Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 13 May 1932

Vol. 41 No. 13

Financial Resolutions. - Customs Duties (Spades and Shovels) (Provisional Imposition) Order, 1932.

I move:—

That the Customs Duties (Spades and Shovels) (Provisional Imposition) Order, 1932, which was made on the 22nd 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 27th day of April, 1932, be approved.

I hope the Minister will make some provision so that the price of these articles will be controlled in some way, and that there will be some relation to the price of spades and shovels before the introduction of this motion. Many people besides agriculturists use spades and shovels, such as road workers, and they have to pay for these articles. When contractors engage men they usually supply them with implements to be used in the business, but in thousands of cases labourers have to buy these articles. If the articles that are now to be protected are not up to the standard, are not as durable and of the same utility and value as shovels that could be bought before this tariff was imposed, those affected will find themselves much worse off. I ask the Minister to see that the poorer classes in this State will not suffer as a result of the imposition of the tariff.

The surest way for securing that competitive prices will be charged is to have an adequate number of firms engaged in the production of these articles. At the present time there are three principal firms in the Free State engaged in the industry, the Galway Foundry Company, Messrs. Scott and Company, of Cork, and a firm in Clones. As regards the firm in Clones, there is some slight doubt whether the factory is in the Free State or not. Apparently half of it is in the Free State and half in the Six Counties, but the contention is that the bulk of the factory is in the Free State, and that it is a Free State firm. In addition, there are a large number of smaller places throughout the country engaged in the manufacture of spades. The factory at Clonskeagh, which was engaged in the production of these articles, closed down some time ago, but I am informed that it is shortly to be reopened. In addition, another firm is contemplating embarking on the manufacture of these articles. Information has also been received that another factory is about to be established at Nenagh. Consequently, it is contemplated that in a short time there will be adequate competition to ensure that competitive prices will operate. In any case, the bulk of the spades required in this country have been always produced here. There are local habits and peculiarities with respect to spades, each county preferring a type of its own. Consequently the industry has been mainly a local one at all times. The position is not quite the same with regard to shovels. Apparently, a number of local authorities prefer a type of shovel which is manufactured only in England, and they maintain that that is the type of shovel most suitable for their needs. Against that, I am informed that Galway County Council has for some time utilised a shovel produced by the Galway foundry which they found satisfactory. I am satisfied that shovels of satisfactory quality and at satisfactory prices will be available in the near future.

I would like to correct an impression that might be conveyed by Deputy Anthony's remarks. The shovel is the one tool that belongs to the labourer. It has been the custom for many years for the shovel to belong to the labourer. Labourers are very particular about the shovels they use, particularly the handles. It is very important, therefore, that the price of the shovel to the builders' labourer should not be increased.

I am quite aware of that fact. It relates mainly to builders. Certain public bodies do provide their workers with shovels.

Is the Minister in a position to give any information as to what he called "the short space of time" within which he hopes to have the requirements of the country in this respect met by home producers? He has adverted to one difficulty with regard to these items, the local predilection for certain types of article, a choice which has shown itself in other respects than in spades. It is one of the things which has helped to hamper the development of the boot industry, because in certain counties they will not have boots with rows of nails put in in certain ways. They must have them in another way. How is it hoped to get over that difficulty? If there is local preference for a certain class of article, and if there is a natural insistence on the locally-produced article, how does it come that there is necessity now to impose this protective duty?

With regard to the other articles not subject to local variations of taste, I would like to have the question as to "short time" more carefully analysed than we have had it up to date. The impression with regard to all these tariffs is that all you have to do is to make an Order, make a few passes of the hands, get the usual formula, and the factory, the skilled workers, and the production required come along. Facts do not bear that out. There must be an estimate, as there have always been estimates, as to the period in which, even on the most optimistic view, the hopes as to the industry are likely to be fulfilled. Even when discussing these things in a hasty way at this early stage, I think we are entitled to get the best considered view of the people briefing the Minister in this matter as to the period which must elapse before home requirements are not only scantily met, but so adequately met that the competition of home firms will keep prices close to what they were before. Even at this early stage, I think some analysis of the position should be available.

