Is it still the Minister's intention to take Resolution No. 7 first?
DAIL IN COMMITTEE. - FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS (REPORT).
Yes.
RESOLUTION No. 7.
"That a Custom duty of an amount equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent. of the value of the article shall be charged, levied and paid on all empty bottles of glass, coloured green or black, imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 12th day of May, 1924."
With regard to the amendments to the resolution, I am taking the Minister's amendment first but I will consider Deputy Johnson's amendment afterwards, although, strictly speaking, it is on an earlier part of the resolution. We will now take Amendment 12 to Resolution 7.
I beg to move:—
In Resolution No. 7 to delete the words "bottles of glass, coloured green or black" in lines 38 and 39, and to insert in lieu thereof the words "glass bottles of a kind ordinarily used for bottling beer, wine or spirits."
Last week, I think, I said practically all that I have to say on this particular amendment. The intention was, and is, to impose the duty only on what are commonly called black bottles, that is, bottles of glass of various colours and not clear glass. We find that the phrase "black or green glass," which was taken from an old Act dating back to the years when there was a duty on a particular type of glass, would probably not be sufficiently clear because some of the glass could not, strictly speaking, be called either green or black—it might be brown or something like that. When we come to the Finance Bill we will put in a clause which will exempt bottles of clear glass. The intention is to tax the ordinary dark-coloured wine, beer or spirit bottle, but not the clear bottle. A suitable clause will be inserted in the Finance Bill exempting bottles of clear glass. I am not prepared to suggest the words at present that I would regard as satisfactory for that purpose, but they will be put in the Finance Bill, and if duty has been charged on any clear bottles of this type, a refund will be paid in the way that I believe is usual.
The Minister met my objections on Friday, and I do not want to cause him delay in getting his resolution through. I want to ask two questions, however. The first question is has he considered my point about bottles of a peculiar shape which are, to a certain extent, trade marks, such bottles for instance, as those that contain liqueurs, and bottles which Messrs. Jameson use for their old whiskies? If he could indicate that that question was under consideration, I should be grateful. The second question is, does this resolution cover porter bottles? Is porter, in the eyes of the law, beer? In the eyes of man it is not. Porter bottles are the kind of bottles that are imported, and they are also the kind of bottles which the Ringsend Bottle Company make.
The amendment is intended to restrict the duty to bottles ordinarily used for bottling beer, wine or spirits. The Minister's suggestion is that he will propose an amendment to the Finance Bill which will specifically exempt clear glass bottles, but he goes on to explain that clear glass may mean bottles of glass which may be used, and are used, for spirits which may be termed clear, and yet have a green tinge. It is quite conceivable that the whole purpose of this original motion will be evaded by the importation of clear glass, and by utilising clear glass for bottling beer and porter, wines and spirits. The arts of the glass manufacturer are quite capable of producing bottles which would come under the designation "clear glass," but yet satisfy all requirements of the beer, wine and spirit trade, and so the Minister's purpose would be destroyed just at the time when manufacturers here are in a position to cope with the whole demand. I can see by the method adopted by the Minister that he is leaving himself open to the defeat of his object by Belgian and, perhaps, British glass bottle manufacturers. I think the original definition was much more satisfactory, though undoubtedly open to certain objections, but the term "glass, coloured green or black," might well be deemed to be a trade description, and would cover glass bottles with that greenish tinge which includes mineral water and whiskey bottles. The Minister explained now that he never intended to impose a duty on mineral water bottles, and, I think, on the last occasion, explained that one of the reasons he did not wish to do that was that the Irish manufacturer had a fairly considerable export trade. That difficulty could easily be met by a rebate on the export of bottles. I think it is a pity that a limit is being placed upon the class of bottle in the way the Minister has now explained. I think he admitted, at any rate, whether he stated it or not, it is true, that the home manufacturers are in a position and, in so many words, bind themselves to sell Irish bottles at the price of English-made bottles, and the protection that is to be given to them is really a protection against continental-made bottles which are imported chiefly, largely because of the advantage that currency changes have given them. If there is not going to be any increased cost within six months, when Irish manufacturers will be in a position to manufacture mineral water bottles, when they can be produced and sold to Irish mineral water people at the price of English manufactured mineral water bottles, there is no great burden to be thrown on mineral water manufacturers, provided, to meet their foreign trade, rebate is granted to them on all bottles exported. I believe that the original term "glass coloured green or black," if interpreted to mean all coloured bottles of a dark hue, as the trade might well interpret it, would serve the purpose and be more satisfactory than the amendment now proposed by the Minister. While I am speaking of this I would like to ask whether in the consideration of this whole matter he has borne in mind that there are three factories capable of coping with this production, and that those three factories can within a few months turn out, on terms equal to those of the British manufacturers, all the bottles for either the mineral water trade or the beer, wine or spirit trade in this country, and whether he has made any offer, or whether he has consulted with his colleagues of the Trade and Industry Department to urge upon these factories—all of them, whether the machine factory or the hand-making factory—the desirability of taking advantage, and preparing to take advantage, of this duty which it now intended to be imposed?
It would be a great pity to lose the trade because of the lassitude of some of the people who had that business. Because of the failure of the American market they are not eager to resume operations, and are, in fact, preventing other people from resuming the operations of the hand manufacture of glass bottles, which can be done, I am assured, at a price quite equal, from the purchasing point of view, to the goods produced by the factories. I hope that the Minister will, in co-operation with his colleagues of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, intimate to those people concerned that the purpose of this duty is to encourage the manufacture of bottles for the Irish trade, and that they will be expected to fulfil their functions, or that the benefit that is to be derived by the trade from this duty must be withdrawn. I hope the Minister will not press this claim, and that he will agree to include mineral water bottles and what may be called clear whiskey bottles in this duty so that the bottle manufacturers in Ireland can see some prospect of occupying the whole of their power and plant in the manufacture of bottles. I say the grievance which is complained about, that the export trade might be effected, can be met by a rebate. I would further say that the suggestion that the Minister is making by exempting under the phrase "clear bottles," mineral water bottles and either wine or spirit bottles, which might come under the designation clear, is very likely to invite the trade of large exports of clear bottles to this country, whether beer or porter bottles, or whiskey bottles or wine bottles, and to induce the bottlers in this country to put up their commodities in clear bottles for the purpose of evading the duty. If they do that the whole purpose of the Minister will have been negatived and no advantage will have been gained by anyone except increased profit by the bottlers of those various liquids. I, therefore, would press on the Minister the desirability of standing by his first description, if he can find no better for "that class of bottle of the kind ordinarily used for the bottling of wine, beers and spirits."
I am afraid more difficulty will arise as to what is and what is not a bottle than as to what is the colour of the glass. We have for a long time seen Australian wine coming in in flagons. The licensed trade has adopted the flagon, and very likely beer and stout will soon be accepted in the flagon also, as the flagon will evade your tax. That is what I am trying to place before you.
While not wishing to support the proposal to extend the protection of 33 per cent. to the point of including clear bottles in it, the speech of Deputy Johnson has called attention to the danger which even the beginnings of a Protection policy introduced to this country. It is proposed to protect the trade of three factories in Dublin, and in doing so the Minister wished to afford protection to them under the pretext that they were producing black and green bottles. Before we were long discussing the matter, we found a logical demand made to extend it to clear glass bottles, and the more logical demand to extend it to flagons, and so the original proposal of the Minister, well intentioned, namely, to prevent Irish industries from being crushed out, has led us into this difficulty, that in order to protect the three industries concerned a demand is being made now to protect all clear glass bottles. Then, why not all clear glass, because that is produced in very similar industries. In this way we are led on, step by step, to the building of a complete wall around this country. I think the Minister's object, and I would like him to consider this when he considers this resolution, would have been served better by leaving the glass bottle industry alone. It would have been more economical to the country had he proposed a subsidy to the industry. What does his proposal mean? It means that bottle-makers will be able to get more money for the bottles. We and the public do not know how much we are paying for this class of protection. Protection means plucking the goose so that you cannot hear the squeal. The Minister will pluck the Irish goose and nobody will hear the squeal, not even in the price of a bottle of stout. All the same, we will be paying for it. The general taxpayer will pay for it. The Minister expects to get revenue out of it and the bottle-makers to make an additional profit on it. Whatever Deputy Johnson may think it is the manufacturers who are behind the protective taxes, and it is the manufacturers who will make most money in the end, and not the labour that is employed in the factory. These protective taxes are the manufacturers' ways of bettering themselves——
The Deputy is going into the general question of protection.
I am afraid I am. I am much obliged for the liberty I enjoyed, so far. I hope that when the Minister considers the two suggestions that have been made, one by Deputy Johnson and the other by Deputy Mag Ualghairg of extending this protection to clear glass bottles, he will also think of mine, which is that if he wants to favour the glass bottle or any other industry he should favour it by a certain defined sum so that people see and know what they are paying to favour it by way of subsidy, and not proceed in this blind and reckless way of favouring it by protection.
Deputy O'Mara seems to be rather asleep to what is going on, because what he told us to-day would come with greater force when the original subject was originally introduced. Now on this question of bottles the whole trade in bottles is not a very large one. The Minister comes along in his Budget and says: "We are going to tax a certain class of bottle," and so as to make his original proposition more lucid, he puts in an amendment which, I think, confuses the thing more than ever. May I say to the Minister that I think he is only tinkering with the question. It would be much simpler for him—even though it raised objections from various quarters—if he said: "I am going to tax bottles," and made no differentiation at all. It would be better, as Deputy Johnson says, to give a rebate. It is absurd to be talking about the colour of the bottles. The next thing will be that there will be something put in about the shape of the neck of the bottle and its cubic capacity. I can see no reason why we should differentiate between one class and another. On a former occasion I referred to the fact, that Deputy Johnson referred to to-day, that mineral water bottles are a very large part of the bottle trade. These bottles are particularly favoured by teetotallers. These particular bottles bottles can be, and have been, made in Dublin, and there is no reason why you could not turn them out again to-morrow. If your object is to protect industry surely it is only logical that you ought to give them reasonable scope to extend their plants.
I do not wish to speak in any way in favour of protection. Deputy O'Mara has come out so strongly on my side that I think I had better leave things alone. But I do say, once you come to a decision on a certain subject—
Stick to it.
Yes, stick to it, stick to your decision. Do not be trying to camouflage, and do not be trying to deceive yourself about this bottle question.
Before the Minister concludes I would like to point out to Deputy Hewat that notwithstanding what he said about the effects of this duty, the fact is that within the last 18 months the price of bottles used in the beer trade has fallen to half of what it was. But the consumer, so far as I know—those who are more in a position to judge that matter than I am, can correct me if I am wrong— has not yet seen any benefit arriving from the fact that the bottle purchaser has been able to purchase the bottle at less than half the price he paid 18 months ago.
I would like to say to Deputy Cooper that for revenue questions porter is beer, and that we will have that question of the bottles looked into before this Finance Bill comes along. The intention was to tax the dark bottles made here. The Dublin factories have not made clear bottles for a considerable time, and they have not claimed that they were able to compete with the English manufacturers of clear bottles, and it is for that reason that we decided to confine the duty to the type of bottles that the manufacturers here were making. There is a great deal of difference between the position of the mineral water manufacturers and the position of the distillers or whiskey bottlers, users of, I might say, clear bottles. In the case of whiskey the price of the bottle is very small in relation to the value of the liquor contained in it.
Not the value, but in relation to the taxes on the liquor.
In relation to the selling price of the liquor contained, which is the thing that affects the public most. There is not so strong a case made for the exemption of mineral water bottles as there is for the exemption of whiskey bottles.
I do not think that clear whiskey bottles should be taxed, because there is no doubt that, for instance, the Irish whiskey export trade is not as good as it was, and is suffering seriously. It is not desirable, even in a small degree, to add to the burden. When we come to deal with the mineral water bottles I do not see how we could tax them without serious damage being done to the trade. It cannot be met by repayment or rebate of duty, because you cannot give a manufacturer repayment or rebate of duty on bottles that he is exporting when it may happen that these bottles have not paid any duty. The result would be that the mineral water makers would confine themselves to foreign bottles. If they were using Irish bottles and were exporting them, it could not be expected that the Revenue department would pay out money that they did not get. The Customs duty and the Excise duty on mineral waters are practically equal. There is not 1d. a gallon difference between the Customs and the Excise duties. If we force our mineral water trade to use dearer bottles than are used in Great Britain or the Six Counties we would be putting them at a greater disadvantage. To tax mineral water bottles would involve an increase in the duty on mineral waters, and a decrease in the Excise duty. Because you have the fact that the value of the bottle in relation to the mineral content is very high. You cannot play with a margin in that particular trade. I think it is scarcely advisable that we should tax the mineral water bottle in a manner that you would propose to tax beer and porter and wine and whiskey bottles. I do not think that any great difficulty will be met with in regard to the definition of bottles. If any trouble appears likely it can be provided for, but it is not anticipated.
I understood the Minister to say that he was not in favour of imposing a tax which would adversely affect the glass bottles made for whiskey. Will not this tax adversely affect that bottle? Is it not used for beer or spirits?
I was referring to the clear bottle.
A "Baby" Power is a clear bottle. Is it the intention to make the distillers pay thirty-three and a third per cent. on those bottles used for whiskey?
Not on clear bottles.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I think that disposes of Deputy Johnson's next amendment, but the question of the previous amendment arises. I am at a loss to know what that amendment means.
The effect of the carrying of my amendment, which suggests the deletion of the word "empty," would be that any bottles which come into the country filled for either of those purposes would be taxable; but in view of the decision on the last amendment, which in effect excludes mineral water bottles, the value of this amendment is practically nil. The object of it as it originally stood was to prevent any advantage being derived from the importation of filled bottles unbranded, which are then used for refilling in this country. Of course, not being so used, that would defeat the purpose of the amendment, provided mineral water bottles were taxable; but inasmuch as mineral water bottles are now removed by the passing of the last amendment, there is no advantage in proposing this further amendment, because there is practically no other kind of bottles that would be affected. Therefore I do not move the amendment.
Amendment not moved.
I would like to ask the Minister if I am correct in interpreting an interjection he made when Deputy O'Mara was speaking. He said that he would not derive any revenue from this duty. If he does not expect to get revenue from this duty where does he expect to get it?
