Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 17 Jun 1932

Vol. 42 No. 12

Finance (Customs Duties) (No. 2) Bill, 1932—Committee Stage (Resumed).

Debate resumed on Section 5.
Amendment 12. To delete sub-section (1.) — (Deputy Gorey).

Amendment No. 12 is out of order. It proposes to delete an operative section.

I move amendment 13:

In sub-section (1), line 45, to delete the word "fifty" and substitute therefor the words "twenty-two and one-half."

I regret very much that amendment 12 is being ruled out of order because it more clearly expresses our minds than amendment 13 does.

If the amendment is out of order the Deputy cannot discuss it now.

Except to make a case for the other.

On the section?

Yes. Although amendment 13 admits the principle inasmuch as it proposes to reduce the percentage from 50 to 22½, I still believe that there should be no imposition at all on spades and shovels, for there is no justification for it. Above all the items in the whole of the tariff Schedule this one is perhaps the least justifiable. I have here a list of the British and other imports of spades and shovels coming into the country. There is no occasion to go back very far. In 1927 the value of imports of spades and shovels from Great Britain amounted to £7,895. From Northern Ireland the imports were £3,739. This was slightly varied in 1928. In 1929 they varied considerably, to the extent that Northern Ireland came very far up in the list and Great Britain went down. More extraordinary still, in 1930 Great Britain in or about maintained its position, and Northern Ireland again went down, practically to the lowest point. We have not been able to get from the Minister what is the Irish output during any of these years, or in what favour the Irish product is held. We understand that there are two or three firms which have been named in the House, and it is hoped that one other firm, at least, will resume production. I made a statement in the House here on a previous occasion about my experience of some of these Irish tools. It was not a pleasure to me to have to state it, but in the interests of efficiency I thought it my duty to say it, and I have since had corroboration of that experience by two or three other users to whom I talked about these articles some time ago, or certainly before the firms went out of production.

This class of tool, above all others, is the tool in respect of which the public are least educated. In regard to the other machinery and tools coming into the country, you have the different designs exhibited at the Spring Show here and one is comparable with another. When a good article is produced, manufacturers get more alive, and start to produce something like it, but that is not so at all with these smaller tools. We did see one set of small tools, the saw-edged tools, produced by Irish firms, and they were really good tools. Some of their lines are as good as anything on the market, but they have the advantage that people can see this line, and it is educative, not only to the users, but to the manufacturers. We have never had anything like that with regard to the other tools, and, certainly, we have not had anything like it with regard to spades and shovels, and I think it is the Minister's duty, if he wants to bring Irish products up to date, to make an order that these implements should be exhibited at the Spring Show, or have some means by which buyers can come to a decision. This is important, and some opportunity should be given of making a comparison in regard to design, quality and price. We have not got that, and you have as a result to take their word for it.

I have seen some of these implements in use in parts of the country, through the instrumentality of a particular trader, and I, or a working man, would not work with them, and I would not ask the working man to work with them. That might seem strange, but it is so, and I speak as an expert. I made use of the phrase yesterday that a method of comparison was one of the best things the Minister could have in relation to design, price and quality, but, if this tariff is put at 50 per cent., the Minister obviously intends definitely to wipe out anything in the way of competition and comparison. That is inherent in the Resolution as drafted. If it is reduced to 22½ per cent. there is still a possibility of some, at least, being imported. Anyhow, enough will be imported to give us an opportunity of comparison. I would ask the Minister to view this thing altogether differently from the point of view he takes with regard to machinery, where you have a certain amount of efficiency. In this case you have not got the efficiency. We have no objection to any Irish tool, and I have gone out of my way to mention an Irish tool yesterday, and, to-day, I mentioned one as being the best on the market. That is the McBride thistle cutter, which is the best of its kind on the market. Let the Minister not think that there is any prejudice on this side of the House against the Irish tools. There is not, but it is a question of merit where merit is due.

