Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 3 May 1932

Vol. 41 No. 9

In Committee on Finance. - Customs Duties (Clothing and Wearing Apparel).

Mr. Lemass

I move:

That the Customs Duties (Clothing and Wearing Apparel) (Provisional Variation) Order, 1932, which was made on the 26th day of April, 1932, by the Executive Council under Section 1 of the Customs Duties (Provisional Imposition) Act, 1931, (No. 38 of 1931) and a copy of which was laid on the Table of Dáil Eireann on the 28th day of April, 1932, be approved, subject to the following modifications, that is to say—

(a) there shall be inserted in the said Order after paragraph 5 thereof a new paragraph as follows—"6. The duty imposed by this Order shall not be chargeable on component parts of personal clothing and wearing apparel which are made wholly or mainly of non-textile material or materials, but this exemption shall not apply in respect of parts made wholly or mainly of leather unless the parts are intended for and suitable for use in the manufacture of hats or caps," and

(b) the Schedule to the said Order shall be amended in the following respects and shall be construed and have effect accordingly, that is to say—

(i) by the addition at the end of sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 1 of the said Schedule of the words "not including umbrellas,"

(ii) by the addition at the end of sub-paragraph (c) of the paragraph 1 of the said Schedule of the words "not including gloves,"

(iii) by the addition in sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 2 of the said Schedule of the words "and collars" after the word "shirts,"

(iv) by the deletion of sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 2 of the said Schedule.

I will try to be as brief as possible because it is necessary to get a decision on the Resolution before 10.30 p.m.

The duty imposed by the Order was as follows:—60 per cent., with a preferential rate of 40 per cent., upon men's and boys' ready-made clothing and other ready-made clothing of various description as set out in the Order. No change in the existing rate of duty upon shirts, collars, straw hats, felt hats of all descriptions, hats of any other description and intended for wear by women and girls, and all component parts and all accessories of any of these goods. When I say no change, the existing rate of duty was 15 per cent. Under this Order the maximum may be 22½ per cent. with a preferential rate of 15 per cent. The present rate is 30 per cent. upon every article of men's and women's wearing apparel. The modification proposed in the resolution is designed to take out and place in a separate category all gloves. As the Revenue Commissioners themselves interpreted the original Order, gloves made of leather were subjected to the higher rate of duty and gloves made of wool to the lower rate of duty. The intention is that all gloves be subjected to the 30 per cent. rate.

The position in respect of this industry is probably well known to a number of Deputies. For a number of years past a Customs duty of 15 per cent. was applied to all wearing apparel. We have split up that duty as it were into its component parts by an increase in respect of some articles and a lessening of the duty in respect of others. We have increased it not so considerably in respect of the third class. Another change that we are proposing to make in the Order is to admit free of duty parts for caps— peaks and leather parts. We are proposing to abolish the duty now payable upon cloth for manufacture into caps, which cloth is of a kind not now supplied from within the country or likely to be supplied from within.

A considerable reduction should take place in the price of caps. I hope that announcement will be of some consolation to certain merchants who have been importing these caps at a very high rate in the past couple of weeks.

The position in respect of men's and boys' clothing is this: This industry despite the fact that it had a slender measure of protection of only 15 per cent. has developed at a remarkably rapid rate here. The imports of men's and boys' suits amounted to £835,000 the year before the tariff, and they amounted to £207,000 last year. Pre-tariff there were less than 800 workers employed, calculated on a full time basis, in the industry. The numbers employed had reached 2,561 in September of last year. The main development of the industry has been in respect of men's and boys' suits. The development is not so rapid in respect of men's and boys' overcoats, but that end of the industry is developing now. There is no reason why the £60,000 which represents our imports of overcoats should not disappear in due course, and all these coats be made by the existing factories. Generally speaking, the requirements of the country in respect of ready-made suits and men's and boys' overcoats amount to £1,300,000. Of that possibly £1,000,000 worth is supplied from within the country and £300,000 worth imported. So the industry has only a very short step further to go in order to meet our entire requirements. The intention of this duty is to secure for them the remaining portion of the market.

The development of the industry, which was very rapid the first years after the tariff, was checked in 1927 when certain firms, Messrs. Burton, Hipps and other firms operating multiple shops commenced operations here. The operations of these firms did check the development of the industry. One remarkable fact about the industry is that the competition between native manufacturers is very severe, with the result that prices have been kept at a very remarkably low level. Despite the fact that a duty of 15 per cent. was imposed, the prices prevailing for men's and boys' ready-made suits have not been higher than those prevailing in England and Northern Ireland. The costs of production here are slightly higher and the representatives of firms who operate factories in the Free State and the Six Counties, with whom I discussed this matter, assured me that the profit here, in consequence of this keen competition, is very much lower than in respect of the Six-County factories.