I anticipate the duty of 33 1/3 per cent. will be sufficiently high to cause very little revenue to be collected.
Will the Minister be able to reply to my question as to whether he will consider, both in relation to these and other industries that he may find it necessary to help, the advisability of helping them by means of definite sums?
The Deputy should have raised this matter before, or else he may raise it later.
I will raise it on the Second Reading of the Bill.
The Deputy knows well what the right time is. I congratulate him.
Question: "That the Dáil agree with the Committee in the Resolution, as amended"—put and agreed to.
RESOLUTION No. 1.
CUSTOMS.
(1) That a Customs duty at the rate of fivepence on the pound shall be charged, levied, and paid on all tea imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 12th day of May, 1924, and before the 1st day of August, 1925, in lieu of the Customs duty at the rate of eightpence on the pound now chargeable.
(2) That the provisions of Section 8 of the finance Act, 1919, shall apply to the duty mentioned in the Resolution with the substitution of the expression "Saorstát Eireann" for the expression "Great Britain and Ireland."
(3) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913.
Question: "That the Dáil agree with the Committee in this Resolution"— put and agreed to.
RESOLUTION No. 2.
CUSTOMS.
(1) That the additional duties on dried fruits which were first imposed by Section 8 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, and were continued up to the 1st day of August, 1924, by the Finance Act, 1923 (No. 21 of 1923), shall continue to be charged, levied and paid on and from the said 1st day of August, 1924, up to the 1st day of August, 1925.
(2) That the new import duties which were first imposed by Section 12 of the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1915, and were continued up to the 1st day of May, 1924, by the Finance Act, 1923 (No. 21 of 1923), shall continue to be charged, levied, and paid on and from the said 1st day of May, 1924, up to the 1st day of May, 1925.
(3) That the provisions of Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1919, shall apply to the duties mentioned in this Resolution with the substitution of the expression "Saorstát Eireann" for the expression "Great Britain and Ireland."
(4) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913.
I rise to move amendment No. 1.:
In Resolution No. 2 (2) to insert after the words "import duties," in line 22, the words "except the duties on all such musical instruments as do not exceed the value of ten shillings each, and on the accessories and component parts of musical instruments."
This amendment is in the main based upon the report of the Fiscal Commission, which recommended that the duty on the parts and accessories of musical instruments was not one for producing much revenue, was troublesome to collect, and should be removed. The revenue produced by a duty on parts and accessories of musical instruments is only £8,000. I think any duty on a large variety of small articles, varying in price and bringing in a comparatively insignificant amount of revenue, is a troublesome and difficult one to collect. The Minister himself confirms that belief, because he has put on a tariff on every consignment in order to discourage these small duties. We do not make accessories for musical instruments in this country, and I think in the circumstances the better way is to allow them to come in freely. They do not compete with any Irish industry, they do not give employment, and their yield from revenue is comparatively small. I do not think that musical instruments under 10/- will yield a duty amounting to much. The Minister has exempted mouth-organs already, presumably on the ground that they are not musical. Why I had to pay a considerable amount of duty on a jazz drum that I gave my eldest son at Christmas time, I do not know. On these grounds I argue that they ought to be allowed in. My argument deals particularly with gramophone records. Before the introduction of wireless, and even now, gramophones were a great boon in the more lonely parts of the country, and people whose lives were more or less monotonous, purchased gramophones with considerable advantage. To them the coming of a new record was a great event. Records of a more classic kind are not easy to obtain in Dublin. It is not worth the while of retailers to bring in records for which there may not be a great demand. You can get any amount of records, but you cannot get those containing the more classic music, and you have to write to London for them.
The duty will now be a minimum one of 2/6, but then you may find that when you receive your parcel half the records may be broken either by the post or by the Customs. I have no doubt there is a remedy, but I am certain that the remedy would be so slow that you would waste more money on time than you would be likely to get in compensation from the Minister. All these little petty duties are rather injurious to the State, because they create constant exasperation and enemies against the Government. What we want most of all is a contented population, and as we cannot make these things ourselves I fail to see any justification for these duties. We have not the factories for making gramophone records or even the variety of artistes that would be necessary for making them. When I wanted to get gramophone records in the Irish language I had to get them made in London, and at some future day I will play them for the Minister. These Resolutions are in the main, except the one just carried, increasing taxation. If the Minister is increasing the taxation on the articles we can make, he ought to reduce it on the articles that we cannot make.
This matter of the taxation on parts is not quite so simple as the Fiscal Commission thought. One of the difficulties is to find out the value of the parts that come in. People will simply screw three parts from each other and send them separately, or perhaps send them in the one box only screwed apart, and claim that they should be admitted duty free. Even in the case of instruments, the case is not so simple as the Deputy thinks. Certain parts will be taken out and then there will be the question whether what remains is a part or whether it is an instrument, but not a complete instrument. In a case such as that there would be great difficulty in assessing the value of the instrument from which some parts had been taken away, leaving perhaps the bulk of the instrument there. Very great difficulties would arise if we were to exempt parts. I think it would be almost impossible to collect a duty on these things unless we retained the duty on parts. I am not familiar enough with any particular instrument to know what could be taken out, but it would be possible in many of them to remove certain parts without great difficulty. If we were to remove the duty that would not necessarily mean that an industry is going to be created here.
In fact, I think no industry would be created as a result of exempting parts from duty, but what would simply happen is this: that the parts which could be detached easily would be detached for the purpose of avoiding payment of the duty. I do not think it would be possible at all, while retaining the duty, to accept the amendment and exempt parts. The difficulties of ascertaining the value and of administering the matter would be increased enormously and not diminished as the Deputy argued. As regards the accessories, I am not quite sure what they include. In regard to gramophone records, I do not know that there is any likelihood of any gramophone records being made in this country. I would undertake to look into the whole question of accessories without committing myself to anything definite between now and the time when the Finance Bill will be under consideration. I could not undertake to do anything but oppose entirely the suggestion that parts should be exempted. I do not think, either, that there is any reason why we should exempt musical instruments under the value of ten shillings each. Perhaps it would be a good thing to forbid their importation, especially in the case of the jazz drum referred to by the Deputy.
As I am sure the Minister realises, none of his arguments apply to gramophone records or needles. If, therefore, he will take them into consideration and be prepared to consider the amendment on the Finance Bill I will withdraw this amendment now.
I would like to support the contention of Deputy Cooper regarding gramophone records and needles. I would put in the plea that a gramophone record is not a part of the musical instrument.
It is an accessory, I believe.
Yes, an accessory, in the same way as wind is an accessory to a cornet, and if the Minister is proposing to put a tax on the wind he will have a rather considerable job. I remember many years ago it was a fairly common practice to play music from an instrument made up of a comb and a piece of thin paper. Will the Minister consider these to be a musical instrument when combined, and will he therefore put a tax on the paper or on the comb? Seriously, I think there is a very good case to be made for the exemption of gramophone records. First, because, the duty is not at all protective. Apparently, it produces a very small amount of revenue. The records are imported separately and quite apart from the instrument, and to the minds of some people, are a valuable acquisition to the amenities of country life. I think there are possibilities that they will be very greatly improved, and I would add my plea to that of Deputy Cooper that between now and the final passage of the Bill, which will implement these Resolutions, the Minister will find a way of exempting gramophone records and needles.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put—"That the Dáil agree with the Committee in Resolution number 2."
I cannot agree to this motion, because I want to know first of all what are these new import duties which were first imposed by Section 12 of the Finance Act of 1915. This Act may be considered not to be very new. I also want to know what are the provisions of Section 8 of the Finance Act of 1919. When we were discussing this matter in Committee I suggested that we should be given some information on this subject either in foot-notes or in some other way. As it is, no one except the Minister knows what these duties are. I wonder does Deputy Hughes or Deputy Wolfe or some of the other Deputies on the benches opposite know what these duties are. I will not ask Deputy Professor Magennis, because I am certain he is omniscent and he probably knows.
You might be mistaken.
I have a vague idea myself as to what the duties are, but as to what the amount of the duties is I have no idea, and I do not believe that anyone knows the exact amount except, of course, the Minister. Therefore, I suggest that it is really ridiculous to be doing business in the dark like this. What is the use in asking about duties when we do not know what the amount is. The second point I want to make is that I believe it is the duty of the Minister to remit this duty on motor parts and accessories. There again we are up against the Report of the Fiscal Committee. Why did the Government appoint this Fiscal Committee? I cannot imagine the reason, because every one of its recommendations has been ignored. "The existing duty upon accessories and component parts," the Fiscal Committee state in their Report, "on the other hand yields a comparatively small return to the revenue, is productive of a great deal of delay and inconvenience to the motor industry in An Saorstát, especially to that section of it engaged in repairs, and discourages any attempt at assembling being undertaken in An Saorstát. The Committee, therefore, recommends the withdrawal of the duty upon motor accessories and component parts." I am not putting down an amendment on this simply because I do not want to interfere seriously with the Minister's Budget. I have put down an amendment which will involve a comparatively small remission of taxation. The duty on these parts yields a revenue of £34,000 a year. I am not prepared, therefore, to ask the Minister to forego that sum, but I do want to impress upon him the delay and the hardship that are imposed by this duty and the inconvenience it entails on the general public. The inconvenience caused to the trade and to the general public and the users of motor-cars is out of all proportion to the yield. Nowadays there are very few of the general public who do not use a motor-car occasionally, if only char-a-bancs and taxis at funerals.
In addition, there are a great many delays in the Customs. A man who has a car and who is waiting for spare parts cannot get them for weeks, because they are held up in the Customs, and that makes for great dissatisfaction and exasperation with the Government and the State, which is not wholesome or healthy. Then a considerable amount of expense is entailed because a number of motor agents have to keep a man who spends all his time in the Customs trying to get the parts cleared. It is a whole-time job. Perhaps the Minister will say that that means more employment, but I do not think he can call it productive employment. In the country motor agents find it very hard to get their parts through the Customs, and in most cases they have to write and telegraph numbers of times before they get the goods through. The Minister may say again that that could be avoided by having a warehouse in Dublin that would supply every conceivable part of motor cars. That, of course, would be for the benefit of his department, if it was possible to import every kind of spare part and keep them by the dozens in stock, but when you consider the various makes of cars and the various types of different makes, and the great variety of such parts it is not practicable. Again, we cannot make these parts in our own State. There is no factory or special workmen, or special tools, that are necessary for turning out all the multitudinous and complex parts that make up the motor of the present day. The duty was never imposed by an Irish Parliament for Irish purposes. Is was imposed as a British Protective duty and a British war duty, and the British themselves are tired of it. There is no justification for it, except for revenue, and the justification of revenue is hardly sufficient in the face of the inconvenience it causes. It is essentially a tax upon progress and on inter-communication. It is a tax on getting about the country and keeps people from getting to know each other better, and as such it is an anti-social tax. While not moving any amendment, I hope, when the Minister for Finance introduces his next Budget this tax will have disappeared from it.
The new import duties are duties commonly called the McKenna duties—that is, duties on imported motor cars and cycles, clocks and watches, musical instruments and cinematograph films. The duties are thirty-three and one-third per cent. ad valorem, except on films. The duties on films are ½d. per foot on blank film; 1d. per foot on positives, and 5d. per foot on negatives. I think it is usually positives that are imported here. This duty on imported motor cars, which is the principal one, is really a revenue duty. It is really a revenue duty in this country, and a quite good revenue duty, comparatively easy to collect. It does not affect the very poorest people. It affects people who can afford more or less to pay it, and it yields a fairly substantial sum. It yields as much as 2½d. per 1b. on tea would yield. It seems, since we cannot reduce taxation, a good kind of tax to keep, although we did not devise it. For the reasons I have already stated in regard to musical instruments, it is not a practical proposition to allow the parts in free while charging on the cars. You would have this sort of partial dissection of cars taking place. Certain parts would be taken out and put in again, and the removing and the replacement of these parts would not give much employment. You would have cars sent over minus these parts, and it would be more difficult to get the value of the car if certain parts were taken out, than it would be when the whole car is sent in at the regulated schedule price. It would in every way increase the difficulty, and we have no ground for thinking that it would lead to any appreciable increase in employment. It is really, for all practical purposes, impossible to limit the duties on parts while retaining the duties on complete cars. I do not suggest if you take one wheel off, it would be a part, and that it would be admitted duty free, or that the car with three wheels would come in and be admitted free, but you are always up against that difficulty. I do not see any reason why wheels should not be taken off, and the duty then would be so much less, because the wheels would be imported separately. There is no reason why that should be done. With regard to the very small parts, it is possible, administratively, to get over the difficulty. It is possible to admit parts of the value of less than half a crown, and I think that would meet the case of those people having to complain of a half-crown duty on nuts value 6d. Very small parts could be admitted duty free. I do not feel that we can afford to drop this tax. It certainly would be good for the country in many ways if we could have more use of motor cars for transport and travel, but we cannot afford it, and so long as we import motor cars we really must keep on the tax.
It was my intention to raise this matter of the tax upon motor-cars, but, like Deputy Bryan Cooper, I was in a position of perhaps even greater difficulty by being in the dark as to what procedure I should take and where I would get the necessary information. One would require to employ a lawyer conversant with the tax laws of this country. I would like to support Deputy Cooper's suggestion that this information should be given by way of footnotes, or otherwise made plain to the ordinary Deputies who have not got books to consult, to find out what this resolution refers to. I cannot agree with the Minister's statement that the tax upon motor-cars does not affect the poor people in this country—or comparatively poor people, or that it is in any sense a luxury tax. My experience of motor-cars in the country is that ninety per cent. of the cars are used for business purposes. I think it is not the same in the city, where the cars are used for pleasure, but in the country most of the cars are used for business, and it is a ridiculous thing that we will have to pay 33? per cent. higher price for American cars in Ireland than the Englishman will have to pay when these duties are removed in England. Deputy Cooper has said it is purely a revenue duty; there is no car-manufacturing firm in Ireland, there is no prospect of one being established, and it is, in my opinion, the wrong type of revenue tax. I think a great boon would be conferred on business and a great fillip given to the advancement of the industry in the country if the Ministry could see their way to remove these McKenna duties, particularly on motor-cars. It is my intention, if I have the right to do so, to introduce an amendment at a later stage to have this removed. Will I be in order in doing so?
