When this Bill was before the House on the Second Reading Stage I pointed out what I thought was a very great defect in the Bill. I think the matter was raised on the Committee Stage also. That was in regard to firms outside this country having their head office also outside this country being given an opportunity of availing of a cheap postage rate which the people inside the Saorstát have not. The Minister apparently said he could not meet the situation. It is very questionable if a great injustice will not in this way be done to Irish firms who will have to compete with British firms; and we have got a number of firms in this country who have head offices at the other side. They could very easily take advantage of the cheap postal rates in Great Britain. These firms are in competition with the people on this side of the water. But the Minister could not tell us that there was any very serious evasion of stamp duty. I do not think there is any person in the House who would certainly stand by a deliberate evasion of stamp duty. If non-Irish firms can be put in a position to secure advantage over Irish firms, I am afraid we are, in that way, going to penalise our own people. The Minister says he does not see any way out of it. I am very sorry he does not. The injustice is there. The matter might be tightened up. If firms outside this country want to advertise their business they ought to be tied down so that they will not be able to send out their advertisements to people here from their head offices across the water.
Supplementary Estimate, 1936-37. - Post Office (Evasion of Postage) Bill, 1937—Fifth Stage.
When Deputy Brennan rose I thought he was going to avail of the opportunity to repair a very bad blunder he made during the Second Reading debate. The Deputy referred to alien penetration of Irish industry and talked about the capital that could be made out of this Bill by those who are frightened at such penetration. Then he went on to make this funny, this extraordinary remark: "A boot factory which has a branch here—and we have a lot of that—and which has its main house in Nottingham, can send out what stuff it likes at the cheap rate in reference to its Irish business from Nottingham." I wonder of what boot factory he was talking.
Would you like to know?
Yes.
I will tell you on another Estimate.
It scarcely arises on this.
I am referring to a statement made in regard to a particular section of the Bill. It was sub-section (2) of Section 1.
That would enlarge the discussion of what is in this Bill. What is in this Bill is the only thing we can discuss now.
I am merely trying to clear up a misapprehension on the part of Deputy Brennan.
There is no misapprehension and no misunderstanding at all.
Apparently Deputy Brennan thinks that wherever there are foreign directors attached to Irish concerns, the Irish concerns become merely branches of the English firm; or does he mean to say that the Irish directors agree to the business of the Irish establishment being done from an English office? Does he not know that there must be a majority of Irish directors under the Control of Manufactures Act? Did he intend to suggest that these Irish directors, in collusion with the English directors, agree to the business of an Irish industry being done from an English office with which some of the directors are associated? That is surely a shocking slander on Irish industry, and if the Deputy were not speaking through ignorance——
No, Sir, I am speaking of facts.
I do not know that I can allow the debate to proceed on these lines. It is broadening the discussion. The question that is being put to the House means that the Bill do now pass. We are entitled to discuss only what is in this Bill, and how any directorate conducts its business does not arise out of this question—not in the way in which Deputy Moore suggests.
Well, Sir, it would be a very strong argument against the passing of the Bill if the argument were correct which was made by the principal Opposition speaker during the Second Reading debate on the Bill. If Deputy Brennan's argument were correct and sound, I could not vote for the Bill—the argument that an industrial concern here which is associated with a similar manufacturing concern in England becomes automatically merely a branch house of such English firm.
Exactly, and the same stamp on their goods as their Nottingham house.
But knowing that could not be the case, I say that if Deputy Brennan's argument was seriously intended, it was a shocking slander on the Irish directors of these industrial concerns.
It is very seriously intended.
If such a proposal were made at a meeting of the board of any Irish industry where such circumstances prevailed, it would, I venture to say, be resented by every director.
Very likely.
It would be fiercely resented, and why Deputy Brennan should introduce such an argument into the debate, if he had in mind the actual conditions under which such enterprises were created, I cannot understand.
I repeat that my statement is true.
That Irish boot factories are branches of the English boot factories?
In effect.
I must ask Deputy Moore to discontinue that line of argument. If he desired to correct a statement made by Deputy Brennan, the proper time to do so was on the Second Reading. He will, doubtless, be able to find an opportunity to refer to it on an Estimate or on some other occasion. This is not the time to discuss the directorate of the company or whether it conducts its business from a head office which is alleged to be in Great Britain or from some other place.
I bow to your ruling, but with very great respect I think that this is a very important consideration in connection with the Bill and I regret very much that you cannot give us an opportunity to settle the matter. I say that Deputy Brennan's statement is a vile slander on the directors of these Irish companies.
There is no doubt that this Bill does not achieve the object it set out to achieve.
I do not know what exactly Deputy Good means by the statement he has just made. I take it that when a Bill is introduced by the Government for a certain purpose, the Government will, as far as possible, see that it effects that purpose. That is the intention in respect to this Bill. As regards the statement made by Deputy Brennan, I think he is suffering under a misapprehension in regard to the position of English concerns. There cannot be deliberate evasions by English concerns, as suggested by him. The English concerns are respecting the law of their country. The people against whom we are legislating are our own nationals who make use of the cheaper postage in Great Britain and, thereby, avoid paying to this State the revenue to which it is justly entitled. Although those letters are posted in Great Britain, they have to be delivered here by the postal staff of the Irish Free State. There cannot be any deliberate evasion by foreign concerns. They are obeying the laws of their own country and that is what we are endeavouring to get our own nationals to do.
This Bill was under consideration for a very long time and I understand that many efforts were made to induce people who were evading the law to comply with their obligations. In some cases, those efforts were successful. Unfortunately, in the other cases, there was no response. Because those efforts failed to bring about the results we desired, we had to bring in this Bill. I sincerely trust that the necessity for using the powers the Bill gives us will not arise. In conclusion, I want to repeat that the general statements made regarding the things which could take place under this Bill are not correct. The suggestions made regarding the violation of the secrecy of the post are due to misapprehension. These things could not possibly happen because we are operating the laws which have been in force since the Saorstát was established. These laws have operated right down to the present time and they will continue to operate under this Bill.
I think that the Minister misunderstood me. I did not say that there would be evasion by foreign companies. I said they were entitled to take advantage of the cheaper rates.
These outside firms with Irish competitors in the same trade can take advantage of the cheaper post by posting on the other side. They can, under this Bill, as I pointed out, still take advantage of the same method. The Minister simply prevents the Irish competitor from taking advantage of the system which the English trader in the same business can take advantage of. That is all this Bill does. Instead of stopping the English competitor, you stop the Irish trader.
We are not setting out to stop the English competitor.
But you allow him to get an advantage over his competitor in the Irish trade.
How would Deputy Good meet the difficulty?
That is not my business. The Minister may think that I was unfair in stating that the Bill did not do what it set out to do. Neither does it.