In the hat and cap industry there were three firms employing about 90 workers when the tariff was first imposed and there are now five employing 200 workers. It is anticipated that there will be further development there in consequence of the facility which we are proposing to give by exempting from duty the raw materials which were heretofore taxed. In the making of ties, there were five firms employing about 100 workers pre-tariff, and at the moment there are nine firms employing 222 workers. In the umbrella industry there were three firms employing 45 workers pre-tariff, while at the moment there are four firms employing about 75 workers.

In the case of women's clothing, the development has not been to anything like the same extent. A beginning, in fact, is only being made in the manufacture of women's heavy outer garments. In respect of women's light outer garments and under-garments, there has been a substantial industry in existence for a number of years. There are at present almost 30 firms in the Saorstát engaged in that business. All these firms have made very definite progress since the tariff was imposed in 1925, the number of workers engaged having increased from 100 to 800 over that period.

In respect of hosiery, the position is this: that although a very substantial advance has been made in consequence of the protection afforded, there is still a considerable distance for this industry to travel before it will have reached the point at which it will be supplying our requirements. The most rapid advance has been in respect of wool hosiery. The imports of wool stockings have decreased since 1924 from £344,000 to £171,000 in 1930, and wool underwear from £151,000 to £106,000. In the case of fancy hosiery, there has been an increase of imports in respect of cotton, artificial silk and other materials. The industry has not made much headway up to the present. There is no reason why the firms existing here, if they secured the market, cannot meet all our requirements in respect of these articles and produce them at a highly competitive price. For a slight period, during which the industries will be installing the necessary machinery and perfecting their organisation to meet the situation consequent on these new tariffs, there will be some slight dislocation.

There is no reason to anticipate that dislocation now, because in respect of this class of goods there has been a considerable importation during the past few weeks, and there is probably in the country a very considerable supply which will avail to meet all our requirements during the period when the factories are extending their plant and equipment, and which will enable them to get to the position of availing in full of the new markets now made available to them. I do not wish to delay the Dáil any longer, as some Deputies may wish to speak on this matter. I am anxious to supply any information Deputies may require. In case Deputies feel that the time at their disposal is unduly limited, I will point out again that they will have another opportunity to speak on the matter when the Bill confirming this Resolution is submitted to the Dáil ten days hence.

Mr. Blythe

I recognise this Resolution has to be passed by 10.30, and I do not want to take up much time. I think the method by which the Government is proceeding in this matter is about as objectionable as they could have chosen. There was not, at any rate, the secrecy about their intentions that there might have been. It was rumoured all around that some tariff of this nature was going to be imposed, and great numbers of people took advantage of the opportunity and imported large quantities of goods. Perhaps other people were caught out, and they will suffer. In that respect, this was not a surprise action on the part of the Government. This order was rushed out in such a way that it required considerable modification afterwards. There would have been an excuse for acting as they did in hurrying out the order without all the consultation that there might have been if they were going to secure that there would be no forestalling. They did not secure that there would be no forestalling, and, on the other hand, there was not adequate consultation. As a matter of fact, a great deal of confusion has arisen, and a great deal of trouble and annoyance has been occasioned to traders that ought not to have been occasioned.

Numerous complaints have been addressed to me on this matter. I gather the order which imposes these duties has not yet been printed or made available to people who might be interested. It may have been available in some form, but it was not readily available. The order fixes duties by reference to a previous Act and it is very difficult to understand. If one takes the original Act and the amending order it is hard to be sure at what rate a particular thing is charged. I presume those who have already paid 60 per cent. on gloves will be entitled to a refund of the excess duty. In cases where people have had parcels tendered to them and have refused them and are now prepared in view of the modification to accept those parcels, I think the double delivery fee ought not to be charged. That perhaps is a matter for the Minister for Posts and Telegraphs rather than for the Minister for Industry and Commerce. But if the order was issued in such a form that it had to be charged, then I think the trader should not have to pay double in consequence of the Government changing its mind. This tariff is going to cause a very substantial increase in the cost of living.