I ask the Minister, in all seriousness, to reduce this prohibitive tariff of 50 per cent. It is a joke and it is, at the same time, tragic, because this is not an article that will have to be used by horse or power labour but by human beings. We have not got the physique that we had fifty or sixty years ago, and if we want to get an output we must have tools of quality, of perfectly good design and of the right price, and you will do nothing in this Resolution but exclude competition, kill comparison and hand the manufacture over to Irish producers regardless altogether of price, quality or design.

I wish to support Deputy Gorey's amendment. This tax will, be almost certainly prohibitive, and I think we can make a better case, or as good a case, anyhow, for a reduction of this tariff than most of the others on the Schedule. The tax will fall perhaps more heavily on the poorer classes than any other tax on the Schedule. It will fall on workers of practically every description in the country, because a spade or shovel is an indispensable article of trade. With a prohibitive tariff, there is no doubt in our minds that the price of these articles will go up by sixpence each. We do not know exactly what was the number of these shovels imported in recent years. Deputy Gorey mentioned a figure of cost of somewhere about £10,000 and, roughly speaking, with the price at which these articles are sold, that would represent an import of 80,000 of these articles, which is a very considerable number.

Over 100,000, including Northern Ireland.

I do not know what the figure is but I was engaging in a calculation of my own. One hundred thousand of these articles come in, and that figure illustrates the number of hands into which these tools fall. They are used altogether by the poor and the working classes. They are not always bought by them but, in the main, the workers buy their own tools in the country. Certainly road workers always have their own spade and shovel, as well as numerous other workers, and if we are going to add this imposition now, at a time of hardship and of difficulty in obtaining employment, we are putting an unnecessary burden on these people.

I do not want to go into the merits of the Irish article and the foreign article. That does not concern me very much in debating this. Possibly the Irish article is quite a good article, but, in the county I represent, it has not, up to the present, a very big sale. There is a certain amount sold, but 80 or 90 per cent. of the tools sold are imported. The workmen have got into the habit of using these tools, and, for a while, at any rate, they will continue to use these tools. There is no provision made to any great extent for obtaining others. I have made inquiries in the villages about me, and I find that, at the moment, it would be almost impossible to obtain these particular Irish tools certainly until present stocks have been disposed of, and, I venture to prophesy, for a good while after. If the Minister accepts this reduction, it will be a relief at any rate. Personally, like Deputy Gorey, I am against the imposition, but I would appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment and I am sure the Labour Deputies will support us in that. This tax, if it goes through, will probably concern a great number of people, and it inevitably will lead to putting anything up to sixpence each extra on these articles.

It will have the effect of increasing prices, I am informed by retailers, in the country and everywhere else if there is absolute prohibition of the imported article such as this section will lead to. The Minister will acknowledge himself that it is a prohibitive tariff. We are under the impression rightly or wrongly that the effect of this will be to raise the price of the home article and raise the average price of any article that cannot be obtained here.

In view of the fact that we have a considerable number of amendments to dispose of and that this particular duty was discussed at very considerable length ——

Not at all. The Minister asked us to discuss it specially on this Stage. He said that we were to get an opportunity later.

We had a discussion on it but we need not argue that point at this stage. I merely want to state that there is no reason why we should import these articles. The total imports are value for £10,500. Of these total imports spades represent a very small part indeed. Further, the whole of our requirements in spades are made and have always been made from within the country. There are a number of small firms engaged in the manufacture of spades.

Mr. Byrne

How many firms?

There are a very large number of small firms throughout the country. I explained before that there are local habits in respect to spades. People in one district require one type of spade, while people in another district require another type. The fact is that a number of local industries exist for the manufacture of spades.

That is so.

