There is a paragraph in relation to the 1932 Act but I do not know whether or not this gives power that is not there already. It is immaterial to me whether I raise it here or on the section. There was recently in a newspaper caustic comment on the fact that the Minister had refused a duty-free licence in respect of certain safety equipment being brought into the country. I do not know whether that can be more appropriately dealt with on this Resolution or on the section, but, as I said, since I raise it once, it is immaterial to me which. There has been public comment on that.
There is, under the 1932 Act, a provision that a duty-free licence may be given on the recommendation of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. That has been interpreted as meaning a case in which a duty is a protective duty alone. It has been interpreted, I understand, that where the duty in question is a revenue duty, as apart from a protective tariff, there is no power under the 1932 Act, but I think there would be under this Financial Resolution. Therefore, I want to raise the matter with the Minister at this stage.
I understand there is one case that was put to the Minister in relation to the introduction into the country of a form of safety precaution for ensuring the safe transport of timber. There was a similar case previously in relation to the introduction into the country of safety belts for use in motor cars. After some considerable time, the motor car safety belts were allowed in duty free, but in relation to the problem before the Minister at present—precautions to ensure the saftey of life and limb in relation to the transport of timber—the Minister has steadfastly refused to deal with the matter.
To put it mildly, that is most reprehensible. The amount of duty involved is a matter of no consequence. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has made it quite clear that as far as he is concerned there is no tariff or protective element involved and that he would not have the slightest objection to the articles in question being imported without payment of duty. It may well be that the articles in question are already within the scope of the definitions—I think the reference is T154—and that, since a revenue tariff is concerned, the Minister is unwilling to breach a hole in the whole of the tariff reference. That is understandable, but it is not understandable that the Minister is not prepared to make the necessary order to ensure that this particular type of safety equipment is outside the terms of the order in question.
It seems to me it is sticking one's head in the sand. This is a very small matter from a duty point of view, but it is a matter that could have very far reaching effects. In fact, I think the Minister will agree with me that if this type of equipment had been used in Oughterard in Galway, a young man there would not have lost his life last month. It was because of the absence of any safety equipment of this sort that the load in question was not tied in the way it should be.
It is bad enough that the Minister will do nothing about it, but it is quite improper altogether that the Minister should hide behind the type of letter he has issued in relation to the matter. For a Minister for Finance to write to anybody and to say that the Revenue Commissioners are not prepared to issue a duty free licence and that that ends the matter is sheltering behind somebody else for something that is his own responsibility. The Revenue Commissioners are there to administer the statute law as it is laid down here and to administer the administrative law as it is laid down by the Government in relation to the Imposition of Duties Acts. It is a matter for the Minister to stand up to his responsibility and to ensure, if he wishes to ensure, that this particular type of equipment is not covered by a revenue tariff which the Revenue Commissioners feel they are not empowered to remit.
Far too often one hears criticism of Departments—I am regarding the Revenue Commissioners as a Department for this purpose—when in fact it should be criticism of the appropriate Minister. The Department is there to carry out the law, statute and administrative, as it is laid down. The Minister is there to see and to recommend to the Oireachtas any appropriate changes there should be in the law. If in this instance the Minister is not prepared —and he should be prepared—to ensure that safety equipment of this sort can come in duty free, he should be man enough to stand over his own decision and verdict and take responsibility in the matter.
I cannot see what the objection is in relation to this. There cannot be any objection on a broad balance of payments ground or any objection because of the amount of duty that would be involved. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has certified there is not any objection on the ground of hurting any Irish industry. One can see that the Minister has chosen to go his own obstinate way and has refused to consider the amelioration that should be considered as a matter of public safety and in the general public interest. I do not know for certain but I believe that at one time the same applied in relation to safety belts for passengers in motor cars and that, as a result of public feeling, the stand in relation to that was waived and the necessary action taken. There is every bit as strong a case in relation to this —stronger indeed because the amount of duty that would be lost would be even less than in the other case.
This is clearly a case within the Minister's own purview and he should himself take the necessary decision and steps to ensure that the administrative law under the 1932 Act is altered in such a way as to provide that this type of equipment is classified differently. It is not a question of the Revenue Commissioners implementing the law as it is; it is a question of the Minister amending the law. We all know, of course, that as soon as that law is amended, the Revenue Commissioners will administer the new law and grant the duty-free licence required.