There are great ranges of the cheaper goods, the goods which the poor must use, and there is little likelihood of their being manufactured here, at any rate, for some considerable time. There are ranges of goods—I do not say this particular motion deals with them—which are not made here. There is nothing approaching them in price made here. So far as the cheaper classes of hosiery and cotton underwear which is bought in large quantities by the poor are concerned, there seems to be very little prospect that they will be made in quantities here for some time. I think the same applies to women's wear. The poor will have to bear the cost of things that are going to be very substantially increased.

So far as men's ready-mades are concerned, considerable progress has been made by the industry; but I gather as a result of the changes made in the tariff on fabrics, the tariff being applicable to the cheaper ranges, all tweeds with price lists have been withdrawn from the traders and these goods are going to cost more to the traders and the public.

This is, therefore, a tariff which is going very substantially to increase the cost of living. It is a complicated sort of tariff dealing with different classes of goods, and it seems to me to be the sort of tariff, especially as these goods are protected already and progress has been made, that should have been imposed only after a public or semi-public investigation so that there might be some discrimination, and the tariff should not be imposed on classes of goods that must be bought by the poor and that are not likely to be made here in sufficient quantity for a considerable time. Somebody said that the tariff is kept at its existing level on the classes of goods which the Minister for Industry and Commerce knows about and, where he does not know about them, he has increased the tariff in such a way as to make it certain that the cost of living figure will be affected. The Minister said the other day that he did not anticipate that the tariff policy will raise the cost of living figure at all. Everything that I hear from traders who are not Free Traders, they are simply retailers, convinces me that this tariff is going to have a very serious effect on that section of our people who will feel the increased cost most.

Mr. Gorey

I want to draw the Minister's attention to one matter. It is in connection with pads, shinguards and gloves used in playing games. These articles are not manufactured here. The Revenue Commissioners previously regarded these as wearing apparel. It was never the intention to put them down as wearing apparel, but unfortunately the Revenue Commissioners gave that interpretation to the words and there was no getting out of it. These things were treated as wearing apparel. In view of the fact that they are not manufactured here and that they are not wearing apparel I would ask the Minister to make an exemption in the case of pads, shinguards and gloves that are used in games.

Mr. Dillon

I assume that all these emergency regulations will be reviewed again at the Budget time and that therefore we need not now discuss the whole principle of the various tariffs that are proposed. Therefore I do not propose to vote against them, because their defeat would hopelessly and unnecessarily embarrass the Government. We can discuss them fully, on the Budget. I do say this, that this tariff above all others is going to hit the poor and nobody but the poor. Anybody who is fairly well off gets his clothes made at home. People who are fairly prosperous buy their clothes made to measure and the people who will suffer over this tariff are the poor who try to keep their children clean and neat. That is abominable. They will be made pay this tariff.

Secondly, I will invite the Minister to investigate the conditions under which the workers in this industry are working in the City of Dublin. If he does he will come to the conclusion that greater pressure ought to be brought to bear upon clothing manufacturers who already have benefited by tariffs to see that their operatives work under better conditions than those under which they work at present. I will ask the Minister to look into that question between now and Budget time. Is it reasonable that on the first departure to the new intensive policy of tariffs the poor should be made pay first and suffer the most?

Mr. O'Hara

I consider the present tariff is quite sufficient. This is a very serious matter and it will increase the cost of living. If you go any further you will be leaving the poor people in the country absolutely naked.

Mr. Davin

Oh!

Mr. O'Hara

I would like to get the views of the Minister with regard to how he proposes to deal with second-hand clothing. Is he going to impose a tariff on second-hand clothing? Already there is a tariff on boots to the extent of 15 or 20 per cent. Has the trade in the country increased very much as a result of that? I was speaking to a manufacturer the other day. He had 300 men employed before the tariff and now he has 350. It is all right to collect money from tariffs, but it is another thing to have the people going naked. Some of the Deputies who question my statement that the people may have to go naked might be very glad later on to wear a suit of second-hand clothing.

Mr. Gorey

When the railways are closed down.

Mr. O'Hara

This is a very serious matter for the people in the cities and towns, but more particularly for the poor in the West of Ireland.

Mr. Anthony

I propose to support this motion. Something can be said in favour of it that cannot be said about other motions of a similar character introduced by the Minister. In the course of the debate someone said that this would tend to increase the cost of clothing for the poor. If the cost of ready-made clothing is increased on the poor people it will be nothing but a crime. The Minister knows, or at least should know, because he has had some contact with the business, that there are efficient ready-made clothing factories in this country where they can, if they wish, produce an article as good and as cheap as anything that can be imported. I know the word "cheap" is rather a relative term, but the fact remains that in Dublin and Cork you have efficient clothing factories employing a fairly large number of persons.