There is a much more substantial importation of shovels. The bulk of the shovels are the product of a specialist firm making a particular type of shovel in Birmingham. A large number of shovels are imported for the work done by local authorities. There is no reason why an equally satisfactory shovel should not be produced here. I gave as an example that the Galway County Council recently decided to procure its supplies from the Galway foundry and found that the shovels they got from the Galway foundry were quite satisfactory. I am sure that if other county councils get their shovels from that foundry or from other native firms they will be found to be equally satisfactory. It seems to me that if we cannot make spades and shovels in this country we cannot make anything and any opposition to this duty is most short-sighted and we should not waste the time of the House with it. The fact is that we can make our requirements in these articles and the making of them gives a considerable amount of employment in relation to the value of the output. There is no reason to anticipate any increase in price whatever.

I do not think the Minister should say that we are wasting the time of the House discussing a tariff which affects 100,000 workers.

On the 13th May, in discussing this matter in Committee, the Minister said:

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.

After that there was half a page of speech. But there, apparently, is a time limit to the discussion to-day.

Deputies had a further opportunity of speaking on it afterwards. We had the Resolution before us then.

We had the Second Reading and the Report.

We had the Report Stage of the Resolution.

We had no discussion on the Report Stage of the Resolution. There was no discussion on it because of the statement that this could be discussed later. What are the items the Minister is anxious to get on to discuss?

None at all. He has the same attitude on the whole lot — it is a waste of time discussing any of them.

I understand that there has been agreement to dispose of these amendments to-day and we have given considerable time to these matters already.

The point is that we were given no time to discuss them. It was pointed out that we should not waste time discussing them because there would be an opportunity given later to discuss them without a time limit. After that there is only half a page of print. That is what the Minister calls adequate discussion, so that we are not to have this discussion without a time limit. I should like to know what are the points he wants discussed. What are the points on which he is likely to offer us concessions? We know very well the answer to that. This matter can be divided into spades and shovels. This is a matter worth while discussing because it shows the Minister's mind on tariffs generally in the country. Spades, we are told, are manufactured locally. The Minister stated in his previous statement that there were three principal firms engaged in the industry. One of them is an in-and-out factory. He is not sure whether it is in the Twenty-Six Counties or the Six Counties. Another is going to be re-opened. Then we got the world-shaking announcement that a new factory was to be established at Nenagh. Later, when we got on to that, the Minister, instead of the strong case he made in his opening statement, when questioned said:

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.

That was one of the great cards which the Minister played on this tariff. Does he now know anything about the Nenagh factory? I have made inquiries about this supposed factory and I cannot find any foundation for it. I have heard the statement that the local blacksmith has taken on two extra hands. Is that what the factory amounts to? That is what the Minister designates as a factory. Those are the type of factory from which all our requirements are going to be met.

I want to say in relation to the amendment moved by Deputy Gorey that it will not have the effect of taking away the tariff but merely to reduce it. An application for a tariff is an application for leave to increase prices. The granting of a tariff is the granting of leave to increase prices. The only way by which prices can be regulated under a tariff is by fixing some sort of decent upper maximum. What did the Minister tell us in regard to shovels? He said:

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.

Having said all that by way of warning about what we might expect in regard to shovels, the Minister went on— this is his statement, not mine — to make this statement derogatory to Irish industry —

There is no single industrial commodity which we are capable of producing here which we could not buy more cheaply somewhere.

That is the Minister's statement about Irish industry, that there is not a single type of article which we can produce here which we could not buy more cheaply elsewhere. In this situation we ask, instead of putting on a prohibitive tariff on an article which the Minister says we cannot produce as cheaply as it can be manufactured outside, that a tariff be imposed sufficient to enable native firms to compete with this mass production. We say test it out for a year. Test it on something that is not prohibition. Test it with the smaller tariff, which will give some check. It may not stop an increase in prices, but it will put some check on the point to which that increase will rise.