We have always been making the bulk of our requirements in spades. The spade is an article in respect of which there are local habits. Therefore, very little additional production of spades will meet our requirements.

Why was it not there already if there was local demand?

It is there already. The majority of these articles are produced in small local works throughout the State.

The majority?

The great majority. In addition, there were four factories which made, and there are now three factories which make, spades and shovels on a larger scale. As regards shovels, the position is not the same. There is a predilection in favour of shovels produced by a particular Birmingham firm. That predilection will be changed. It will have to be changed now. In other words, the persons who formerly had that predilection in favour of that particular shovel will endeavour to meet their requirements with the home-produced shovel. I mentioned that Galway County Council had already done so quite successfully and were using a locally-produced shovel. As regards the length of time within which these additional factories may come upon the scene, I am not in a position to give a precise estimate. In the communication I received in relation to the Clonskeagh factory the term used was "a few weeks."

By the factory?

By the person proposing to operate the factory.

By the person likely to benefit from the tariff that has been put on.

Yes, to some extent.

Naturally, the statement was a few weeks.

I can give the Deputy a history of the various steps taken by my Department to secure the reopening of that factory both before and after the tariff was imposed. I never had any doubt that we would get the Clonskeagh factory reopened. It was merely a matter of getting it reopened in the most efficient manner and under management that would enable it to be continued efficiently. As regards the Nenagh factory, I have seen a statement in the Press that the proprietors have already purchased machinery and propose to instal it. I do not know what truth is in that.

With regard to the Nenagh factory, I think it is only fair to say that the proprietors had taken steps to open it before the tariff was ever mentioned.

I am quite satisfied that in four, five or six weeks we will be in a position to more than supply our requirements, and in the meantime existing stocks are adequate to meet the demand.

I do not think this goes to the root of the matter at all. It is quite possible to get a factory opened for anything—no matter how absurd—in this country if the outside supplier is closed down upon and if there is to be no advertence to the price at which the product is to be sold. There is nothing marvellous about that. If you have a demand for something which has to be satisfied and if you close down on the outside supplier, clearly if there is to be no advertence to the price to be charged, the article can be made here and it will be a good thing for somebody to make it here. But that is not the beginning and end of a tariff policy. Articles should be produced in sufficient numbers and produced speedily to meet the requirements of the country at a suitable cost. All we have got in defence of this order is the statement that the Minister in charge of the particular order "hopes"—he advanced later to the position that he was "sure"—that within a few weeks factories would be opened and would be producing sufficient to meet our needs. But the item of cost is a special item and it enters into this question. I take this case because it is a smallish matter, in a sense, though very important to certain classes of the community. By getting these considerations analysed in respect of a small thing, you get the wider and more frightful reactions of a tariff which is of greater importance in the sense that it imposes on the community a tremendous cost if the article in question is not made speedily and if it is not made at a cost comparable with the cost at which the public were getting the article previously. Nothing has been said up to the present with regard to cost.

We must go further. I understand that the Government have a certain policy with regard to decentralisation of industry and that that policy works even to this point, that in the respective categories of industrial blocs, so to speak, there is to be decentralisation. It is not enough to have spades made in Dublin or Clonskeagh, something else in Galway and something else in Donegal, it is better to have two or three factories making spades in two or three parts of the country. How is that going to be managed? Apparently, it comes out in this tariff. You get two or three factories established for the manufacture of some particular goods and they are kept going in different parts of the country because the Government aided the establishment of a particular factory in one place where the natural advantage for the location of the factory seemed to be another place. Suppose three factories are got going and one of the factories finds that, by reason of lying up against the water edge, it can get in raw material more cheaply and produce more cheaply than its competitors. Suppose that factory wants to extend and to cut out another unit, are we to have protection as between the different areas? You can decentralise by diverting manufactures to different spots, by the counties giving certain relief with regard to rates. That might be done or the Government might say: "You will get a bounty or a trade loan guarantee if you go to a particular county and keep the industry going." How is the decentralisation of industry to be maintained unless by some process of zoning out the country—allowing only Clonskeagh spades to be sold within a certain radius of Clonskeagh and articles made in Galway to be sold within a certain radius of Galway? We will have to discuss this matter in a more general and more vigorous way when we come to the more important tariffs, but this consideration enters into this tariff. What future does the Minister see for a small factory established in a particular place for the production not of an article in which local choice will exercise a certain protective effect, but for the production of an article in respect of which there is no such local choice and where artificial bounds will have to be set to prevent that factory, operating in a particular place, from going into the ground or territory of another factory?