Within the last few weeks supervision was suggested, I think by Deputy Davin, and the suggestion was responded to in a very friendly way by the Minister. I think it would be advisable if there was some supervision, and if some price regulation board was set up, some board which would prevent profiteering in this particular commodity. Apart from being concerned with the price charged to the poor, I am just as much concerned with the conditions that will operate in the industry. Will the Minister guarantee—and he can do so—that the Trade Boards Act will operate, and that no sweated conditions will obtain in the industry in the Free State? Those of us who take an interest in the economic development of the country know that in Dublin particularly a number of one-horse shows are being set up. Some person starts a factory in a back room or in a slum, engages four or five young girls, and sweats these girls, and will do the same so far as male labour is concerned.

Without wishing to discriminate between one class of the community and another, we are aware that a number of Easterns—they will easily be identified by that appellation—are engaged in the industry in Dublin. I want to know what steps the Minister proposes to take to see that these people will not sweat the mere Irish, taking advantage of this high tariff on ready-mades. Will he see to it that there is no orientation of a lot of these gentlemen into the country, and that they will not be allowed to come over here from the East End of London to establish factories in Dublin and possibly in Cork in order to exploit the mere Irish? Will he offer the protection to the poor of this country that he is now offering to the manufacturers? I want to have these safeguards extended to the poor.

I am supporting the motion because I feel it is going to increase employment in the industry and because I feel also that the materials can be produced in this country. Good, honest, Irish tweed, good, honest homespuns can be produced and, because of the facilities of new machinery and because of highly-skilled labour in that industry, we can produce these articles as good and as cheaply as any outside firm. I admit that this country could not and will not be able to compete with imported articles manufactured under such conditions as I have referred to—sweated labour.

I also want the Minister to assure the House that he will see to it that the Trade Boards Act will operate in connection with this industry. In that connection I would point out to him that at the moment a number of handicraft tailors are engaged in the industry. The Minister must be aware of that, too. I do not claim to know too much about the industry, but in my inquiries into other industries I found that a number of handicraft tailors are engaged in these ready-made factories. It might appear to be a misnomer when I say a handicraft tailor is engaged in a ready-made factory, but in order to compete with the firms the Minister has mentioned, firms which I do not think it right or proper to mention here, Irish firms have engaged that class of labour for making and attaching the collars of the garments. Will the Minister also see to it that the Trade Board in regard to the handicraft tailoring industry is also revived and that fair conditions will operate? I do not want to see a number of exploiters in this any more than in any other industry. It matters not to me whether our Irish people are exploited by Jew or Gentile. I want to see that they are not exploited at all. I do not care what flag that man flies over his factory, whether it is green, white and yellow, or the plain honest green flag with the harp in the centre of which I am very fond, but I do want to see that fair conditions will operate and that the working classes, the people of Dublin, Cork and of other parts of the State, will not be exploited in these industries. I want this assurance from the Minister. I am not making a bargain because I am going to support this tariff on the principle that it may give employment. I believe that we Irish people can make these goods as good and as cheap as they can be made abroad. In order that the poor people of the country will not be fleeced and exploited, it is up to the Government to take the steps I have indicated.

Mr. McGilligan

I should like to have one or two questions answered, so as to get this in its setting. If I take the taxation already evidenced by some of these orders, the point as to the increase in the unemployment insurance contributions, the order as to the butter tax, footwear and cocoa, it seems to me on an ordinary calculation that there is a likelihood of about one and a half million pounds being imposed by way of extra taxation. I want to know what is going to be added by this tariff. I find myself in difficulties in regard to these early statements about component parts. What does the statement about component parts in paragraph (a) of the new order mean? In the schedule of the original order, section 1, lettered section (d) there is talk of "all component parts and all accessories of any article mentioned in any of the foregoing sub-paragraphs of this paragraph." Does the piece of the material count as a "component part?" Is that included as a component part?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

Am I to take it from the exemption granted, to a certain extent, by the new order that the words "shall not be chargeable on component parts of personal clothing and wearing apparel which are made wholly or mainly of non-textile material or materials" are intended to exempt the type of piece goods now exempted?

Mr. Lemass

It is mainly designed to exempt certain component parts of caps—the leather band used in the lining, and also the cardboard for the peak.

Mr. McGilligan

Am I to take it that number 6, lettered portion (a), of the new order only refers to caps?

Mr. Lemass

Mainly.

