Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Saturday, 2 Sep 1939

Vol. 77 No. 1

Committee on Finance. - Emergency Powers Bill, 1939—Financial Resolution.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

I move No. 3 on the Order Paper:—

1. That there shall be charged, levied and paid on the grant, renewal or issue of any licence, permit, certificate or like document renewed or issued under or for the purpose of an emergency order or for the purpose of an instrument made, granted or issued under power conferred by an emergency order such (if any) fee as the Minister for Finance shall from time to time direct.

2. That all fees charged and levied by virtue of this resolution shall be collected and taken in such manner as the Minister for Finance shall from time to time direct and shall be paid into or disposed of for the benefit of the Exchequer in accordance with the directions of the said Minister.

3. That in tins resolution the expression "emergency order" means an order made by the Government under any enactment the object of which is to make provision for securing the public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war, the maintenance of public order, and the provision and control of supplies essential to the life of the Community.

Mr. Cosgrave

Has there been any estimate of the probable cost? I suppose there has not.

Mr. Lemass

We are now dealing with the Financial Resolution, which empowers the charging of fees on licences and certificates, to which Deputy Mulcahy referred. We have yet to consider the Money Resolution, which provides the money necessary for the purpose of the Bill.

Mr. Dillon

Will anyone on behalf of the Government state that the powers contained in these licensing sections will not be used for the purpose of raising revenue? The Minister for Industry and Commerce says there is no intention of using them so far as his Department is concerned, but these fee-charging provisions in connection with the licences come within the province of the Minister for Finance. Our sole concern is to ensure that they will not be used in a similar way to the licences for importing sugar. The House will remember that the licence in that case was fixed at a level which yielded a revenue to the Government. Similar action was taken in connection with the cement licence.

Mr. Lemass

Special legislation was introduced in each case, and the licence fee was operated for a specific purpose; it was not for revenue purposes, but rather to level up prices. The assurance I give to the House is that, while these licence fees may produce revenue, they will not, be imposed for the purpose of making a profit for the Exchequer. They will be imposed merely to meet the cost, of administering the particular scheme with which they may be associated.

Mr. Dillon

That is a perfectly satisfactory guarantee on this point, providing it carries the sanction of the Government as a whole and not of the Minister's Department alone.

Mr. McGilligan

It might be well to deal with one matter, so that there will be no doubt. There has been a distinction made between charging powers and any other power, in this matter of the popularly elected House-having sole charge of finance, no matter whether it is a mere charging affair to cover the amount necessitated by the expenditure, or whether it is an imposition of taxation. That has always been distinct from other powers. It is noteworthy in the example before the House of the British Act corresponding to this, that they have made a definite distinction on this point. The only difference is that a Treasury charging order runs for 28 days and then, if it is not backed by a resolution of the House, it falls. There must be some reason for that distinction being made. There are no other regulations putting it in the form in which we have it here, that such order continues to have effect unless nullified within the 21 days. Of course, that comes from the difference, between an imposition and a charge. I suggest that this is the method to be followed, and I will give the section as it is:—

Any such order as aforesaid imposing or increasing a charge shall cease to have effect on the expiration of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the order is made, unless at some time before the expiration of that period it has been approved by a resolution of the Commons House of Parliament. without prejudice, however, to the validity of anything previously done under the order or to the making of a new order by a resolution of the House of Commons.

It has been a rather well sanctioned division between the powers to impose a charge and the imposition of a tax. I think we have adopted very much the same principle, and that there is a particular sanctity about this matter of imposing charges.

Mr. Lemass

The whole from of this is entirely different.

Mr. McGilligan

That particular matter is the same.

Mr. Lemass

Section 8 does not provide for the making of an Order; it provides for the collection from time to time of fees charged under an Order made by the Minister for Finance or another Minister. The section in the British Bill provides for a Treasury Order.

Mr. McGilligan

The British Bill says: "...such fee as the Minister may from time to time direct". What is the difference?

Mr. Lemass

It is a question of procedure.

Mr. McGilligan

It is exactly the same.

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. McGilligan

I suggest that some more consideration might be given to that point later. Perhaps we would have the assistance of the Minister for Finance then. In the British case it will only do for 28 days unless backed by a Resolution of the House of Commons, and that is founded on the well-known division between charging orders and everything else.

Resolution put and agreed to.