The Deputy has raised a much bigger question than anything relating to this particular tariff. So far as this industry is concerned, it has always been decentralised.

That is with regard to spades.

That particular fact has relation to the question of cost. We have always been producing here the bulk of our requirements in spades. In the near future, our productive capacity in relation to spades will be substantially increased. Consequently, one may look for a decrease in price, resulting from the duty in respect of spades. Certainly there will be no increase. In relation to shovels, the same thing does not apply. We will be able to produce shovels here in or about the cost at which they are now procurable, but the cost at which they are now procurable is the cost of a highly centralised mass production firm which is supplying huge quantities of these shovels, not merely to this country, but to a number of other countries as well. The smaller unit, having proportionately larger overheads per unit of production, will not be able, except by rigid economy and efficiency in every department, to compete with that huge English firm in the matter of price. It would not be able to do that except with this measure of protection. There may be some slight increase, but the whole position will be carefully watched by my Department to secure that there is no undue increase.

If we are going to let the factor of prices determine our position as to whether or not an industry is to be established here, then we can abandon the whole idea of industrial development at once. There is no single industrial commodity which we are capable of producing here which we could not buy more cheaply somewhere. If the standard set is the lowest price at which a commodity can be produced in some factory on mass production lines or by sweated labour, then we can reconcile ourselves to the fact that we will not have any factories producing these commodities here. I am not going to set up that standard. If the conditions of the country and the resources in material and skilled workers make it reasonable to assume that we should be able to produce a particular commodity here, it will be the function of the Government to secure that that commodity is produced and that the industry is protected during the initial stages, when it is developing.

On the main issue raised by the Deputy — decentralisation — at the moment the Government has no power to enforce decentralisation. Whether or not we will require power to enforce decentralisation has not been considered. It is, undoubtedly, the policy of the Government to encourage it, and up to the present that policy has been implemented in this way and in this way only—that we have been bringing to the notice of people proposing to engage in particular industries the special advantages which exist in particular districts. There are special advantages in Dublin, Cork and certain other centres—the advantage of being at the centre of the country's distribution system, of being close to the ports, and of having a large supply of skilled labour available. As against these advantages, there are, in a number of provincial districts, a number of local advantages which might offset those available here, and which, if brought to the notice of persons proposing to engage in industry, might induce them to locate their factories elsewhere. For a long time, however, I think the industrial centres will be the towns situated at the ports where railway and other facilities are available.

This leads us somewhat more deeply into the mire. Deputy MacDermot referred last night to a policy which has operated for a number of years past throughout the world, with very bad effects for the world—the policy of economic nationalism. We are not merely to have economic nationalism, but we are to have economic provincialism. Possibly we will get down to a smaller unit than the province and have a system of economic counties. The Minister has shown clearly that he has not yet thought out the difficulties and he has no policy other than the policy he took over—that of directing industrialists to what seemed to be suitable sites, suitability depending upon natural conditions and not upon any artificial diversions away from where the natural advantage would ordinarily locate an industry.

On the smaller matter of the shovels, the Minister started off with a phrase that I thought was going to lead us to some firm ground. He said he believed that within a short time the factories of this country would be supplying the needs of the country at a cheap price. I thought the ending of that sentence was going to be that when that happy state was achieved the tariff could be taken off. The Minister at a later stage indicated that protection during the initial stages was supposed to be the function of the scientifically adjusted tariff. In between he completely threw overboard any hope a person might have had that that was going to be the sound conclusion from his earlier sentences. Now he roundly asserts with regard to industry that one has to keep on protective tariffs practically for all eternity.