Mr. McGilligan

Almost entirely?

Mr. Lemass

Yes.

Mr. McGilligan

The old exemption limit for linen fabrics is gone. In the first order, in schedule No. 1, lettered paragraph (d), spoke of applying 60 per cent. duty on all component parts and on all accessories of articles mentioned previously—that is to say, reading back, suits, overcoats, etc. Does that apply to the piece—the fabric?

Mr. Lemass

Cut and shaped. A single piece of cloth which could be sewn into a coat would be a component part.

Mr. McGilligan

It does not mean the web of cloth?

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. McGilligan

I should like to know if that particular definition has been examined with a view to seeing that an actual web of stuff coming in is not caught by "component part."

Mr. Lemass

If the Deputy sees a web of cloth, how does he know by looking at it that it is going to be made into a suit?

Mr. McGilligan

Etymologically, if a piece of cloth comes into the country to be made into a suit, it is a component part. There is a wider fling in the earlier paragraph, which refers to suits, overcoats, hats and caps. We know that a web of cloth is not going to be made into a carpet or a rug.

Mr. Lemass

The fabric is not covered by this order. A shaped piece of cloth would be a component part. That is the Revenue Commissioners' own definition.

Mr. McGilligan

Does the Minister expect that there will ever be a "component part" brought within the definition, since it will be merely the shaping which will be in question. It will be easy to avoid it. If that is so, the lettered end of that paragraph is negligible, and we will have to wait and see the decision of the Government on this point of the fabric itself. I leave that out of calculation at the moment, and I leave out the big tax there would have been under this order if the fabric had been included. Would the Minister, at a later stage, if it is possible—and I think it is, though it could not be done now—segregate out for us the employment which is likely to be given under the different headings of his first schedule —the schedule as it appeared in the original order—and the increased employment he hopes to get out of the (b) item, proofed wearing apparel and proofed clothing, not including umbrellas. Secondly, under lettered portion (c) of No. 2—the manufacture of straw hats—would the Minister say what employment he hopes to get out of that.

Mr. Lemass

Would the Deputy say why he put a duty on straw hats?

Mr. McGilligan

Is the Minister simply keeping to my lines?

Mr. Lemass

I am not proposing to change.

Mr. McGilligan

Item (e) refers to "hats of any other description and intended for wear by women or girls." I suggest that that should be reconsidered and reconsidered in the circumstances of clothing generally. There is going to be an increase in the tax, and if the Minister intends to develop along the line that shows most opportunity for development it is not in the manufacture of any apparel or garments for use by women folk. I should like to have a statement as to what increase there has been under that item. There must be some record already.

Mr. Lemass

On that item?

Mr. McGilligan

On the item of hats.

Mr. Lemass

We are not changing the duty.

Mr. McGilligan

The Minister has not got my point. There was a duty put on. In effect, it operated as a tax. There was very little in the way of women's hats made in this country. There is going to be a heavier tax put on clothing—a heavier tax than before. I suggest that there should be relaxation on the women's clothing side, particularly in respect of women's hats. Otherwise, if the Minister is not going to relax, will he let us know what employment has already been given by that tax, if it is going to be constant and what increase in employment he is going to look for in respect of women's clothing, apart from this question of hats. These points will arise in more detail on the Bill. I should like that they would be answered but I do not think they could be answered now.

Mr. Davin

The Minister informed the House, and I am sure he has figures to support the statement, that subsequent to the election of the present Government, there appeared to be a considerable increase in articles imported under this heading. Can the Minister produce any set of figures covering any period that he has in mind, showing that his statement is justified, when compared with the figures of a corresponding period for the previous year? I noticed that following the return of the present Government several influential deputations of manufacturers were received, including a deputation of those engaged in the industry dealt with in the resolution. A report of an interview with the Minister appeared in the newspapers, and I am a little bit anxious to know if we can get any information from him as to what actually transpired at the interview. Did the Minister get an indication from those he met in the trades covered by the resolution as to the extent to which new capital might be put into them? Did he question them about wages and conditions operating in the concerns for which they are responsible? Has the Minister been furnished with records to show the wages paid and generally the conditions prevailing in these industries? Am I to take it that he is satisfied with the working conditions of the employees engaged in them? From information at my disposal I share, to a large extent, the fears expressed by Deputy Anthony, because I knew long before I anticipated a resolution of this kind, that in Dublin wages and conditions have been imposed upon women and men in this trade that would not be imposed in China or in any other country. I am not going to commit myself to resolutions in this House, now or in the future, for the purpose of giving the benefits of tariffs to people engaged in industries, unless there is a definite assurance that decent, human, Christian standards and conditions will be applied by those who are going to benefit. My attitude on this matter applies to other industries but I am more concerned about this industry because I can see little hope of controlling the prices that are likely to prevail as a result of the imposition of this tariff. When imposed in other industries tariffs may make it possible for the Minister to fix prices by way of a tribunal, but I cannot see how such a price fixing tribunal can regulate prices in this industry. Being satisfied about that I want the Minister to give an assurance to the members of this Party that if he has not got the information concerning conditions operating in the industry covered by the resolution, he will do so and satisfy himself that the manufacturers who are going to get the most benefit out of this will apply decent rates of wages for the workers and also human conditions.

