asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if his Department authorised the recent levy of £2 per ton which was imposed by Irish Steel Holdings on steel collected from the works by customers and private hauliers.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Steel Collection Charge.
22.
It has been decided that national price control measures applied to steel products would be contrary to the Treaty setting up the European Coal and Steel Community and, accordingly, I no longer exercise price control over the steel products covered by that Treaty.
The introduction of a £2 per ton collection charge by Irish Steel Holdings Ltd. was a business decision by the company and did not require my authorisation.
I understand that the charge was introduced in order to make possible an efficient and orderly delivery system, by the elimination of time-wasting delays caused by traffic congestion at the works.
Will the Minister not agree that charging people £2 per ton is a novel way of eliminating traffic congestion? Surely there are other more practical and more orderly ways for eliminating this traffic congestion. Would the Minister also state if there was any other purpose in the introduction of this levy, such as protection for anybody or something like that?
Could I also ask in whose interest and to whose benefit and profit is this peculiar levy being applied? There is more to it than meets the eye. This is not the first time that this firm has operated what would appear to be unusual trade practices.
There is a degree of innuendo in Deputy Blaney's question.
More than that.
Fine. I would point out to the Deputy that in the near future on the debate on my Estimate, he will have the opportunity here to indicate to the public and to me and to Irish Steel Holdings the nature of these charges.
The Minister's Department were long since briefed on the things I am hinting at at the moment. This is a continuation of it.
The Deputy is aware of things I am not aware of. If he is so aware I suggest to him that he has a responsibility to bring these matters to the notice of myself and the public. If there is more to it than meets the eye, and if there is more to it than a business practice which is designed to avoid congestion of vehicles at the delivery point and therefore disrupt the delivery arrangements of the company, I would be very pleased to know about it and I guarantee that I will act on it if I am satisfied.
Is the Minister aware that this levy does not apply to all people or to all hauliers or all carriers taking steel from Irish Steel Holdings?
It is selective.
I am not aware of the operation of it but I seriously suggest to Deputies that, if they have evidence of improper practice in this regard they will have the opportunity within a fortnight on my Estimate— they have a responsibility and they also have immunity—they should tell the public of it, if it exists.
I will bring it to the Minister's attention if he so wishes. I thought he was aware of it.
He should be aware of it.
Question No. 23.
The inference is that I am confirming that there is a malpractice. I am not so confirming. I will act if I get that confirmation.
The Minister should employ the facilities he has.
I have called the next question.