According to the Minister, nothing can be produced in this country which we could not buy more cheaply elsewhere. That means, therefore, that there is going to be a protective tariff on this item, not merely in the early stages, even though the Minister has the belief that, within a short period, home manufacturers will be supplying home requirements at a cost equal to what people would pay abroad. That was the Minister's first phrase. He pointed out that he does not take the element of cost as the only test. I do not take it as the only test either, but I think it is a test that should be applied. We are not interested here merely in showing up the defects of any scheme and pointing to what is going to be the cost to the community. We had a positive statement from the Minister which counters most other equally positive statements that the same Minister made when in opposition. We have the very positive statement that tariffs are going to increase the cost to the community.

I have not said that.

We have been told that most of our industries suffer from unfair competition—from dumping. Industries seek protection against that. That means that they cannot compete at present prices. When they are going to be protected the Minister states that we are going to have things sold here at a price higher than what we could buy them at abroad. The cost to the community is going to be increased, and that increased rate will be maintained. That is the clear-cut statement the Minister made to-day. If that is not so, then can we have any hope that once a tariff of this type is put on it will be removed? It used to be said that the essence of a good tariff was that once put on you saw clearly ahead the date of its removal. I have not discovered any tariff which has operated along these lines. It is almost impossible to take off a tariff once it is imposed. You definitely entrench certain people. The capital and the livelihood of certain people are involved, and in the end the removal of the tariff means the confiscation of so much capital and the deprivation of work for some people. The Minister indicates than an extra tax has been put upon the community for all these things. If every country is to behave the way we are starting out, what is going to be the result? All the natural advantages which benefited the world so greatly in the pre-war period are going to be cast aside, and we are definitely walking into the mire which is so stirred up, and which has so involved all the other countries of the world that followed out this policy of economic nationalism. The Minister has declared that there is not a sufficient purchasing unit in this country to make the production of articles sufficiently economic.

The Deputy has widened the scope of the discussion still further. He questions the advantage to mankind of the policy of economic nationalism. Our particular concern is the advantage of economic nationalism to the 3,000,000 people in this country. We have small units of production here; we must have. If the Deputy says that tariffs are going to lead to an increase in price he is right to this extent: that in so far as our people are getting the advantage of dumped prices for a short period, then some increase may follow. But where that is not operating, where the inability of the home firms to compete arises from the fact that they are working only 33? or 50 per cent. of their capacity, then the imposition of a tariff permitting them to work at full capacity, and consequently reducing the cost per unit, will not, and should not, mean any increase in the price of the commodity.

That should mean that the tariff could be removed once you get the unit working full capacity.

Except in so far as the removal of the tariff would invite the large, more highly-capitalised competitors of our firms to engage again in a price-cutting war in order to put the Irish firms out of operation—and they would do it.

The Minister's argument is that the firms at home will have reached the point when they will be able to produce to the fullest extent of their capacity.

I would like to know from the Minister if this involves the partial manufacture of the raw material. If it is merely coming in the initial stages and necessitates very extensive plant, will it be economic for the small firms to erect expensive plant for this operation?

They are doing so.

I want to remind the Minister that although the price aspect of this thing has been treated very fully, price is not the only consideration. In the case of tools that have to be worked by hand, the quality and design, in my opinion, are almost more important than the price. I have no hesitation in saying that shovels of an inferior design and quality offered at 2/6 would be left aside and a farmer would much prefer an article of better design and quality even at a cost of 4/- or 5/-. I suggest that this is one of the industries in which outside firms should be permitted to participate. If any English firms want to set up a factory here for the production of spades and shovels, or parts thereof, the Minister should be very careful before he imposes the restriction relating to 60 per cent. of Irish capital. From what we hear, we know that the Minister has repeatedly turned down all applications for the setting up of factories here unless the outside firms interested conform with the proposal to have 60 per cent. of the capital Irish.

I have never said anything of the kind.

I am glad to hear that from the Minister. I thought that proposal was actually in practice. I hope the vested interests that we now hear so much about—the suggestions of the people behind this tariff—have been set aside and have not been regarded seriously by the Minister. I accept his word. Sixty or seventy years ago people were physically stronger than they are to-day. Some of the tools then in use are a worthy relic of the Stone Age. Some of the agricultural tools manufactured to-day—and I am not going to say where they are manufactured—and sold in some parts of the country, are also relics of the Stone Age.