Yes. The Deputy will always be in order in moving to reduce taxation.
With regard to the free importation of spare parts I think that the obstacles put by the Minister are not reasonable obstacles. I think it is not likely that a car with the magneto taken out would be regarded as a spare part, and I think that the exemption up to 2s. 6d. is absolutely ridiculous. I do not know what part of a motor cycle or motor car could be got for 2s. 6d.; nothing worth talking about except some of the very cheapest parts of a Ford car, and I think that safeguards could easily be made by the Treasury which would prevent the importation in large quantities of spare parts for the purpose of assembling cars, and matters of that kind. Anyhow, I think the Minister should make the exemption line a good deal higher, say a pound—that any spare part to the value of £1 or under might be allowed in free. I know that this is hampering trade enormously. You get your motor car or motor cycle broken down, or some little part goes, say, in the case of a Douglas motor cycle—and you send away for it. I cannot tell you what the difficulties are and have been, but it takes weeks and weeks before you get the part, and you have to hire cars and go to a great deal of expense because of some comparatively unimportant part, valued for about 5s. or 8s. I think that the Minister ought seriously to consider this suggestion.
I do not think that the Minister's principal objection to Deputy Cooper's suggestion is really valid. It seems to me to be perfectly easy for the Government or for the Minister to make a list of parts which could be introduced duty free, and these articles could come in without in the least interfering with the collection of the tax on the main article. Some such plan as that, I think, is adapted in other matters, and it would be quite easy for the Minister to get over the difficulty which he seems to have in this respect. There can be no two opinions as to the serious disabilities that are put on certain people by reason of this tax, and admitting that the tax is a revenue tax, I think that necessitates the removal of this tax on parts. The revenue tax has been exacted once, and it is hardly fair that, because of some other tax, the owner of the motor car or motor cycle should be prevented from getting the use of an article on which he has already paid the tax. I would like to support strongly what Deputy Cooper has urged, and I think that the technical difficulty which the Minister would have in carrying out these suggestions could really be got over very easily.
I agree with Deputy Heffernan——
This is the second speech by Deputy Cooper.
Am I not allowed to speak three times?
If Deputy Cooper is to conclude, I will allow him to speak again.
Is Deputy Cooper moving an amendment?
No; I was mistaken.
I want to support Deputy Cooper's plea for information as to the yield of these various taxes. I think the Minister promised, when we were dealing with these Resolutions in Committee, that he would provide Deputies with the information that was provided last year as to the estimated yield of duties on the main commodities, tobacco, sugar, tea, spirits and wine, but we have not got that. I would further suggest that we might well be provided with information as to the yield for last year of the various items that are represented by these Resolutions. In regard to the motor accessories, I think that a case is made for some relaxation of the present rules and impediments against the importation of what are, in fact, easily distinguishable as accessories. But I am not prepared to agree with much that has been said regarding parts of motor cars. If it is true that the duties on these various commodities in this Resolution are worth what 2½d. per pound on tea is worth, that is a very considerable item, and if it were doubled and would produce 5d. it might possibly be utilised to reduce the duty on sugar, which would be very much more valuable to the community. When I see three or four cars, semi-luxurious and luxurious, I say to myself: "There goes a workman's house," and if people say that they are only used for business, well, they are saying that which they know is not quite accurate. Not even 90 per cent. of them are used for business. One does not speak of going down from one's house to one's shop or office in a motor car as using it for business, and I think when one considers the value of these cars, the cost of them, and reckons the social effect of large numbers, as there are in this country, of luxurious cars upon the people who have to live in very dilapidated houses, he will realise that it has not quite a happy social, effect. It may be convenient for the user of the car, and, no doubt, it is, but when one sees luxurious cars on the one hand, and these dilapidated houses and slums all round, and hears it said: "You cannot afford this, and you cannot afford that," well, it leads to very evil thoughts many a time.
I will allow Deputy Cooper to speak a second time.
The only thing I wish to say is that I support Deputy Heffernan's suggestion that £1 would be a much fairer limit than 2s. 6d., and I would ask the Minister whether he would be willing to consult with the motor trade as to the manner in which these duties on accessories might be made less onerous. They complain very bitterly that these duties have been imposed without any consultation with them at all, and I think that if the Minister would be willing to enter into consultation with the Motor Agents' Association the results would be satisfactory to both sides. At the same time I am not profoundly convinced that it passes the wit of man to devise some means by which cars would be brought in without having missing parts assembled here. Surely there is one essential part of a motor-car, and that is the engine. Why not tax the engine and allow the other accessories to come in free? I admit that there are things in the engine that would probably have to be taxed that might otherwise escape. I am making this suggestion without consultation; I am only suggesting that there might be some part of a motor-car so essential that there should be a tax on it, and that the remaining accessories should come in duty free—put a tax, if necessary, on a higher scale on the engine, back axle, or something like that. I agree with a good deal of what Deputy Johnson has said. I have always regarded the motor trade as the greatest agent for Socialism in the world, but I hope that when Deputy Johnson sees a car go by he will not say, "There is a workman's house," but, "There is a job for a workman," because the motor-car gives a very large amount of employment, and if all motor-cars were abolished by statute to-morrow there would be a great many people out of jobs.
They might be building houses.
They might, and a very bad house a motor mechanic would build. Deputy Johnson has tempted me into evil courses, and I will follow him no further but will sit down.
I would like to explain that I was a little bit confused about these duties owing to the fact that the McKenna duties have been talked about so much in England, for I realise that the duties are not similar now, and that the results of my suggestion would be that the expensive English car would be allowed in free. My intention was that the relaxation should apply to the cheaper American cars. These cars I am speaking of are used almost exclusively for business purposes. Incidentally, I am largely in agreement with what Deputy Johnson says. I am of opinion that the luxurious motor car rolling through our streets is one of the greatest causes of social ill-feeling and class-feeling. It was the same thing in England after the war when the profiteers were rolling about in their Rolls-Royces. I think a tax of 50 per cent. should be put on these cars, but my suggestion is that the tax should be removed off the cars, such as hackney cars, cars used for earning a living, and cars used by people in positions like myself, and people of a similar capacity who are purely working people, and who should not pay this tax in addition, to the very excessive tax every year for road purposes.
I do not agree with the member of my party at all. You either have or have not a method of dealing with people of certain incomes. Your income tax is framed to deal with that sort of thing. Why invent another means of penalising people? Why not do it direct under the Income Tax Act? Let Deputy Heffernan or anybody else put any imposition he thinks is right on himself, but do not begin in another form. If a man is fool enough to get a better car than his neighbour why should he not be allowed to get it? I do not agree with Deputy Heffernan at all. I agree with his suggestion that it is most vexations to charge duty on an article value for 2/6. You would not get anything that matters for 2/6, and it is simply an aggravation to be putting on a tax on parts to the value of 2/6. I do not know what part of a car you could buy for that You could scarcely buy a patch for a puncture. I think the Minister would be very well advised to take into consultation some representatives of the trade in this matter. They might, perhaps, help him to impose fairer and less vexatious duties, and they are vexatious.
Deputy Heffernan speaks evidently without knowledge of the motor trade, or of the operation of these taxes, as he generally does on most topics in the Dáil. The car which is so much in evidence in the streets and roads of Ireland he speaks of as an American car. There are cars of quite another nationality altogether in very general use better than the car he has in view, let me say without intending to give an unpaid advertisement. For example, the greatest of all the manufacturing firms in America, or at least the largest combine with the largest capital, is the General Motors Company. It makes the Chevriolet in Canada so as to get the benefit of the Imperial preference when the car comes to be imported here. Its other cars are made, some in Cleveland, some in Detroit, and some in Michigan, according to the type of car. The car that is coming most into Ireland at the moment, coming with such rapidity that, though it is a French car, it has to find its exit through the port of Antwerp by steamer, is the Citroen car, altogether French. So, also, is it a fact that cars of Italian origin are in very large use. In this particular discussion there are two things in question, the import duty upon the car as a ready-to-drive-away car, and the duty on what are known technically as "spares." Deputy Heffernan gave me the impression that he wanted to have the duty on the importation of cars removed altogether. It is very rare that one is a prophet, and that later events carry out the prophecy. I supported this tax when it was imposed in the expectation that the Irish buyer of the car would not be called upon to pay the whole tax, and possibly would not be called upon to pay any of it whatsover, and that is what has happened. In the case of the most expensive cars, the Wolseley, for instance, the makers, Vickers, of steel fame, who are behind the Wolseley Company, pay 80 per cent. of the Free State duty; the Rover Car Company pay the whole of it; until recently the Crossley Car Company paid the whole duty, and it is only because they have got an enormous order from Australia that they now find the Irish market of such little value to them that they have raised their price £50 on the lower powered cars. By paying this tax we are making the British manufacturers contribute to our revenue, and in that way the balance is being redressed, if even only to a small degree. Where the thing really presses harshly is in the case of spares, and to this the Minister's answer does not apply at all, because without having to answer the conundrum—When is a motor-car not a motor-car?—it is easy in the case of a motor-car already registered and the licence paid for it in the Free State, to make it possible when a repair is being made by putting in a part that is broken or missing, or out of order, to have authority to bring in the duplicate of that part free of tax. That is a different proposition, and that would remove the grievance that is felt in all the repairing places all over the country. As a matter of fact, the revenue to be derived from that is very disproportionate to the amount of blasphemy and dissatisfaction caused by the present method. I would plead with the Minister to keep on the tax on the entire motor-car; if he does not increase it to keep it at what it is, but to spare the spares.
Mr. HEFFERNAN rose.
The Deputy has a right to speak only once.
I do not think it is fair that a Deputy should have the right to make a personal statement about another Deputy, and that Deputy should not get a chance to reply.
I did not hear any personal statements made. Would the Deputy say what they were?
Deputy Magennis said I spoke with the usual lack of knowledge. If that is not a personal statement I do not know what a personal statement is.
On a point of order, that is not a personal statement within the meaning of those things technically. It is a reflection on the method of the Deputy qua Deputy.
My duties are sufficiently onerous as they are without having to stop Deputies from making statements which other Deputies might possibly object to. I do not think it is unparliamentary to say that a Deputy is ignorant on a subject on which he speaks. It has been said frequently, and I do not think it is possible to rule that it was a thing that should not be said. There is a saying in County Monaghan, "It could happen."
I am quite willing to hear anything that the motor trade can put up. I would be very glad to hear anything that might be put up in a reasonable spirit. Of course, if they come along simply with the idea of taking the tax off altogether, or asking for any radical change, we would not be able to get very far. The yield on parts at present is something like £34,000 a year, but I am afraid if any change were made we would lose in revenue, not merely £34,000 a year, but probably £100,000 a year; and we certainly could not afford that. It might be possible to devise some concession that would cost very little and would really facilitate matters, and perhaps encourage more people, to buy motors and pay more taxes. Of course, that would be good, and I would be glad to hear suggestions along those lines.
Question put, and agreed to.
Before we proceed, I should like to mention that we are not in Committee. These resolutions were adopted in Committee and are now reported to the Dáil. Any Deputy, therefore, who now speaks, has only the right to make one speech. On the last motion of agreement with Resolution No. 2, I allowed Deputy Cooper to make a second speech, as he had made a very brief speech on a previous occasion and was under a misapprehension. Of course, a Deputy can always be allowed to make a second speech by general agreement, but the point is that one speech is the strict letter of the law.
I hope always to make brief speeches, but it is within my recollection that when these resolutions were in Committee you suggested that we should only speak once. That suggestion was almost invariably complied with, but I think at the time you suggested that we might have more latitude on a later occasion.
I should be very much surprised if I made any such suggestion. My recollection is that in Committee I stated, when we were discussing Resolution No. 19, which involved by agreement the whole question of Protection and of the Minister's financial statement with regard to taxation generally, that I would not keep the Deputies to the ten minutes' limit, but that I hoped, seeing that they would have further opportunities, to the number of six, they would not think fit to exercise their right of making more than one speech. It was a question of the number of opportunities, and from that point of view there are still five to go after this.
Could we have greater latitude than you gave us?
I am afraid not.
RESOLUTION No. 3.
(CUSTOMS).
(1) That a customs duty at the rate of three and three-fifths pence on the pound shall be charged, levied, and paid on all sugar confectionery imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 26th day of April, 1924, in addition to any duty which may be chargeable in respect of any spirits contained in such sugar confectionery but in lieu of any duty which might otherwise be chargeable on any other ingredient contained in sugar confectionery.
(2) In this Resolution the expression "sugar confectionery" means confectionery made from or containing sugar or other sweetening matter and not containing cocoa or spirits, and includes breads, cakes, cake mixtures, puddings and powders (other than medicinal powders) sweetened with sugar or any other sweetening matter except saccharin, and not containing cocoa, and also sweetmeats, caramel, jams, marmalades, and jellies not containing cocoa or saccharin, and also peels and fruits candied, crystallized or otherwise preserved with sugar or any other sweetening matter except saccharin and not containing cocoa.
(3) The provisions of Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1919, shall apply to the duty mentioned in this Resolution, with the substitution of the expression "Saorstát Eireann" for the expression "Great Britain and Ireland," and as though sugar confectionery as defined in this Resolution were included in the Second Schedule, to that Act in the list of goods to which five-sixths of the full rate is made applicable as a preferential rate.
There is an amendment by Deputy Cooper about which I had some difficulty, but as the duty on sugar is very much bound up with the duty on confectionery. I will allow Deputy Cooper's amendment.
I hope nobody will say that I am trying to obstruct the proceedings. I do not wish to do so, or to try and protract the proceedings unduly. Provided the matter gets fair treatment I will make my speeches as short as possible. The amendment I have tabled is:—
"That the Dáil declines to agree with this Resolution until some reduction is made in the Customs duty on sugar."