I think I am right and that Deputy Dillon was wrong in suggesting that the figures mentioned in the resolution are likely to be modified in the Budget resolutions. I take it that that is not so. I ask the Minister if he can see any good reason for imposing this tax on second-hand clothing. I came across an instance some time ago where a number of persons associated with the Abbey players when in England sent home some old clothing to a charitable organisation. I was amazed to receive a letter from one of the members protesting against a duty being imposed on clothing sent to a charitable organisation for distribution to poor people. I would like to know if there is any possibility of excluding from the tariff clothing of that description or, of modifying the duties. I am mainly concerned about the conditions of labour in the industries that are going to benefit from the duties. I have very positive information that individuals associated with one industry are not prepared to pay anything like the proper rate of wages, and I want to see that they are not going to get the benefit of a duty of this kind at the expense of the poor and the workers.

Mr. Lemass

In connection with second-hand clothing the situation, of course, is that the duty applies to second-hand clothing in the same way as to new clothing. I understand that the Public Health authorities have considerable objection to the importation of second-hand clothing in large quantities. Possibly we will have some action by them in respect to it as they have reason to believe that there is some spread of disease in this country, in consequence of the large importation of second-hand clothing. On the other question raised by Deputy Davin, the position in respect to the ready-made clothing manufacturers is that for boys' and men's suits, women's light garments and outer garments, there are Trade Board trades in which the rates of wages and conditions of working are regulated by Trade Boards. If Deputy Davin has any information that Trade Board rates are not being paid in any particular concern, I would be glad if he sent me the information. If there is any reason to believe that the rates are unsatisfactory it is the duty of the workers' representatives on the Board to take the matter up in the first in-instance with the Boards. Is the Deputy satisfied on that point?

Mr. Davin

I am more concerned to know if the Minister asked for certain information when he received the deputation and if he got figures and is satisfied with them.

Mr. Lemass

The position is that the rates of wages are fixed by the Trade Boards. The manufacturers assured me that they pay Trade Board rates, and some of them stated that they were paying more. There are recognised piece rates in all these industries. We got these rates from them in certain cases, because costings had to be gone into in order to compare prices here with prices abroad. There are certain matters that I want to have cleared up before the discussion terminates. In the first place, the question of prices and the increased cost of living is of most importance. There is no reason whatever why a person who is prepared to buy Irish goods should pay more. That is quite obvious. A certain class of goods will be imported and a duty paid on them such as artificial silk stockings, fancy hosiery, certain fancy overcoats and heliotrope suits. If people want to import these goods there is no reason why the State should not get the revenue. The State must get revenue in any case and I would sooner see it getting it in that way than by taxing sugar or tea.

Mr. Blythe

What about the cheaper lines?

Mr. Lemass

In regard to ready-made clothing, prices are as low here as in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland, because the competition is keener here. In future, in consequence of the duties we have imposed on clothing, there is undoubtedly the prospect that ready-made suits, made out of imported cloth, will be slightly dearer —by about 1/6 or 2/- a suit. However, the position is that the poor person who has been referred to, and whose interest we are all anxious to safeguard, can get a better suit of clothes made from Irish cloth at a cheaper price. In so far as it is necessary for him to go naked, as Deputy O'Hara put it, we are safeguarding his interests. That applies to all ranges of goods covered by this duty.

Mr. Dillon

I assure the Minister that he is mistaken.

Mr. Lemass

In respect to ready-mades that is so. In respect to hosiery and straw hats it may not be so.

Mr. Dillon

In respect to children's ready-made clothing I assure the Minister that that is not so.