I had occasion two years ago to be in a certain county in the Saorstát. I saw a certain make of a spade in favour there. If that were the only article available in my part of the country there would be no such thing as a spade used there at all. The people there would not use such a spade. They are accustomed to a better and a lighter article. I say that quality and design are of more importance even than the price. If I were to go into a shop in the morning and were offered one of those spades at 2/- I would prefer to pay 5/- for a better article of better design and quality, and I would consider that a good investment. I think it will be accepted by most people that the workers cannot give the right output with an inferior tool, a blunt-edge spade or a bending shovel. With an inferior article they will not give the output, and our output in most cases is bad enough at present. It would be infinitely worse if we had to toil with inferior tools. In fact, there should be show cases here and prices offered for the most suitable article that would give most satisfaction in the country. There are different designs in the different counties. Particular designs find favour in a particular county, and the tool that would be used in one would not be used in another. I have seen a half-dozen designs, different patterns, of spades and shovels made by one firm in order to suit local needs and prejudices, which seem to be very strong.

I understand that the most any of these foreign firms ask is the right to put up a first-class equipment to turn out a first-class article—merely the privilege of setting up that class of factory. The only thing such a firm would ask would be the right to employ a few key-men to direct the local workers. I see no reason in the world why these people should not come over here regardless of where the capital comes from provided Irish labour is employed, that the goods are made here, and that the implements turned out by the factory would suit the requirements of the people. I say there should be no other restriction whatever.

It is a pleasure to work some tools and a torture to work others. I can say that from experience, and I am not speaking as one who knows nothing about it. I have had personal experience of using those tools. Now in these days when, as I said before, the physique of the people is not as good as it was thirty, forty or fifty years ago, it is of the utmost importance that the labourer should have the right sort of tool. Unless the man is given a spade or shovel of the right design and quality the article will be of no use at all, the work will be badly done, or not done at all. In the matter of the minor drainage on the individual farms, this is of great importance. The shovels and spades used on the farm will be a most important factor in this work of drainage in the future.

The Minister for Industry and Commerce remarked a few moments ago that, while economic nationalism might have done harm to the world, still it might be a good thing for this country. I think it is a fair question to ask the Minister whether he can point to any country in the world where a high tariff policy has been successful as a means of providing work for the unemployed? Take Hungary, for instance.

On a point of order, I submit that the discussion upon tariffs in general can hardly arise at this stage.

As Deputy MacDermot is aware, these matters will come before the House in the Finance Bill, and then there will be an opportunity of going into economic nationalism and the general purpose and results of tariffs. It would be better to postpone the discussion on general tariffs until then, and to deal now with the question of spades and shovels.

I willingly bow to your ruling. I would not have raised this matter were it not that it arose out of what the Minister has just said.

I listened with great attention to Deputy Gorey's statement. One would think, on listening to the Deputy, that because an implement is manufactured in an Irish factory it is no use at all and that it is an implement of torture.

I never said any such thing.

Within three miles of the City of Cork there was for a long period a spade and shovel factory. That has been closed down for some years, but the implements that were made there are still in use. I have seen some of them myself, and I know of one of the spades made there which has actually worn out five foreign spades. When you send three or four men working you will have them fighting as to which of the three or four is to use the "Irishman," as this spade is called. All of them prefer to use that spade. It is the only decent spade of the bunch. The implements that are turned out now by these foreign factories are absolutely useless for our work. I challenge Deputy Gorey on that point. I suggest that the Deputy should be given the job of tester of these implements. He would then be in a perpetual state of torture, and that is the only cure for him.

I am always testing these spades in actual work, and I am not a bit ashamed to admit it.

Deputy Gorey referred to certain vested interests that were behind those tariffs. I would like to know what these vested interests are. The only vested interests I know of are the vested interests who apparently controlled the late Executive Council here. Whether these vested interests were vested interests or combines, I know they closed down many of our industries here. I do wish that Deputies on the opposite side would not go on the assumption that anything that is made in Ireland is necessarily bad.