That is to say, that we shall not proceed to tax confectionery until the sugar duty is reduced. I have put it down because I think the Minister should explain to us why, when he is levying a tax, and a comparatively high tax, on confectionery, he did not select sugar for remission instead of tea. We were told last week, by a better authority than myself, by Deputy Sir James Craig, that tea is a stimulant and sugar is an essential food. I should go further than saying it is a stimulant. I should say tea is a drug, and, like other drugs, most powerful when taken strong. I was horrified when the Minister for Education had the effrontery to admit that he was in the habit of drugging himself five times a day. Only the powerful brain and the powerful frame of the Minister for Education could survive such a course. I hope his example will not be followed by the weaker deputies in the Dáil. Sugar is especially necessary for children. I am sorry Deputy Sir James Craig has left his place, because he speaks with great authority. But I know it is the case that growing children require to have a certain amount of sugar. They must have it; and as a rule they prefer to have it in the form of confectionery. If they do not get confectionery, as in the country districts where it is not easy to buy sweets, they take brown sugar on a piece of bread and butter. The brown sugar is going to be as dear as before, confectionery is going to be dearer, the general cost of living is going to go up, and it is going to be harder for the mother or father of those children to supply the sugar that is needed. This duty will reduce the amount of consumption of confectionery, if the price of confectionery goes up, as I fancy it will. I do not think our Irish factories produce anything like the confectionery that is consumed in the Saorstát at the present time. That is not only going to be bad for the children, but it is going to be bad for business, but not the kind of business that Deputy Hewat is most interested in, or the kind of business that the Chambers of Commerce or the big companies are interested in. The Minister must not be mislead by what he sees when he walks down Grafton Street. There are four or five big shops in Dublin which sell confectionery, but the great bulk of the confectionery sold throughout the country is sold in little shops— shops that sell a little confectionery, a few newspapers, and a few oddments that the neighbours need.
A DEPUTY
And candles.
Sweetness and light—and enlightenment if they sell newspapers as well. Those shops are not limited companies. They have no great amount of capital at their back. There will be a falling off in their takings as a result of the imposition of this duty, and that is a very serious matter to the one man shopkeeper; very often it is one woman who keeps a small shop and tries to make a living. I do not know whether the Minister had that in mind before he decided to continue the sugar duty at its normal scale, and levy a duty on confectionery. It is a very old maxim that a wise Minister for Finance, when putting on taxes, tries to see that taxation will not interfere too much with the lives of the ordinary people. That is a maxim that in the stress of war has been violated a good deal, but I do not know that there is any real case for making fresh violations of it, as in this instance, where he interferes not only with the lives of the voters, who can show their resentment, but with those who are not yet voters and have no power to express themselves at the polls. I shall be told, no doubt, by the Minister that this duty is protective; it is to protect the Irish confectionery manufacturer.
I should say that if there was ever a trade in which there was what might be called "natural protection," it is the confectionery trade, because confectionery is extremely bulky in proportion to its value. It is bulky and heavy on the whole in proportion to the price charged for it, with the result that the cost of freight, the cost of shipping and the general cost of sending it into this country, is proportionately higher than for goods of greater value. If the Irish confectionery manufacturer had proper organisation and did his business in a thoroughly intelligent way, he ought to be able to compete with the cross-Channel manufacturer and put him out of the field. In any case, this duty is not a protective duty. It was a protective duty when introduced. But in the interval the reduction in the sugar tax in England has removed the protection.
No.
I am glad to hear that. That was my impression. I thought the English manufacturer would be able to buy the sugar more cheaply. He may, perhaps, have got a drawback in the past.
Yes.
Then I will not labour that point. But I would urge that the lives of the ordinary people should be interfered with as little as possible. There are things in respect of which the Minister for Finance has to be like an elephant, with a trunk that will pull down a tree or pick up a pin. But there are things which are almost too trivial even for the trunk of an elephant. And when it comes to a question of the Minister for Finance putting duty on "Peggy's leg" we have reached that point.
I second the amendment. I do so because I think the Minister ought, in the reconstruction of his tariff system, to have moved in the direction of reducing considerably the duties upon tea and sugar and what may be called "necessaries." The Minister has moved somewhat in that direction in respect of tea. He says he has made that reduction by the imposition of taxes imposed upon other manufactured goods. I do not want to argue the case that it would be better to reduce the tax on sugar than the tax on tea, though I think it would be better. I believe, with Deputy Bryan Cooper, that this tax upon confectionery should be accompanied by a reduction in the duty upon sugar and that the Minister should find some other way of recouping himself for the loss involved in the reduction of duty on sugar.
Unfortunately for the purposes of discussion at this stage, at any rate, there is no motion. It is not necessary to put down any motion to impose a duty upon sugar, because that was a continuous duty and, therefore, we are not able to express our views directly upon the present rate of duty. But Deputy Cooper has found a method whereby we can express our views upon the present rate upon sugar, by calling attention to the effect of retaining the duty upon sugar and adding to the duty upon confectionery. I agree with Deputy Cooper that this means much more than a mere addition to the luxury taxes. If one only thinks of half-crown boxes of chocolate, nothing can be said against this increased duty. But one has to think in terms of penny-worths of lollypops, bought in the huxter's shop by the poorest of children. There is, too, a very considerable consumption of confectionery, not only in the form of sweetmeats but in other forms, that will be affected by this Resolution, all of which enter into the regular consumption of the workman's household. It means, therefore, adding to the burden which has already been placed upon that household through the direct sugar duty. On these grounds, I will support this amendment and ask the House to divide on it, because I think it necessary that there should be a reduction in the duty on sugar and that the Minister should find some other way of retrieving the loss which such a reduction would cost.
I do not think the last two speakers made their case quite clear. They insisted that this affected the poorer class of sweet. I think Deputy Cooper went along the lines that natural protection existed, so that this class of confectionery would not be liable to this particular tax. That is to say, the imposition of this particular duty on confectionery would not give any reason for raising the prices of the poorer class of sweet, seeing that it is made already in this country and that it is not imported.
We did take into consideration, when considering the yield the Budget tax would be likely to give, whether a remission should be made in the tea tax or the sugar tax. We felt that it would be more desirable to make it in the sugar tax if possible. But we were faced with the fact that a farthing in the lb. reduction on sugar would cost £200,000. If we had to reduce the sugar tax by a farthing in the lb., there was a great likelihood, we felt, that it would not reach the consumer at all and that we should simply have forfeited that amount of revenue, without having benefited the people. A halfpenny in the lb. reduction would have cost £400,000. We did not feel we could afford to lose so much revenue, because it has to be remembered that a tax like the boot tax, if the policy of experimental protection is to be effective at all, will yield us less in the coming year than it will yield this year, and we still have a deficit in our Budget which we hope to meet by reducing expenditure. We could hardly hope to balance our Budget if we at present began to reduce taxation, and we cannot make reductions this year, in view of a temporary yield, without having regard to the possibility, and in fact the certainty, of that temporary yield being a great deal less next year. If we could say we would get £300,000 from the boot tax this year and that we were likely to get £350,000 next year, we might have gone ahead and reduced the sugar tax by a ½d. in the lb. and said: "It seems a little more than we can afford but we hope the boot tax will do well and we can risk it."
But we had to face the fact that the boot tax, instead of yielding £300,000, might only yield £200,000, so that it was impossible for us to feel justified in reducing the sugar tax by ½d., and we felt it was not worth while reducing it by a farthing, in view of the possibility that the reduction might not reach the consumer. The sort of sweets sold in the huxters' shops are more or less boiled sweets—the common, ordinary boiled sugar sweet. The amount of extra duty that will fall on boiled sweets is only a halfpenny in the lb. I do not think that is going to affect the purchasers very much. There is no reason why it should. Even if the present makers of boiled sweets have not been turning out anything like the full amount of consumption, it is the kind of sweet it is possible for almost anybody, who can buy a pot and some sugar, to start manufacturing. There is really no reason at all why the cheaper sort of sweets should increase in price as a result of this Protection.
Has the Minister considered the very considerable quantity of cheap cakes which are imported, especially in the North of Ireland, and more especially in Donegal?
In the case of cheap cakes, there is no doubt that the importation must be stopped. But, again, that is the type of manufacture that can be very easily started in this country. No expensive machinery is required. It can quite easily be started. Even if exactly the same type of cake cannot be made here as has been imported, or cannot easily be made, something equivalent can quite easily be produced, and there is no reason why, in that matter, there should be any hardship on the consumer.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 38.
Tá
- Earnán Altún.
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- John Conlan.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Connor Hogan.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Patrick McKenna.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Tadhg S. O Donnabháin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Seán O Duinnin.
- Donchadh S. O Guaire.
- Mícheál R. O hIfearnáin.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg P. O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Níl
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Séamus Breathnach.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Proinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean Uí
- Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Henry J. Finlay.
- John Good.
- Peadar Mac a' Bháird.
- Seosamh Mac a Bhrighde.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Próinsias O Cathail.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus N. O Dóláin.
- Peadar S. O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Pádraig O Máille.
- James O'Mara.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
- Seán Príomhdhail.
- Liam Thrift.
- Pádraig S. Mag Ualghairg.
Amendment declared lost.
I beg to move:—
In Resolution 3 (2), line 45, to delete the word "spirits" and substitute in lieu thereof the word "saccharin."
This amendment is to correct a mere clerical error. It is already provided in sub-section (1) of the Resolution that it shall be in addition to any duty chargeable on spirits, and in line 45 it should have read "not containing cocoa or saccharin." We desire to retain the saccharin duty itself on any article that contains saccharin.
Amendment put and agreed to.
AN LEAS-CHEANN COMHAIRLE took the Chair at this stage.
I beg to move:—
In Resolution 3 (2), line 46, after the word "breads" to insert the word "biscuits."
That is to repair an accidental omission.
Amendment put and agreed to.
I beg to move:—
In Resolution No. 3 (2), after the word "fruits," in line 51, to insert the words "(other than fruits in syrup enclosed in sealed tins or cans").
In other words, this is to exempt from the duty on confectionery what is commonly known as tinned fruit. I do not believe when we were discussing this Resolution about a fortnight ago that anybody realised that "confectionery" included the ordinary tinned fruits, peaches, pineapples and so on. I know I did not. I know some members of the Executive Council did not, and I have a very strong suspicion that even the Minister did not know, because, if he did know, why did he hastily rush into debate a few days later and announce a reduction in the duty on this particular item? This is, I think, a piece of drafting that is wholly unintentional and is imposing an absolutely unnecessary duty. I hope when the Minister speaks he will tell us what is the purpose of this duty. Is it a protective tariff? Is the duty to protect an Irish industry—the Irish industry of tinned pineapples? Somewhere in the country I suppose there are pineapples growing—I do not know where. Possibly somewhere between Ballybay and Glasslough, in the Minister's constituency, there is a tinned pineapple industry, and the Minister therefore imposes a flat rate duty in order to protect it. He has heard the plea of the pineapple, the still, small voice of the pineapple crying out for protection, and he has rushed to its rescue. The unfortunate Irish pineapple, that nobody ever heard of before, is now going to be protected by the Minister. Really, if this is a protective duty it is ludicrous. There is no Irish fruit canning industry at the moment and there is never likely to be one, for the simple reason that in the kind of fruits that are canned—pineapples, peaches and pears —we never can compete with California. The climate and the conditions in California, and the plant and the capital invested are such as to defy Irish competition. We never could compete. The only thing we could possibly can at all is apples, and the demand for them is a very small one, because apples travel easily and can be imported with ease in barrels. As regards these other things, we are never going to set up an Irish industry in them—of that I am confident.
If the purpose is not protection what is it? Is it revenue? If it is revenue I am utterly and unalterably opposed to putting a revenue on cheap and wholesome foods. If I had to put a revenue duty on food of any kind, I would rather put a revenue duty on butter or bacon, because we can and ought to produce them ourselves. Tinned fruit is in the average household as much an essential as butter or bacon. What is more, I will say it is a godsend to the housewife. I do not know to what extent tinned fruit is used in the country districts. I do know that when I took stock once of a co-operative store that the great bulk of the stock was tins of fruit and pots of jam. I believe that the farmer in the country districts, particularly the small farmer, does buy tinned fruit to a comparatively large extent. I do know that in the City and suburbs of the City, to the housewife, to the wife of the clerk and the minor Civil Servant, and of people of that kind, who is trying to carry on her house with her own work, and perhaps with the aid of one charwoman in the morning, who is trying to look nice and keep things well, this tinned fruit is absolutely the greatest blessing ever made, because it needs no cooking and leaves no debris. She can turn out chunks of pineapple or pears, and she has some little dessert which gives no trouble. Without lighting the fire she can have cold meat and a little salad for her husband and perhaps for a friend he brings with him. Anything that injures that is really an injury to the house pride and the self-respect in people who desire to live on a better scale than they are living. If the Minister is going to tax tinned fruit I contend that he has chosen the worst way to do it, because he has put on a flat rate which will fall most heavily upon the poorest people. In regard to first quality he has doubled the tax, while in regard to second he has multiplied the tax seven times. If you must graduate the tax and have a tax on that scale, even I agree with Deputy Johnson on that, that the poorest quality used by the poorest people should be taxed lowest. This discrimination against people who buy the cheapest quality, apart from the question of flat rate, makes it an injurious tax. I do not believe it is a considered tax on the part of the Ministry, and I beg of them if they have made a mistake to remit it. It is not going to bring in a great amount of revenue, because people will give up using tinned fruit, and it is going to cause inconvenience to innumerable households.
The Minister did make a concession on this proposal, though it does not appear in any amendment which I have seen. Assuming that the concession is to continue, on an illustration that was given to me of an actual concrete case, the duty, which would have been £1 3s. for a certain consignment, according to the original proposition would have been raised to £12 6s. 11d., and after the concession had been granted it still was £4 7s. 1d. That was an increase from £1 to £4. I do not think that the method of allocation of this duty is satisfactory. It is fruit in syrup, and the syrup is very, very thin. It is sweetened water to a great extent. The amount of fruit in the tin is comparatively small so far as weight goes. The weight is in the liquid, and when one is putting a tax upon confectionery per lb., one has to consider the effect of that upon a particular commodity. You cannot compare, for the purposes of taxation, tinned fruit and syrup with jam. The amount of fruit you are putting a tax upon or the amount of sugar you are putting a tax upon cannot be measured by the amount of water in the tin. Increasing the tax upon this food commodity by 300 per cent. made it in effect four times what it was before. That is very excessive and has not been justified. As Deputy Cooper pointed out, it is not pretended that it is going to be protective.