Mr. Lemass

The same conditions do not apply in respect to children's ready-made clothing. I appreciate that. But they are likely to apply in the future as certain additional firms are going into that particular business now, that is, the manufacture of children's ready-made clothing. I expect that in respect to these classes of goods the same conditions as regards competition and output will operate as in the case of adults' clothing at the time. That brings us up against the question: what duty is going to be effective? Deputy Blythe referred to boots. The position in respect to boots is that we increased the duty from 15 per cent. to 25 per cent. The English manufacturers who are importing boots here met that position by cutting the price of their boots to such an extent that you can now buy English boots and shoes cheaper than you could have bought them before the duty was increased. That is the position.

Mr. Davin

Was that generally applied?

Mr. Lemass

Generally applied. It has been advertised in the newspapers. You can see the advertisements of Dolcis and Tylers in the newspapers this week stating that their shoes are still being sold tax free. Catalogues supplied to me by manufacturers importing here show that their prices have been reduced all around.

Mr. Blythe

Is that not due to forestalling?

Mr. Lemass

No.

Mr. Anthony

Is the Minister aware that firms such as Tylers get large quantities of their boots manufactured in Ireland and that these boots can be sold cheaper because they are sold through Tylers' selling agency than they could be sold through an Irish agency.

Mr. Lemass

I am referring now to the price lists circulated by these English manufacturers to their customers in Ireland representing the price at which they are willing to supply boots during this season and comparing those prices with the prices at which they sold last season.

Mr. Anthony

That is because they are prepared to do with less profits. They are not dumping.

Mr. Dillon

And that they are selling a cheaper article.

Mr. Lemass

That explanation is possible: that they are, to some extent, cutting their prices, and in other respects depreciating the quality of the article. That brings up the question: at what stage can you give an effective measure of protection to existing industries to give them an opportunity of developing? The English themselves imposed a duty of 25 per cent. on boots. England is a highly industrialised country with a great number of large boot factories and is in a position to supply all her own requirements. Because we are not in that position, even though our duty is at the same rate as the rate in England, it will, in consequence, be less effective than the British duty in Britain.

There is one point that I want to get quite clear in the minds of everyone and it is this: that these tariffs need only bring in revenue to the Exchequer in so far as people want English goods or goods made out of English cloth in consequence of their shape, style, colour or something of that kind. But people who are prepared to buy and wear Irish goods made out of Irish materials can get them cheaper in consequence of this tariff than they have ever been able to get them before. There need be no increase and there will be no increase in the cost of such goods. There is certainly no reason why anybody should have to undergo the hardship that Deputy O'Hara contemplates. Deputy Gorey referred to shinguards and articles of that kind. These things may not be made here, but because of the administrative difficulties involved in exempting them from duty we should not do it, and if revenue does come into the Exchequer from that source, well it is expended for the good of the country from the Exchequer. The figures with reference to imports during the past few weeks have, in certain cases, been supplied to me, but it is not upon such figures that my information relating to abnormal imports are based. That information is based on special reports received from the Customs authorities at the various ports, and I do not think that anybody has any doubt in his mind that very large imports of these goods have, in fact, taken place. However, in a short time, the monthly import figures will be available, and Deputies will have an opportunity of comparing the position for themselves.

Deputy Anthony referred to foreign firms coming in here for the purpose of exploiting Irish workers. We will shortly be proposing to the Dáil legislation which will, in the case of certain industries to which that legislation can be applied by order, give us the power to control new entrants into these industries, in order to ensure that, where an industry is already developed, where Irish capital is invested in it, and where the requirements of the country are, or are about to be, adequately supplied from existing industries, it will not be possible for some foreign firm to come in here, and utilise its larger capital resources for the purpose of driving these Irish firms out of the market. In other words, we are going to give persons who put money into Irish industries a certain measure of security which will be used to operate against undesirable aliens coming in here to start factories.

Mr. Anthony

Will the Minister extend the same protection to the operative as it is now proposed to extend to the manufacturer?

Mr. Lemass

Yes. The protection that we give to the operatives engaged in these industries is the protection of the Trade Boards Acts.

Mr. Davin

On that point, I would like to know if the Minister has been supplied with the right information. Is he giving an assurance to this House that all the industries covered by this resolution can be dealt with by Trade Boards? Is he aware that certain employers' representatives on certain Trade Boards, who are not willing to face facts, do not attend the meetings and turn the whole business into a farce?

Mr. Lemass

I will promise the Deputy this, that Trade Boards are going to become effective instruments in regulating conditions of employment.

Mr. Anthony

Will the Minister deal with the other point? Will he restore the other handicrafts?