I must again say that nobody has said that.

Are we discussing the general policy of tariffs or are we dealing with spades and shovels?

I think I have touched on nothing that has not been discussed by Deputy Gorey or Deputy McGilligan, and I am putting that to Deputy "McNab." I consider that this tariff is necessary if we are going to have implements that are suitable to the country instead of implements turned out in what is called mass production, supposed to be suitable for every country in the world, but actually suitable for none.

I want to know if it is in order for a Deputy to refer to another Deputy by his wrong surname and continue to do so?

The Chair was not aware of such conduct. The Chair did not hear the misnomer.

Very few people know what Deputy Corry is saying anyway.

The Deputy referred to Deputy McMenamin as Deputy "McNab."

Deputy McGilligan travelled so much in other countries that it is pretty hard to understand him.

I can make myself clear anyway.

Deputy Corry must address the Chair and he should confine himself to spades and shovels.

Deputy Corry was merely using his natural language, the language of the baboon.

When the menagerie ceases interrupting me I will carry on.

There should be some little regard to what is known as the ordinary decencies of public life. I suggest that the use of the term menagerie in this House and applied to the Deputy is altogether out of order and it is not language that should be used at all. I would suggest to Deputy Corry that he might at least have some regard for Irish decency.

If Deputy Anthony is really interested in the decencies of this House he should use his influence with his colleague, Deputy Gorey, and restrain him from referring to another Deputy as a baboon. I think the natural answer to that is a menagerie.

I did not hear that expression used.

If you did not others did.

What is the Ceann Comhairle there for? If the Ceann Comhairle heard the remark he would immediately resent it. I bitterly resent the use of such language.

Ask Deputy Gorey to withdraw.

That is a matter for the Chair.

I submit that I have as much respect for the decencies of this House as any other Deputy in it. I certainly am not going to put up with any insults from any individuals or Deputies in this House. I always satisfy myself on one thing, that I will give as good as I get and a bit more for interest.

The Deputy should refrain from using the word "menagerie." It would be equally desirable for another Deputy to refrain from using the word "baboon." Deputy Corry must now stick to spades and shovels.

If Deputy McGilligan would refrain from his language, we would get on more quickly. I have nothing further to add to my statements on this matter.

Deputies

Hear! Hear!

I do not know what they call themselves this time, but, apparently they are getting good. I would ask Deputies opposite not to look upon everything that is of Irish manufacture as being naturally bad. I have personal experience of using these spades and shovels, and I can say that the articles produced in Ireland and the articles produced in Cork are better than any other articles I have ever met.

On a point of order. These resolutions require to be passed to-day or in any case to be decided by the Dáil. Deputies are aware of the fact that when they come before the Dáil again in the shape of a Bill they can be discussed without a time limit, but there is a time limit to the discussion to-day. There is a time limit in so far as these duties cease to operate unless the resolutions are approved by the Dáil to-day.

How many resolutions are there?

There are five. There are two more to dispose of. Deputies should bear in mind that they must be approved to-day.

To bring this matter to a speedy conclusion, we started off by attempting to call a spade a spade, but we called ourselves different things before we were finished. We went on to a psychological discussion of the mental reactions of a certain kind of speech. The question that was put to the Minister was, I think, a very proper one, namely, if the Minister would say that the ordinary working man who has to buy spades and shovels would be protected by some form of control, having regard to the fact that these goods are taxed? If the Minister could give an assurance that the Deputies' questions would be answered, the House would be satisfied to let the matter go for the present.

I hope to introduce in the very near future proposals for legislation relating to that matter of price limits.

And quality.

Price has no significance unless related to quality.

I have no objection to the use of Irish articles no matter where they are manufactured. So long as they are good articles, we prefer Irish, but there should be no restriction on any article either from Cork or any other county which is of good quality. We want to have no county or provincial restrictions within the State. If it is a good article, we do not care where it comes from. That good article should be brought all over the country and we should cut out the bad ones. We have no objection to these good articles.

Resolution put and agreed to.
Top
Share