People do not substitute for tinned fruit, jam. It stands out by itself and it is not, I think, sufficient to say that the Irish manufacturers of confectionery can produce something which will act as a substitute for tinned fruits which are in fact to be prohibited or greatly increased in price. The only other justification would be revenue. We have not heard any statement as to what the estimated revenue from this particular duty would be. We do not know whether it is likely to be worth the cost of collection or whether it is likely to be detrimental to consumption to such an extent as to reduce the amount consumed to any great degree. I imagine it will have a considerable effect on consumption and that the value of the revenue will be much less than might be otherwise anticipated. It is, again, another food tax, a tax which is not to any extent protective. It may be said that it is a luxury tax which may be felt more by the middle class or the semi-professional class, the lower professional class of the community or the artisan who wants to keep a decent table occasionally, to invite friends and to have tinned fruit. All this seems to point to the necessity of reducing the number of taxes of this kind unless you can show there is value to be gained worth the tax. I think a duty is imposed on the Minister to see whether the duty will be worth the imposition and whether he can get that revenue by other means than this. To lose that sense of satisfaction to which Deputy Cooper has referred is a very considerable item affecting the whole question of the home. I support, subject to any answer the Minister may make, the contention of Deputy Cooper that this tax ought not to be imposed in this form and that there should be no change in the method of taxation which hitherto taxed fruits in syrup on the basis of their sugar content. The new method is multiplying the tax by four times even after the concession has been made. That, I think, is extravagant, and quite unjustified so far as the Minister has attempted to justify it.
If I were to explain the views held by us on these benches I would say that all those taxes are an abomination, because we feel that while this particular industry here, and that there, is being guaranteed under Protection, no protection is granted to our industry. This particular tax has not the virtue of being a protective one, we are told, and then I began to wonder what the object of the tax is. It struck me perhaps it was in order to relieve fishermen in Baltimore, who are exporting mackerel to America, and that this tax is being used against Californian fruit as a quid pro quo to reduce the tax on dried fish. Having formed that idea, I saw that the Minister reduced the tax from three three-fifths to something else, and so I saw the first idea was wrong. I now wonder why he is rising the cost of living by a tax which does not protect anyone, and which hurts us by raising the cost of living.
One of the arguments the Minister used in favour of the tax is the readiness with which those matters can be handled. I suggest to the Minister a few commodities that can be handled, not by the tin, but by the hundredweight. I suggest a tax on foreign bacon, on New Zealand butter, or any similar commodity produced in this country. We do not produce cocoanuts, and we do want protection for some of the things we produce. We produce bacon, butter, and several other things. It would meet his viewpoint in several directions, I think it will meet our point of view, if the tariff is placed on the import of those things. It will be protecting a native industry. I recommend this to the Minister as an effective method, and as something which will bring some good to the country.
I have already stated that I felt, in the matter of these fruits and syrup, that a concession should be made, and I propose to introduce a clause in the Finance Bill giving that concession. This particular sugar confectionery duty was devised for two purposes. One was to afford protection, and in that respect we have not canned fruits in mind. The other was to simplify collection. I would be opposed to going back to the duty on sugar in regard to these canned fruits. I have already been informed that the imposition of a flat rate of duty on confectionery of all kinds has relieved the staffs and simplified the work. The collection of a duty such as this on the basis of the sugar contained is unduly costly and troublesome, and I feel it is most desirable that we should retain the flat rate of duty. I recognised the full rate of 3d. was too high in these matters. I am willing to make any concession, by way of reduction, that can be made consistent with the Revenue aspect of the case. I suggested the reduction of two-thirds of the duty. I am not sure it can be made any lower. If on investigation I find it can, without endangering the Revenue, I would be quite willing to make it lower. I do not feel it is necessary to do more this year than we can do without the trouble of discrimination involved in the old methods. The tax will be low, and it will not involve any great addition to the price of a tin of canned fruits. There is no particular reason why we should think of pineapple when we are thinking of fruits and syrup. There is considerable use of bottled plums, gooseberries and raspberries.
I have not introduced the question of bottles into this amendment at all. It has nothing to do with the amendment.
The bottled fruit would have to compete with the tinned fruit. If you are dealing with protection you must tax frequently the substitutes that would supplant the article taxed. If bottled fruit can be produced at something like the same price that those foreign fruits of other parts can be imported and sold at, there is no particular harm done, from the point of view of the cost of living and of the consumer, if these be a small increase on the foreign fruit. I think that on this matter a case could be made out for some slight degree of protection. That is not what we were aiming at when we included the tinned fruits in this resolution and brought them under the confectionery tax. We were aiming at the simplification of collection and getting rid of the analysis that was required. I think that, just as in the case of tea, a flat duty should be imposed. Tea of the cheapest variety has to pay a duty the same as the dearest, if we leave out the distinction between Indian and China tea. The cheapest brand of Indian tea has to pay the same duty as the dearest. You may argue that is unjust and that it would be ideal to have an ad valorem duty for some time, but from the point of view of dealing with it, from the administrative point of view, a flat duty has been imposed and is easier to deal with. In dealing with tinned fruit it will save time to have the flat rate of duty. I cannot suggest any figure that would be saved, but something would be saved. A great deal of trouble would be saved, and I think it is desirable that a flat rate of duty should stand. Whatever concession can be made in the reduction of flat rates so that we will not let in fruits at a lower rate than under the sugar duty, I am prepared to grant.
As mover of the amendment, have I the right to reply?
The mover of a motion has, but the mover of an amendment has not.
Reference has been made to tea. It was said in an earlier discussion that the duty on tea would be 2½d. a lb. down. I know that during the earlier discussion Deputy Wilson totted up figures and came to the conclusion that it was two and the one-sixth pennies in the pound. The result of that is that there were notices up to-day in some shops to the effect that tea will be reduced 2d. in the lb. I know other shops where no notices have been put up. When they were asked in the shops to-day as to the price of tea the reply was that what was 2/6 in the lb. would now be 2/4. I ask the Minister whether he is prepared to see that this reduction of 2½d. in the lb. in Indian tea will reach the consumer.
Will the Minister tell us exactly how this proposed reduced duty will affect the prices? I refer to tinned fruit. I have before me a statement showing the enormous increase in the prices if the old duties were maintained. I do not know if I am correct in dividing the increase on the old duty or taking one-third of the increase of the former duty which the Minister proposed. Even at that rate, it seems to me to make an extraordinary difference in the charge for tinned fruit in the Free State as against the same tinned fruit in Northern Ireland. Now, if the figures as I have them are correct, the first grade, that is, the fancy grade, in which there is 20 per cent. of sugar, would be taxed as follows:— The old tariff, even before the reduced duty was put on, was 5/- and 1-6th of a penny per cwt. That will be increased by 9/6 per cwt., and that means that the entire duty on that article will be about 14/7 per cwt. The entire duty on the same article after July 1st in Ulster will be 2/4. If we take the second item on the schedule—choice tinned fruits, which, I understand, contain 15 per cent. of sugar—the former duty was 3/10 per cwt. The additional duty works out at practically 10/-, and that means that the entire duty in the future will be 13/10 per cwt., in the Free State, as against 1/9 in Northern Ireland. Take the third item on the schedule, standards which contain ten per cent. of sugar; they were charged at 2/6 per cwt. before the new duty was put on. That duty amounts to 10/4, which means that the charge will be 12/10 in the Free State, as against 1/2 in Northern Ireland. Take the articles mentioned in the last item, which contain only 5 per cent. of sugar, the former charge was 1/3; the new duty amounts to 10/9, and that means that the charge will be 12/- per cwt. in the Free State as against 7d. in Northern Ireland. There is something extraordinary in that, and I would ask the Minister to be good enough to explain the matter. He has had sufficient time to study the figures.
When these Resolutions were before the Dáil on a previous occasion the Minister told us he had not gone into the details as fully as he would have liked. The Dáil was not prepared, in view of what he said, to press the Minister on the matter then; but there has been ample time since the Resolutions were before the Dáil to have these matters inquired into, and the Dáil is now entitled to know what the amended duty now proposed will mean on those items of tinned fruit. The Minister has told us that it is not the intention in putting on this duty to raise revenue. Now, these duties seem to me, particularly this duty, very like harassing the housekeeper, because if they are not producing revenue they are going to increase the cost of those commodities to this extraordinary extent in the Free State, while they can be purchased at a very much lower rate in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain. They can have no other result, because we all recognise, any of us who have any knowledge of running a household, that these tinned fruits are largely used by all classes, so that the only result will be to harass the housekeeper. Before we pass this resolution now, we will want to know definitely from the Minister what these duties mean in additional costs on tinned fruit. He has four grades on which the information has been supplied to him.
I think the Deputy must be making some mistake in his figures. I am not proposing any amendment of the resolution at the present stage. But I am promising an amendment later on. When I am in a position to move that amendment, I hope to be able to state what its effect will be upon the various standard grades of tinned fruit. We desire that increase shall be the smallest possible, consistent with the principle of applying a flat rate of duty, and I desire a flat rate of duty for the reasons I have stated, for simplicity and to avoid the cost of collecting. Now, I cannot be more definite than that at the moment.
Amendment put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 30; Níl, 33.
Tá
- Patrick F. Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- John J. Cole.
- John Conlan.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Sir James Craig.
- Darrell Figgis.
- John Good.
- William Hewat.
- Connor Hogan.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Patrick McKenna.
- Patrick Mulvany.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Aodh O Cúlacháin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Tadhg S. O Donnabháin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Donchadh S. O Guaire.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Liam Thrift.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
Níl
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Henry J. Finlay.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- Seosamh Mac 'a Bhrighde.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Pádraig S. Mag Ualghairg.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Próinsias O Cathail.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Seán Príomhdhail.
- Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
Amendment declared lost.
Question proposed—"That the Dáil agree with the Committee in Resolution 3, as amended."
As I was unable to obtain leave to reply to the Minister, I propose to do so now, and on the main Resolution I propose to challenge a division in order to prove that no time can be gained by not allowing one to speak. As regards bottled fruit and tinned fruit, they are entirely different propositions. Bottled fruit, such as cherries, greengages and things of that kind, is soft fruit, which does not lend itself very well to knocking about, but it is literally a luxury. A comparatively small bottle of fruit costs from 4s. to 5s., and it comes principally from the South of France. You could not, I suggest, make an industry here in bottled fruit. You could not, for instance, bottle Monaghan pineapples. As I stated, there is a very big difference between bottled fruit and tinned fruit. I submit that by introducing this question of bottled fruit the Minister was out of order and was confusing the issue entirely. I turn from that to the plea that this new arrangement would create a great deal of trouble for the Customs. So far, business people have not been facilitated to the extent that they should have been by the Customs, and for some time importers have been refusing to take fruit at the port. There is no tinned fruit coming in since the duties began to be levied. Of course the Customs officers enjoy that. It makes things very much easier for them. But, I ask, is the only criterion of taxation in this country to be the convenience of the Customs officers? This is bureaucracy run mad, if the only argument by which the imposition of a duty can be supported in the Dáil is the fact that it is not giving the Customs people trouble. I agree that the convenience of collection is a factor that ought to be taken into consideration in dealing with a matter of this kind, but it is not the most important factor. In my opinion the yield of the duty is the important factor, and the Minister does not know what the yield is, or whether there will be any. Of course at some future date we will know what the yield of this duty will be. I submit that the paramount consideration in dealing with the duty is its effect on the consumer and on the public and not what effect it will have in simplifying the work of Customs, officers so that perhaps they may have more time to go away to play golf. I have very great respect for the Minister, but I think it is unworthy of him to come here and dish up an argument like that. I think it is some time since the sense of the Dáil, at least of the Deputies who listened to the Minister's argument, has been so clearly expressed as in the figures in the last division. I will say no more except that I will call for a division on this Resolution.
Deputy Cooper has missed his vocation. He ought to have been a Nisi Prius lawyer addressing a jury, and making the worst appear the better reason. He knows very well that the bottled fruit he has referred to, he mentioned cherries particularly, comes from France, and is bottled in brandy as a preserving liquid.
On a point of explanation, I wish to say that I did not refer to brandy cherries. I was referring to the ordinary bottled cherries that you get here in Dublin. They are bottled in their own syrup.
As regards the other fruits bottled in their own syrup, that is a possible industry in Ireland. It is applicable to apples particularly, and to gooseberries, and generally the only question is the absence of a sufficient quantity of sweetening matter. That bears out the Minister's argument that if this industry is to be experimentally protected it must be genuinely protected, but Deputy Cooper either forgot or did not choose to remember that. The effect is the same, that this duty comes in in the effort to carry out that experiment and determines whether or not the arguments in favour of Protection are sound. If this Irish industry——
Which does not exist.
It was begun many years ago, and is still a flourishing industry on the other side of the border. There is no reason whatever, except the non-enforcement of the police code, why there should not be orchards and fruit gardens and fruit farming on a very extensive and remunerative scale in the Free State. The bottled fruit industry is a very remunerative one, and would provide an enormous amount of employment for farmers as a subsidiary industry. The greatest competitor that these bottled fruits would meet, as the Minister pointed out, is cheap canned fruit. It is all very well to talk about the poor man's peaches and pineapples, but there are more than peaches and pineapples coming in in tins. The apples and the pears are really the stock materials. These canned fruits would compete seriously with the nascent industry of bottled fruit in Ireland, and consequently that competition has to be choked off if the experiment is to be made under proper and sufficient conditions. With regard to the other question, the Minister did not contend that the chief, or even anything like the main, consideration in this matter was the convenience of the Customs officials, but he argued with regard to the convenience to the public as well as on the question of the expense to the State. Everyone of these consignments has to be opened and test samples taken and submitted for analysis to determine, the quantity of sugar. In that there is not only expense, but delay and any amount of irritation. To have the whole thing covered by the broad category of tinned fruits is, I submit, much better for all the purposes concerned. So that, it really comes to particular pleading, as I said at the beginning, to make out a different case, and then, having put up a different case, to demolish it with case.