Mr. Lemass

The whole position in respect of Trade Boards is under review, and certain reorganisation is taking place which, I trust, will result in these Boards becoming much more effective than they might have ever been in the past.

Mr. O'Hara

The Minister has made a very serious statement in regard to the importation of second-hand clothing into this country——

An Ceann Comhairle

Has the Deputy a question to ask? We have only three minutes in which to conclude.

Mr. O'Hara

I would like the Minister to produce evidence to show that any disease has been carried by the importation of this clothing into the country. There is no case made in that respect at all, but I will raise it again at the first opportunity.

The Committee divided: Tá, 79; Níl, 51.

Tá

• Aiken, Frank.
• Allen, Denis.
• Anthonv, Richard.
• Bartley, Gerald.
• Beegan, Patrick.
• Blaney, Neal.
• Boland, Gerald.
• Boland, Patrick.
• Bourke, Daniel.
• Brady, Bryan.
• Brady, Seán.
• Brasier, Brooke.
• Breathnach, Cormac.
• Breen, Daniel.
• Briscoe, Robert.
• Browne, William Frazer.
• Byrne, Alfred.
• Carney, Frank.
• Carty, Frank.
• Clery, Mícheál.
• Colbert, James.
• Cooney, Eamonn.
• Corish, Richard.
• Corry, Martin John.
• Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
• Crowley, Tadhg.
• Davin, William.
• Derrig, Thomas.
• De Valera, Eamon.
• Everett, James.
• Flinn, Hugo V.
• Flynn, John.
• Flynn, Stephen.
• Fogarty, Andrew.
• Geoghegan, James.
• Gibbons, Seán.
• Gormley, Francis.
• Gorry, Patrick Joseph.
• Goulding, John.
• Harris, Thomas.
• Hayes, Seán.
• Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
• Humphreys, Francis.
• Jordan, Stephen.
• Kelly, James Patrick.
• Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
• Keyes, Raphael Patrick.
• Kilroy, Michael.
• Kissane, Eamonn.
• Lemass, Seán F.
• Little, Patrick John.
• Lynch, James B.
• McEllistrim, Thomas.
• MacEntee, Seán.
• Maguire, Ben.
• Maguire, Conor Alexander.
• Moane, Edward.
• Moore, Séamus.
• Morrissey, Daniel.
• Moylan, Seán.
• Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
• Norton, William.
• O'Grady, Seán.
• O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
• O'Reilly, Matthew.
• O'Reilly, Thomas J.
• O'Rourke, Daniel.
• Powell, Thomas P.
• Rice, Edward.
• Ruttledge, Patrick J.
• Ryan, James.
• Ryan, Robert.
• Sexton, Martin.
• Sheehy, Timothy.
• Sheridan Michael.
• Smith, Patrick.
• Traynor, Oscar.
• Walsh, Richard.
• Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).

Níl

• Alton, Ernest Henry.
• Beckett, James Walter.
• Blythe, Ernest.
• Broderick, William Jos.
• Brodrick, Seán.
• Burke, Patrick.
• Coburn, James.
• Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
• Conlon, Martin.
• Cosgrave, William T.
• Davis, Michael.
• Desmond, William.
• Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
• McDonogh, Fred.
• McGilligan, Patrick.
• McMenamin, Daniel.
• Minch, Sydney B.
• Mongan, Joseph W.
• Mulcahy, Richard.
• Myles, James Sproule.
• Nally, Martin.
• O'Brien, Eugene P.
• O'Connor, Batt.
• O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
• O'Hara, Patrick.
• O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
• Doyle, Peadar Seán.
• Duggan, Edmund John.
• Finlay, Thomas A.
• Fitzgerald, Desmond.
• Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
• Gorey, Denis John.
• Hayes, Michael.
• Hennessy, Thomas.
• Hogan, Patrick (Galway).
• Keating, John.
• Keogh, Myles.
• Kiersey, John.
• Lynch, Finian.
• O'Leary, Daniel.
• O'Mahony, The.
• O'Neill, Eamonn.
• O'Shaughnessy, John Joseph.
• O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
• O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
• Reidy, James.
• Roddy, Martin.
• Thrift, William Edward.
• Vaughan, Daniel.
• White, John.
• Wolfe, Jasper Travers.

Tellers:—Tá: Deputies G. Boland and Allen; Níl: Deputies Duggan and P.S. Doyle.

Motion declared carried.

Resolution reported and agreed to.

The Dáil adjourned at 10.40 p.m., to 3 p.m. on Wednesday, May 4.