were put forward, although every opportunity was given to liquidate the debt. The proposals put forward after proceedings had been taken involved the spreading of the payment over a period of fourteen years. As some of the debt is already seven years overdue, and the latest portion of it is four years overdue, the proposals could not be allowed to interfere with the proceedings.
Generally speaking, it is not desirable that individual cases of this nature should be referred to in detail in the Dáil, because it is not possible to disclose all the facts. But in this case a certain amount of propaganda has been carried on, and I feel it necessary to refer to certain aspects of the case.
In the first instance, Fry and Co. rendered fraudulent accounts which showed a large under-statement of profits. In December, 1921, it was proposed by the British authorities to institute criminal proceedings against Mr. Reade for fraud, and, in addition, to impose penalties amounting to over £5,000. Owing to the change of Government the criminal proceedings for fraud and the action for penalties were waived by the Saorstát Finance Minister, and the demand was limited to the actual loss of duty.
The case has reached its present stage mainly because of Mr. Reade's extravagance. It is common knowledge that in a lawsuit which came before the High Court in 1921 it was disclosed that Mr. Reade lost £460 at gambling in one night at the Galway race meeting, and it may be inferred from the history of the case that this was not an isolated affair. Mr. Reade holds or has spent a large sum of money belonging to the State, and there is no good reason why the revenue of the State should be used to subsidise him at the expense of other ratepayers who meet their liabilities.
Arising out of that, may I ask the Minister if any steps can be now taken to provide for the continuance of this industry so that the workers may not be disemployed?
I do not believe from the information which I have, that the industry will be discontinued.
That is just the question I was going to ask.