I am rather surprised to hear Deputy Magennis's speech, because it shows a very considerable change of front in connection with the discussion. Now, this tax has become a question of protection. I thought I heard the Minister disclaim any idea of protection at all. Now apparently it is used because it is going to be a case for the protection of home industry. I do think we have a right to protest in this case. Information as to how the change would work has not been given. There has been plenty of time to give that information and put it before the Dáil, but no information has been vouchsafed, and I think it is really a grievance, and I say we ought not to be asked to pass this Resolution to-day. I think the Minister for Finance has not been fair to the House in this matter of tinned fruit at all.
I wish to support the proposition of the Minister for Finance. I do not think that tinned fruits are so popular in Ireland as Deputy Cooper suggests. Besides that, it is well known that there is a great element of danger in tinned fruit. It was only last year we read of a serious case in Inverness, and for that reason I would not be in favour of encouraging any of this tinned fruit in the country or articles from abroad. I also support the Minister on the ground that it is possible that we may have on this side of the Border industries such as Professor Magennis alluded to as flourishing on the other side of the Border. I was very interested in Deputy Gorey's suggestion to the Minister for a tariff on butter, although he suggested it as an alternative to a tax on tinned fruit. The figures with regard to the imports and exports of butter for January——
The Deputy cannot go into that question on this amendment.
Deputy Hewat has stated that on a previous occasion the Minister for Finance said that this duty was not put on for Protection, but that it was simply a source of revenue, and that he now lays it before the House as an experiment in Protection. If it is an experiment in Protection, if tinned fruits such as peaches, pineapples and nectarines have been used, they are certainly not the food of either the small farmers or the artisans. They may be luxuries which, as Deputy Cooper said, are very useful to the householder, especially if his cooks and maids wish to go out in the afternoons and that he wishes to supply cold dishes to his visitors. They may be a necessity for the large householder, but certainly not for the small farmer and certainly not for the labourer. I can inform the Deputy that it is usually marmalade the artisans and small farmers in our country use whenever they can afford anything besides a little butter or margarine. I believe that the exclusion of bottled and tinned peaches and pears and nectarines, the cultivation of which California undoubtedly lends itself to, will help the fruit-growing industry here at home, where you have your gooseberries, plums, strawberries, raspberries, etc. If it helps to develop that it will provide increased employment for a great number of people. The utilisation of Irish apples, and of wild fruit, will give employment to the sons and daughters of small farmers and labourers and will give them plenty of occupation. It may not be very great as a source of revenue, but it will be an incentive to the people of this country to avail themselves of every opportunity to promote and help this industry, which is a natural industry in the country. You have a large amount of apples and any amount of wild fruit, which is now being exported to other countries, that could be used to give employment at home. Anything that will help to the utilisation of the fruit grown is all to the good. Some Deputies on the other side of the House know that there is a very large amount of fruit grown in the South of Ireland, and an immense trade could be made if it is only properly handled and protected. We want protection for this industry, because it is one in which a great many farmers in Ireland are interested.
It will be a certain source of revenue to a large number of farmers and to a great many of the labourers. If it helps to keep these people going and helps to find employment for the workers under a system of protection which the country lends itself to, it will be a step in the right direction. I am sorry those who support the small farmers and represent the workers do not see their way to look at this in that light, and certainly with regard to tinned fruit, peaches, nectarines, pears and so on, those in a position to purchase them will not feel the extra tax which will be helpful to Ireland in several ways.
I was going to suggest to the Minister the inadvisability of pressing this Resolution at the moment. We have not sufficient information. He has not given us the figures as to what the effect will be, and he has not told us that while the figures will be so and so he intends to reduce that tax in a further resolution by two-thirds. If that is his intention, why press us to pass the Resolution now before us? Surely if ever there was a case for suspending a motion this is one. I suggest to the Minister that instead of pressing this Resolution now it might be withdrawn until he can put forward an amendment in the definite form he evidently intends On Class I the tax works out at 12/- per cwt. here as against 7d. in Northern Ireland. On the standard it works out at 14/4 here as against 1/2 in Northern Ireland, and on choice it works out at 17/9 here as against 1/9 in Northern Ireland, and on the fancies 14/7 as against 2/4 in Northern Ireland. These differences are too marked altogether. I suggest that until we have definite information from the Minister on all these points we should not be asked to pass this Resolution at the moment.
Deputy Cooper, possibly unintentionally, has rather side-tracked this matter. We have been discussing the last amendment and there is not a word said about the whole body of this Resolution which is now before us. As far as one could gather from the opponents of the Resolution, one would have thought it was all about tinned fruit. Surely it is protection for the bulk of the articles mentioned in the Resolution that we are concerned with? Why pretend it is only about bottled fruit? It is the Resolution and not Deputy Cooper's amendment that we are discussing now. I ask does the House realise that it is the Resolution and not the amendment that we are now debating?
I think that Deputy O'Sullivan has said all that I would wish to say. We have discussed the least important part of the Resolution at great length, and have not discussed the more important part of it at all. This matter of tinned fruits is of relatively little importance, and I do not think it is a reasonable request to hold the Resolution over until we have decided everything that was to be decided about tinned fruits. If I wished to make out a case for Protection in this matter, I think a very good case could be made out. If I felt that it was desirable to maintain the full duty on tinned fruits I think I could make out a very good case for it, and the lines on which that case could have been made have been indicated by Deputy Magennis and others. I feel, however, that by merely imposing a flat rate, even on the lowest level that we could fix, having regard to the revenue, we will give a certain amount of protection to the bottled fruit industry and that it is unnecessary to extend that any further at present. There is no particular reason why the working man should have his tinned pineapples rather than his tinned plums. There is no reason why pineapples or any particular sort of fruit should be looked on as a necessity, and this kind of case that has been made, that it will not suffice, that the people must have Californian fruit rather than any other kind, is not a good one.
Is the working man not entitled to have Californian fruit as well as any other, provided you give him the wages to get it?
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 36; Níl, 29.
Tá
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- Máighréad Ní Choileáin Bean
- Uí Dhrisceoil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Desmond Fitzgerald.
- John Good.
- William Hewat.
- Seosamh Mac 'a Bhrighde.
- Liam T. Mac Cosgair.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Pádraig Mac Giollagáin.
- Seán Mac Giolla 'n Ríogh.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Liam Mag Aonghusa.
- Pádraig S. Mag Ualghairg.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Mícheál O hAonghusa.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Próinsias O Cathail.
- Partholán O Conchubhair.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Séamus O Leadáin.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Seán M. O Suilleabháin.
- Seán Príomhdhail.
- Liam Thrift.
Níl
- Earnán Altún.
- Pádraig F. Baxter.
- Seán Buitléir.
- John J. Cole.
- John Conlan.
- Bryan R. Cooper.
- Sir James Craig.
- Darrell Figgis.
- Connor Hogan.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Risteárd Mac Fheorais.
- Pádraig Mac Fhlannchadha.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Patrick McKenna.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Tadhg S. O Donnabháin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Seán O Duinnín.
- Donchadh S. O Guaire.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Seán O Laidhin.
- Domhnall O Mocháin.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg P. O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
Motion declared carried.
RESOLUTION 4 (CUSTOMS).
(1) That a Customs duty at the rate of sixpence on the pound shall be charged, levied and paid on all preparations made from or containing cocoa in any form imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 26th day of April, 1924, in addition to any duty which may be chargeable in respect of any spirits contained in any such preparation, but in lieu of any duty which might otherwise be chargeable on any other ingredient contained in any such preparation.
(2) The provisions of Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1919, shall apply to the duty mentioned in this Resolution, with the substitution of the expression "Saorstát Eireann" for the expression "Great Britain and Ireland," and as though preparations made from or containing cocoa in any form were included in the Second Schedule to that Act in the list of goods to which five-sixths of the full rate is made applicable as a preferential rate.
The question is:—"That the Dáil agree with Resolution 4 as passed in Committee."
I move to insert in line 9, after the word "form" the words "and not containing saccharin." There possibly might be saccharin in cocoa preparations, and it is not desired that we should substitute this rate of duty for the saccharin rate.
Amendment agreed to.
Whose is the motion?
The question is: "That the Dáil agree with the Resolution as amended."
On a point of order, has the motion been moved that we agree with this Report of the Committee?
I put that the first time.
Was it moved?
I took it that it was moved by the Minister.
Can he move an amendment to his own motion?
It is provided in Standing Orders that the mover on a Report can move an amendment.
I am satisfied. I only asked because it would be peculiar reporting in the "Journal" that the Minister moved a motion to agree with the Report of the Committee, and then moved an amendment to his own motion.
Did not the same thing happen with regard to the glass bottles?
And did not the Ceann Comhairle admit it was in order and Deputy Johnson did not raise any objection?
This has been the procedure so far this evening. This is not an innovation by any means.
Question—"That the Dáil agree with the resolution, as amended"—put and agreed to.
RESOLUTION No. 5 (CUSTOMS).
That the customs duty now chargeable under section 7 of the Finance Act, 1916, on certain table waters specified and defined in that section at the rate of fourpence per gallon shall, on and after the 26th day of April, 1924, be charged, levied and paid at the increased rate of eight pence per gallon.
It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1913.
Question—"That the Dáil agree with Resolution No. 5, as passed in Committee"—put and agreed to.
RESOLUTION No. 6 (CUSTOMS).
That a customs duty of an amount equal to fifteen per cent. of the value of the article shall be charged, levied, and paid on all boots, shoes, slippers, galoshes, sandals and clogs, and all shaped soles, shaped heels, and shaped uppers imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 12th day of May, 1924.
I move in line 31, to delete the word "fifteen" and to substitute therefor the word "ten." The reason I propose to ask the Dáil to reduce the tax on boots from fifteen per cent. to ten per cent. is that though this is in essence a protective tariff, and though I do not quarrel with it as a protective tariff, yet for the time being, certainly for this year, and probably for the next three years, the bulk of the boots bought and used in the Free State will come from outside and will have to pay this duty. At present the manufacturers in the Saorstát can only deal with one-fifteenth of the demand for boots, and while I hope and believe that eventually they will be able to deal with the whole demand, still for the time being we shall have to import the bulk of the boots that we require. That being so, I think that a rate of duty of fifteen per cent., which will almost inevitably be paid by the consumer, is rather too high. As I said in the Committee Stage, I would like to see a duty of ten per cent. for three years. Possibly when the manufacturer has time to instal the necessary machinery and to train the necessary hands—at present I think you have only 700 boot hands employed in the trade in the Free State and only capacity for 1,000—I would be prepared to assent to even a higher duty, because the competition in our own workshops will keep the prices down. I believe that the consumer will have to pay the cost of this duty, which is in some respects more than the manufacturers asked for. They asked for a substantial duty, but only on the kinds of boots they manufacture, and we are levying the duty on every kind of boots, from the ploughman's hobnailed to the indiarubber soled tennis shoe of the young lady. That being so, I think there is a strong argument for a fairly low rate of duty. Up to the present we have had no argument for this duty. The Minister has not told us what particular causes urged him to fix fifteen per cent. as the proper rate. This trade is not, though it ought to be naturally, an Irish trade.
At the present time I think there are only four or five firms manufacturing boots. The Fiscal Commission declared that they worked with machinery and patents loaned from English firms, and that the bulk of the upper leather for boots is imported from England. It is what the Minister, when dealing with other amendments, condemned to a certain extent as an assembling trade. That being so, I think that the demand for the substantially high rate of three shillings in the pound on each pair of boots or shoes imported requires scrutiny and consideration. We have heard a lot about luxuries. I do not think even the Minister in his more unscrupulous moments will contend that boots are a luxury in the climate we have the privilege to live in. Boots are a necessity, and a necessity of the poor as well as the rich, and the imposition of the duty on boots necessarily must involve an increase in the cost of living. Therefore, I accept the experiment. I realise we might build up a boot industry. We have the raw material in the shape of hides, and it might work side by side with the dead meat industry, to the benefit of farmers. But I do say until that industry is built up the barrier duty should not be made too high. An amendment by Deputy Lyons to reduce the tax to five per cent. was rejected in Committee Stage. I think 10 per cent. unless the Minister can show serious cause why it should be higher, is a fair compromise between the original proposal and putting on no duty at all.
I think this is a most insidious amendment, and if adopted it will destroy this attempt to revive the boot industry in Ireland. The arguments put forward by Deputy Cooper are that the Irish manufacturer at present cannot hope to make a reasonable share of the boots for the Irish market, and that, therefore, there is no use in imposing such a large tax. What is the object of putting on the tax? It is to build up the boot industry in Ireland. He referred to the fact that out of every fifteen pairs of boots used in Ireland—a great cattle raising country, that should have a great tanning industry—only one pair is made here. That shows the very weak state in which the boot industry in Ireland stands at present. Until a few months ago you had in Carlow a thriving little boot industry, employing three hundred hands. A month ago it had to close its doors, and these three hundred hands had to walk about idle, and their families had to face destitution. It is all very well to talk about the three shillings in the pound that would be the increase in the price of a pair of boots and that the customer has to pay that three shillings. If you take what happened in the motor industry you will find that the foreigner had to pay in that case two-thirds of the duty. It may be the same in this case. Deputy Johnson, estimating what the tax would amount to, put it at 7½ per cent. If the foreigner had to pay two-thirds of that very little would come upon the home consumer.
If you see the advertisements in the newspapers from the Irish manufacturers you will see that they are not the greedy lot, nor the incompetent lot, some people describe them. They announce that they are not going to increase their prices at all. Deputy Cooper gave us a very sad picture of what the poor man will suffer if he has to pay this increase. What about the three hundred families that will have to go not only without boots, but without breakfast, dinner or supper, if you close their factory? Of all the industries in Ireland, there is no industry for which this country is better suited. We used to be able to make all our boots some time ago instead of only one out of every fifteen pairs, as at present. We are still able to make them all, and we should make them. This is a small country of three million inhabitants, competing against a country of forty millions, with traditions of industry undisturbed for hundreds of years and with a great industrial organisation. How is a little country like ours, with people still with the slave mind, suspecting everything that is made in Ireland and welcoming everything that comes from afar, going to build up its industries if we do not have protection?
There is not a town in Ireland but is steeped in poverty. We have a valuable home market amounting to millions, and if we divert that stream of money, as far as we can, into the home market, we will build up Irish industries. I am glad to see that the farmers are taking a sensible view of this matter, and see in Protection a possible balance for anything they may lose. They may get a compensating advantage which will help to pay this extra tax on boots. I welcome what Deputy Gorey said a moment ago on this point. The figures for butter for January are disastrous. We export £80,000 worth of butter and we import——
We cannot go into the general question of Protection at all. We are dealing only with boots.
If we are going to put a tax at all upon boots, we ought to put a tax that will encourage the Irish manufacturer. Deputy Cooper's suggestion would be no encouragement whatever to the struggling Irish manufacturer to compete with the well-entrenched wealthy manufacturer of Northampton. When the report of the five professors was issued, the English Press published columns of praise on the good sense shown by the Irish people in continuing to take their boots from Northampton, instead of going to the trouble of making them themselves. But since the Minister's proposal to put on a tax of 15 per cent., a wail has gone up from Northampton. That shows that they appreciate the fact that the Irish people are going to make their own boots in the future. I hope Deputy Cooper's amendment will not send them a message of but that the Dáil will reject it.
I confess I cannot see the drift of Deputy Sears' argument against this amendment. He said that if this amendment is accepted it means the destruction of any industry which has been built up in the Saorstát. I would like Deputy Sears for a moment to place himself in the position of a man working for 27/- or 28/- a week and buying a pair of boots perhaps every week-end. Of course, by the time he had all the members of the family in turn supplied with boots, the first pair he supplied would have been worn out. Surely 10 per cent. is quite enough for protection in this case, when no protection is offered to the people who have to pay this extra tax? The Minister for Finance does not say that he will compel all traders, who have a stock of boots, to sell at the ordinary price. They are at liberty to charge this extra 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. I know well that the extra amount has been charged already in different parts of the country. I have seen a pair of boots, purchased some day last week, with the original figures crossed out and 20 per cent. added on. The same thing will apply to every boot store. If 15 per cent. is an encouragement for employers or manufacturers to employ labour and manufacture more boots, surely 10 per cent. will have the very same effect.
resumed the Chair.
Everywhere you go the people are up against this tax. You are giving some relief to a few employers. I know the Minister for Finance means well. I am sure he has studied those Resolutions and that he studied the Budget very seriously before putting forward his proposals to the Dáil. But from reading them, one would imagine he did not give the matter the study that he should have. He places a tax on the people, but he does not save them from being fleeced by profiteers. I sincerely hope every Deputy will support this amendment. By fixing 10 per cent. you are putting 2s. in the £1 on the citizen, and that should have as good an effect as 15 per cent.
I almost feel inclined to apologise to the Dáil for taking up any time. This matter was discussed already so fully, that it must be quite clear. This is the principal protective experiment, and the only question at issue is whether 15 per cent. will give protection, and whether 10 per cent. will not. I listened to Deputy Cooper, but I must say I did not hear any argument brought forward for a reduction from 15 per cent. to 10 per cent. I presume the Minister for Finance must have made the necessary inquiries as to what is the lowest possible tax he could put on, so as to make the experiment a real experiment in protection. I quite admit that for a while it will be a revenue-producing tax. Deputy Cooper had that in mind, when he said that for some time at all events a large number of the boots worn in this country will have to be imported. Quite true, it will be a revenue producing tax, but as a set off to that, as has been so often pointed out, the Minister has given a rebate in the tax on tea. It is hardly necessary to repeat that.
I think on the last occasion Deputy Johnson and Deputy Good made it very clear that the weight of this tax is by no means so great as some people suppose. If you reduce this tax to 10 per cent.—I think the Dáil ought to be clear on this—you run a great risk of ruining this whole question of protective experiment. You are really not putting on 10 per cent. I spoke to one or two persons in the boot trade, and they suggested that 15 per cent. was possibly sufficient, but that 20 per cent. would be more certain. I doubt if 10 per cent. would act as a protective tariff. Anyhow, the case can be strongly made that protection has not got a fair chance if you only give a 10 per cent. tariff. That is the only question you are discussing—whether you are going to give a fair chance to this protective experiment or not, and whether 10 per cent. is a fair protective tariff. It is not a question of raising the prices of boots. The only thing we are discussing, for the purpose of this tax, is whether 10 per cent. is or is not a sufficient protective tariff. I think no case has been made out for a reduction from 15 per cent. to 10 per cent. It would be much better to have no tax at all than not to have a real protective tariff. There is no use pretending you are having protection when you propose to reduce the protective tariff to such a figure that there would be no real protection in the amount suggested.
What are we protecting? We are protecting one pair of boots out of every fifteen, of which, perhaps, three pairs could be manufactured in Ireland. If your protection is going to be successful you might produce three or four pairs of boots out of every fifteen. That is the utmost advantage that can be received from protection. Is it a fair proposition to ask the public to tax themselves on eleven pairs of boots out of fifteen pairs for the purpose of benefiting an industry that produces four pairs out of every fifteen pairs of boots bought in this country? What is the effect of your tariff? What will happen if the British say, "We will not have your produce?" Where are we then? What are we relying on? On our exports of produce. If the British Government to-morrow put a tariff against our produce where are we? Where is your revenue? What about your little tin-pot industry then? How are you going to carry on your State except your exports are permitted to go in free to the country where there is a market for them? The agricultural industry cannot be carried on on the internal consumption in this country. We have got to export two-thirds of our produce. It is possible that the British Government may impose a tariff on our produce, because I saw where a question was asked yesterday in the British House of Commons as to what the Government were doing in connection with the tariff imposed on boots by the Free State.
It is quite obvious that the 10 per cent. which Deputy Cooper proposes to leave on, but which I myself am against, is sufficient protection, because Deputy Sears says the price of boots will not be raised. "The price will not be increased," that is Deputy Sears' dictum. If the price is not going to be increased they must have been charging 15 per cent. above the price which we could have obtained our boots for hitherto. That is logical. Deputy O'Sullivan would not agree with that. Why should the bulk of the population be asked to tax themselves in order to help an industry which can only produce four pairs of boots out of every fifteen that is required? I could understand the tax on bottles, but I cannot understand this. The Deputy's reference to tanning seemed to me to be illogical. The deduction is not there at all. If the boots are going to be made in this country the manufacturers will buy the cheapest leather they can get, and if the cheapest leather is made by the Peruvians they will buy from the Peruvians. I cannot see its connection with the tanning industry. As I am opposed to tariffs, and as the amendment is going to reduce the proposed duty, I am going to support the amendment.
I would like to support the amendment, but not for the same reason as Deputy Cooper puts forward. I think 10 per cent. is better than 15 per cent. I think 5 per cent. would be better than 10 per cent, and I think no tariff would be better than 5 per cent. As we are to have a tariff, I think 10 per cent. would be more acceptable than 15 per cent. I notice in the debates which have taken place that it has been generally acknowledged that the price of boots will increase owing to the tariff. I notice that the greatest advocates of protection have acknowledged, either tacitly or otherwise, that that is the case. That is something gained anyhow. It is acknowledged that the price of boots is going to be increased by the actual tariff.
Not at all.
That is the impression I got from what is being said on the other side of the House.
Deputy Wilson does not agree with that.
It is maintained by the Minister that in taking the tax off tea he has balanced the tax which will be placed on boots. I have already said that I do not believe it will balance that tax, although Deputy O'Sullivan disagrees with me there. I maintain, not as Deputy Lyons says, that a family will have to get a pair of boots every week, but that each member of the average family of five in this country will require two pairs of boots in the year. That is not unreasonable, judging by the quality of the boots we have been wearing recently. I doubt very much if even two pairs will do the average growing child a year. Averaging the boots which a family would require, I think they would not get these boots at less than £1 per pair.
Wholesale?
The ordinary buyer of boots does not buy the boots wholesale.
The tax is on the wholesale price?
The buyer pays the retail price whatever the wholesale price is. Taking 10 pairs of boots in a year, 3s. per pair on them amounts to 30s. Taking that same family as consuming one lb. of tea per week, which would be the average consumption, that would amount to something like 12s. 6d. in the year. That, in my opinion, does not balance. Even if it did balance, even if it were the fact that the amount taken off tea would balance the protective duty on boots, I say it would be much better in the interests of the country that the amount taken off tea should be taken off the general taxation. Instead of placing it as a protective duty on boots, the Minister should have reduced the general taxation which the country has to pay. It should be used for reducing taxation rather than putting it on in another form of taxation. That is my idea of it, that it is simply an excuse for putting this tariff on boots.
I think it is acknowledged that this tariff is going to raise the price of boots, and, therefore, going to raise the cost of living. The attitude I take up is, that the people who have to bear the bulk of these tariffs are not in a position to bear any extra tariff for the bolstering up of any industry in the country at present. I think it might be advisable, in certain circumstances, to try and give the boot trade a fillip, but I believe that, as things are at present, this is not a suitable time for such a proposal. We are told that this would help the tanning industry. I do not know that it will help the tanning industry. First of all, we would have to establish a dead-meat trade before we would have the hides to tan. As we are having no tariff against tanned hides, we have no guarantee that the Irish boot manufacturers will use Irish-tanned hides. As Deputy Wilson says, it is possible they would use hides from Chili, if they got them cheaper than the Irish hides. In these circumstances, I am opposed to this tariff of 15 per cent., and I would suggest that the Minister should consider the imposition of a 10 per cent. tariff rather than a 15 per cent. tariff, my view being that all tariffs are bad, and 10 per cent. is better than 15 per cent.
I wish to correct a mistake made by Deputy Wilson, I think unwittingly. He said that if the Irish manufacturers did not raise prices, that that is a proof that they were getting 15 per cent. too much before. If he looks into the matter a little more closely, he will find that he has done them a wrong in that. If the Irish manufacturers were willing——
I do not think we can go into an argument on the subject unless the Deputy wishes to correct a misinterpretation of his own words.
If it is so plain, it is not necessary to contradict it, and I will let it pass. Certainly by this tariff no additional expense is put on the Irish manufacturer, and, therefore, he can sell at the same price.
The Deputy cannot continue. He can only make one speech, and is making a second one now.
Deputy Sears says that Deputy Wilson made a mistake unwittingly. I think Deputy Wilson ought to resent that criticism, for it implies that some of his mistakes are wittingly made. From a long and careful study of the Deputy's utterances I am quite convinced that all the mistakes are unwittingly uttered. His conception, for example, of the British consumer of Irish farm produce was an unwitting mistake. He is terribly afraid that if a tax is put upon Northampton boots and shoes that there will be retaliation, and that the retaliation will have the effect of making the Britisher's breakfast table dearer. How the Deputy could have the vast imagination——
This is really a matter that arises on the main question and not the amendment.
I was dealing with Deputy Wilson's supposed rejoinder to Deputy O'Sullivan. Deputy O'Sullivan has reminded the Dáil before, and, apparently, unavailingly, so far as Deputy Wilson and Deputy Heffernan are concerned, that this is a real experiment. Instead of wasting our time arguing about Free Trade and Protection we are selecting certain industries and applying the test: Will Protection do for these industries all that the advocates of a Protection policy claim it will do? The criticisms on the Minister's proposals are made as if he had been converted by Deputy Milroy into a whole-hogger Protectionist. That is not the character of the present Budget. These taxes are purely experimental, and anyone who has any acquaintance with the conduct of experiments knows that unless due care is taken to make the experiment a real and crucial one it is waste of time and effort to make it at all.
It is waste of time.
Unless it is made under proper and adequate conditions, and I am not quite satisfied that 15 per cent is enough for the purpose. Some of the arguments used are to the effect that the cost of boots will go up. It is assumed that the cost will go up and remain up. That is to assume two things—first, that the Irish producer is unable to meet any sort of competition, even in his own field, and, secondly, it assumes that manufacturers from the other side will not establish factories here. I know, as a matter of fact, from consultation with men in the business, that they are looking for places. The first place looked for was in the County Wexford.
Wicklow.
I am speaking of what perhaps Deputy Wilson is not aware. There is a further point to which I have referred to-day, namely, that the tax will not be put upon us. If there were any sort of proper attempt, as I believe there will be, to take advantage of these experimental conditions, what will happen is, that to save their market and to keep their continuity of grip upon the Irish market the prices will come down. Instead of the articles being wholesaled here at the price at which they are wholesaled in Great Britain, there will be a reduction. There is nothing more fallacious than to assume what Deputy Heffernan has done, that a pair of boots retailed here at £1 will become 23s. No doubt, the profiteer will make them so, and has already made them so, but it is assuming a hopeless lethargy on the part of the Irish boot or shoe maker that he will not rise to the opportunity provided for him. If the Irish worker and the men who ought to have Irish enterprise, are of the type contemplated by Deputies that have spoken from the farmers' benches, then undoubtedly their case is sound, and no amount of protection can save an industry in Ireland against which there is any competitor. Therefore, we must become raisers of cattle and reduce the whole Free State to a stock farm.
Become professors.
Deputy Wilson suggests that we should all become professors. I do not think it would be any harm for some, at any rate, to do a little thinking if they were imbued with the idea that they were going to become professors. I suggest a summer course for farmers in elementary economy.
Surely that is outside the scope of this amendment?
On a point of order, have professors got a monopoly of thinking in this country?
Apparently.
The amendment seeks to reduce the rate of duty on boots from 15 to 10 per cent. I assume, and I am treating this rate of duty as being applicable to all boots, that the Minister had some reason for fixing upon 15 per cent. when deciding to adopt this measure of protection. Deputy Heffernan and other Deputies have assumed that the duty of 15 per cent. on the retail price would inevitably fall on the consumer. Other Deputies have pointed out that the incidence of the 15 per cent. is upon the price at the port, to which is added all the charges, including distribution, before the retailer hands over the boots to the consumer. There may be a figure anything from 25 to 50 per cent., perhaps up to 75 per cent., between the import price and the retail price according to the class of goods. If they are fancy slippers it is more than probable 75 per cent. will be added, probably three times the original price before they are sold to the consumer. There is another aspect of this which will tend to reduce the burden to be borne by the consumer. Competition in the retail trade in this country is by retail shops owned by manufacturers, The British manufacturers send boots here and distribute them to their own retail shops.
They will endeavour to maintain that trade in Ireland. They will say: "We must not lose our trade in the Irish market, because we have these establishments set up and we must try to retain them." While the wholesale prices may be increased by fifteen per cent. as a result of the tax, it is more than probable that the multiple shopkeeper, who is the agent for, and the participant in, the manufacturing business—in fact a part of the concern—as a matter of practice will say: "I will be prepared to work for a smaller margin between wholesale costs and retail prices for the purpose of retaining this trade," so that the consumer may not, and possibly will not, have to pay anything like the increased rate of duty in his retail price, and the Irish manufacturer will be obtaining the advantage of that duty. It is quite fallacious to assume that every rate of taxation placed upon imports is inevitably met by an increase in the consumer's price. While I shall have something to say upon the later motion which may have to do with varieties of goods, on this motion I propose to vote for the original proposal of the Government and against the amendment.
I think the proposal, as put forward by Deputy Cooper, would really defeat the object that Deputy Cooper has in his mind. In supporting his amendment, he told us that he expected—in fact, hoped—that in the course of four years we would have sufficient factories established in the Free State to supply all the boots required by the Free State. If that is his hope, he has gone a bad way about achieving that object when he proposes to reduce the duty, because I feel that if this duty is reduced from fifteen to ten per cent. the effect of it will be rather to encourage those who would possibly be disposed to erect factories to hesitate and to pay the duty.
On a previous occasion, speaking on this resolution, I quoted the example of Australia. When Australia applied the duty, in the first instance, on boots and other leather goods, the tariff she proposed was 30 per cent., and, as I pointed out on that occasion, when a protest was made by the mother country against that tariff, the utmost reduction that Australia would make in favour of the mother country was ten per cent., leaving the tariff twenty per cent. We followed up that argument and we saw the result of that in Australia's trade. I am quite satisfied that if Australia had started off with a ten per cent., instead of a twenty per cent., tariff, she would not have the same story to tell.
If you are going to have an experiment in Protection, give the experiment a fair chance. Do not kill it at its birth. And, instead of encouraging the Minister to reduce the duty of fifteen per cent., my advice would be to rather tend in the other direction. Deputy Heffernan pointed out that we could have nothing in the way of a tanning industry in the Free State until what he called a dead meat trade was established. Now, I am sure Deputy Heffernan is much better aware than I am that twenty-five per cent. of the cattle produced in the Free State are consumed in the Free State. We have twenty-five per cent., and we have the hides. Instead of a demand existing in the Free State for these hides and tanneries, anybody who walks down to the North Wall will see all those hides going away. If we can get the boot and leather industry established here, we will have all those hides tanned here, and we will have a large amount of employment given, and we will have a large industry established.
There is no tariff on leather, but there is a tariff on boots.
I am aware of that, but if we have an industry here that will consume leather, instead of sending these hides away, as we are doing at the moment, and getting them tanned on the other side, and then bringing them back to supply the home market, what will naturally happen—I speak as a commercial man—is that the tanneries will be set up, those hides will be treated at home, and then we can meet the home demand. So that, no matter from what point of view you look at this question, we must all come to the conclusion that it is an experiment that is almost bound to have a useful result. I hope the Dáil and the proposer of this amendment will not press for a reduction of this tariff, because, to my mind, it would be disastrous in view of the effects that we hope will ensue from this proposal.
I am against this amendment, but I do not want to give a silent vote on the matter. To my mind, the object Deputy Cooper seems to have in view is not the one he is going to achieve. We have Deputies on the Farmers' Benches objecting to this from the point of view of taxation. If they support this amendment it will mean a continuance of taxation, because it will not have the desired result from their point of view. It will simply continue to be revenue, and will not have the protective effect that the Minister wishes it to have.
Most of the advice that we were able to get in this matter was in favour of a twenty per cent. tariff, so I have no inclination at all to meet Deputy Cooper in this matter. Although we propose to give relief in taxation as against this increase, it is impossible to make the relief fall exactly over the same area as the increased charge. I believe, for instance, the reduction in the tea tax, when combined with the increase here, will favour the old age pensioner as against the father of a growing family. It is impossible, therefore, no matter how you reduce one item of taxation to counterbalance some increase, to avoid certain hardships.
After consideration, it was felt that fifteen per cent. would just barely achieve the purpose we had in mind. There would be no purpose at all in imposing a tax unless it would be an encouragement to Irish manufacturers to extend. It is only if the Irish manufacturers are likely to extend their production that outside people will come in to hold their markets. I believe progress will be made by the coming in of outside firms, but there would be no inducement to outside firms to come in unless they believed the Irish manufacturers would extend or that they would lose their market if they did not come in. The information I have been able to get is that less than fifteen per cent. would not be a sufficient inducement to Irish manufacturers to move in the direction of extending, and, consequently, if we were to reduce the tax to ten per cent. we would simply be achieving the imposition of a new revenue, and that is not what we are aiming at.
In view of the Minister's statement, I would ask leave to withdraw.
Amendment 7, by leave, withdrawn.
I move:—
In Resolution No. 6, line 33, after the word "clogs" to insert the words "exceeding the value of ten shillings."
On a previous Resolution, Deputy Magennis was good enough to compare me to a Nisi Prius lawyer. I do not know whether he meant it as a compliment or not, but if he called me a Professor I should know what to think.
I would have apologised.
In this case I shall not need any Nisi Prius arts, because I have a very strong case to put before the Minister. I am asking him to remit the duty on boots and shoes of a value under 10/-. That is the only manner in which I think I could exempt children's boots and shoes. As I said already, that will press more heavily on the father of a family than on an old age pensioner. I am glad that the Minister's conscience is smitten with regard to old age pensioners, but with regard to that I think the father of a family should be encouraged as much as possible. He is a more valuable citizen than the bachelor, and should be encouraged.
In what direction?
In the direction that he has to spend more, and that he should not be asked to spend more than he can help. At present these boots and shoes of a value under 10/- are not produced in this country. I know that one firm produces such boots and shoes as a small side-line, but it is unlikely that the production of them will develop. The value of them is so low that it is unlikely that any new factories will be specially set up to deal with them. And I do not see the point of asking the fathers of families to protect industries that do not exist, and that have comparatively little chance of coming into existence. It does create a grievance which is not compensated for by the reduction. It creates a grievance particularly to the housewife, the mother of the family. She is the person who looks after the children's shoes and sees how they are wearing out, and thinks that Mary Kate should have a new pair of shoes soon, and even the reflection that she will get her tea at 2½d. a pound less will not console or satisfy her. I ask the Minister to see whether he would make some concession in this connection when bringing in the Finance Bill.
I second the amendment.
I wonder whether Deputy Cooper is going to achieve what he is arguing for. Does he think he is going to distinguish between adults' and children's boots in this crude fashion? I think this amendment will not do what he wants. Does he mean ten shillings wholesale or retail?
Wholesale.
I think you will not distinguish on that ground between children's boots and adults. You will get large numbers of adults' boots under 10/- and a great number of children's boots cost over 10/- sometimes.
I intend to support this amendment, because it may achieve the purpose intended. At any rate if it is carried it will oblige the Minister to find another and perhaps a more satisfactory formula from the Revenue Commissioners' point of view while achieving the same end. I would expect that the purport of the experimental tax would be borne in mind by the Ministry, and those who were generally supporting the Ministry in this matter. It is to protect the existing boot manufacturers and to encourage the development of boot and shoe manufacturers. One has to bear in mind that we are dealing with an existing industry in its present form, and that mainly is the production of men's and boys' boots. But until the existing factories have been able to go very much nearer the supply of men's and boys' boots than they are to-day we will not be in a position to judge the value of this protective measure. Boots are especially subject to specialisation, and I take it that the existing factories will specialise in the class of boots which they have hitherto been working upon. Now as to the incidence of this tax, there is no need to be working in the dark and making guesses of what the average cost of boots is to the community. There was a report issued by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, at least that is the title. It was during the Provisional Government period. It reported on the cost of living in Ireland, and in the course of that report there appear a number of tables showing how the average expenditure per family on boots and other commodities worked out over a very large number of family budgets that were prepared. We have in that report the proportion of incomes spent upon food, upon clothing, rent, fuel, light, etc. And amongst the clothing we have classified women's clothing, girls' clothing, girls over six, men's clothing, and boys and children under six.
We find that amongst women's clothing there was an item for boots and shoes of 92 per cent. of the weekly expenditure, girls' clothing, including boots and shoes, .71; men's, 1.33; boys over six, .56; children under six, .45, which included in the latter case other clothes besides boots. From that series of tables one may take it that slightly over half the total expenditure of that class of the average working-class householder was upon boots. That is to say, the total of 3.67 per cent. of the income was upon boots of which 1.89 was for men's and boys' boots. Now, if we are going to protect, at this stage, the manufacture of men's and boys' boots, let us place a tax upon men's and boys' boots. Otherwise what is the effect? If we are to apply this 15 per cent. test to the working-class household upon the figures quoted from this Budget, we will find that the incidence of this tax is rather more than the advantage obtained by the reduction in the tea duty. I think that, as a matter of practice, the retail profits on women's and children's boots are rather of a higher percentage than on that of men's. But I believe that it would be equally valuable in its protective effect to confine this tariff to men's and boys' boots at this stage. Because it is by protecting the Irish manufacture of men's and boys' boots that you are going to prove the value of the experiment. And while there may be a loss of revenue, as there would by accepting the amendment of Deputy Cooper, the effect of the amendment would be to leave the working-class expenditure, taking tea and boots into account, fairly well upon a level.
By that means the purpose of the Minister would be attained, whereas if the tax is levied as now proposed its effect on working-class expenditure, judging by the return in this report, will be to increase the cost of living because of the fact that there is a larger expenditure upon boots in that class of household than in other walks of life. The proportion, I have said, runs to nearly 3¾ per cent. of the total expenditure on boots, and almost half is expenditure on women's and children's boots. Because of those figures I intend to support the amendment. I believe it would in practice mean the elimination from the duty of children's boots, and it is the mother of the large family that will feel the burden of any increase in price more than any other person. Unfortunately, the mother of a large family will not get the benefit on the tea duty to the same extent as the family where there are more grown-ups. In this argument I conclude that it is wise to accept the amendment with a view to securing that the duty upon children's boots will not be levied, while the protective effect of the tax in itself will continue.
I wish to oppose this amendment. If we are to accept the tariff of 15 per cent. put on boots as an experiment, then we must give the experiment fair play. Now it is contemplated that in the first instance the home manufacturer may increase his plant and his staff and capture a large portion of the trade. According to the figures given by Deputy Johnson those small boots affected by the amendment form almost half of the Irish market. Now, if the Irish manufacturer is looking forward to investing a large amount of capital in new plant, would he not have far more encouragement to invest his money if he had the whole market to operate upon? The same thing would apply to the English manufacturer who might probably come into the Saorstát. If the tax is on the entire range of boots, then the English manufacturer will say to himself "it is worth my while going in," but if this amendment is accepted, and if half the market is swept away, he may do what Deputy Good said he would do in regard to the 10 per cent. duty, and that is, fight it from the outside, setting up no factory here at all.
He has no competing Irish manufacturer.
Why should not the Irish manufacturer go in for the whole range of women's boots? I understand that the Irish manufacturer is in that part of the trade in a small way at present. What is to prevent him going in for the whole Irish trade when the incidence of taxation may be the same? I think it would be a great mistake; it would destroy the experiment, and those who are advocating protection would say: "Well, you have made two bites at the cherry and did not give us a fair chance."
I pointed out on a previous occasion that in my view what this proposal would do would be to flood the country here with shoddy stuff, and I am still of the same opinion. It would do no good at all.
I could not undertake to accept this amendment. I need hardly discuss on it the question of excluding from the scope of the taxes children's boots. That is not the way by which it could be done if we consider it desirable to do such a thing. There is no doubt that a very large quantity of boots for adults would be valued at less than ten shillings for that purpose when there is no wholesaler's profit on them. I see large quantities of boots in the shops for sale at prices that make it certain that those same boots would be valued at less than 10/- at the ports. We would certainly have enough of inducement to people to deceive us as to the price when the duty is ad valorem without putting an additional strain on them.
I only adopted the Minister's own principle of an ad valorem duty.
I think that is bad enough, and that there is sufficient strain on the inclinations of people to commit any sort of fraud without adding to it by letting them off this tax altogether if they could induce us to believe that the boots were only 10/- in value. It would set a premium also, as Deputy Good says, on the importation of goods of the shoddy kind. I think if Deputy Cooper wants to put before the Dáil a case for the exemption of children's boots, he could do it at a later stage in another amendment, directed specifically at the exemption from the scope of the taxes of boots of certain sizes. I am not in favour of any such thing at the present time. We import boots to the value of something like £2,000,000 per annum, and I believe that for the purpose of doing justice to this experiment we should invite people to supply all that market, or any part of it that they may feel inclined to, having regard to the protection that they will enjoy. I do not know in what particular direction the Irish boot industry may develop under this, but it may be that under this, Irish manufacturers will specialise in some particular sort of boot that they have not made up to the present, and their greatest success may be achieved in that direction. At present I would not be inclined to exempt any class of boots from the scope of this duty. Then there is the revenue point to be considered. When we decided on the reduction of the duty on tea we had in mind the imposition of this 15 per cent. duty on boots. If we were to adopt this amendment it would mean a loss of £100,000 a year in revenue, and it would also mean that we would have to reconsider the tea duty. We cannot, with a deficit like we have at the moment, face a loss of £100,000. That would be the most unsound type of finance. It would be utterly unjustifiable for us, as we stand at present, to think of reducing our revenue when we have this gap unfilled, and I certainly could not, myself, propose such a thing as that to the Dáil or accept any proposal that would mean such a thing. If it were the opinion of the Dáil that a large class of boots should be exempted from this tax I certainly would feel it my duty to reconsider the whole question of taxation.
I now move that the debate on this amendment stand adjourned until to-morrow.
Question put, and agreed to.
The business for to-morrow will be the resumption of the consideration of the Financial Resolutions, rather than the Railway Bill.