I appeal to the Minister to deal with this matter in a reasonable way. There can be no doubt that a 50 per cent. tariff virtually amounts to prohibition. If you impose 50 per cent. on a spade costing 3/6, I need not enlarge upon the consequences. The Minister said that there is no reason why these goods should be imported — that the home firms are capable of supplying practically all the goods required in the home market. I can speak with some experience of this matter, and that statement is not correct. The home firms are not able to supply the needs of the home market.

The Minister says that there is one large Birmingham firm specialising in this particular trade. There are a number of firms specialising in this trade. There are a number of spades required for nursery work which are not produced in this country. Spades of a peculiar type, necessary to get proper results from high-grade, scientific, gardening work, are not produced here. The Board of Works buy quite a number of those implements. Can the requirements of the Board of Works be supplied by Irish manufacturers or have these manufacturers ever endeavoured to supply the requirements of the Board? Are the Irish manufacturers in a position to supply the types of spade required for this class of work? The closing down of the Dublin firm was not due to lack of demand for Irish spades. The firm had some trouble with its workers. I can give the House no information as to that, but the closing of the firm was due, not to lack of demand, but to inability to produce the goods, due to the trouble which arose. The demand was here for the goods, but the supply was not forthcoming. It was purely a case of inefficiency in the industry and nothing else. How is that inefficiency going to be cured? Will it be cured by a prohibitive tariff of 50 per cent.? The Minister tells us that this firm is about to re-open. What foundation has the Minister for that statement? Is it not a fact that those who supplied the capital for that mill are now declining to have anything to do with it even under the tariff? I ask these questions because it is important that the information should be available to the House. We, on this side of the House, are as anxious as the Minister that the requirements of the home market in these commodities should be supplied by the Irish manufacturer. But they are not being produced at home. Further, I am aware that the difficulties were so great in this mill that patterns were sent across the Channel to be produced there because they could not be produced here. By placing a prohibitive tariff of 50 per cent. on these goods the Minister is stabilising that position of affairs. Let us encourage the Irish manufacturer in every reasonable way, but do not let us put him in the position to say: "I can now produce what I like and what I produce you have to take."

When the Minister states that there will be no increase in prices, does he know anything at all about the industry? There is an increase of prices already. I had to pay a customs duty of £5 on a lot of spades the other day. Does the Minister suggest that I am going to bear that cost out of my own pocket and not pass it on to the consumer? There is already an increase of price equal to the tariff imposed on those goods. I am very much in sympathy with the shovel end of the proposal, but the spade end is much more difficult. I am sure the Minister does not desire to take up an adamantine attitude on this matter, that he is open to reason when sound arguments are adduced to alter his course of action. Fifty per cent. is a prohibitive tariff. Twenty-two and a half per cent. would give all the encouragement the home manufacturers require. As the Minister was approached by this trade to impose a tariff, it would be interesting to know what reasons were adduced by those engaged in the industry for the imposition of the tariff. A tariff of 50 per cent. should not be imposed on the mere fiat of the Minister, without reason stated. That is not a sensible way of developing industry. A prohibitive policy, if we have not efficiency in industry, is suicidal, and a 50 per cent. tariff amounts to prohibition. Will the Minister, in his reply, tell us definitely whether this firm is going to reopen, under what management it will reopen, and with what technical guidance and skill? I read in the papers the other day of a meeting in the Mansion House at which Mr. James Larkin presided. At that meeting subscriptions were handed in to get this mill started on a co-operative basis. Surely the Minister has sufficient business training to know that that mill can never operate effectively or produce economically under a system of management of that kind. The Minister stated that this is a rather technical industry and that certain men have been engaged for a number of years in the production of those goods. The Minister is perfectly correct in that statement. The industry does require a certain amount of skill. Does the Minister know that in the mill to which he refers the steam hammer which produces these particular goods is dependent on the flow of the river Dodder for its water power? If the water power from the Dodder is not sufficient, the mill has to stand idle for a week or, perhaps, ten days. I want to see Irish manufactures developed, and developed as speedily as possible, but is development humanly possible under conditions such as these?

Can the Minister visualise the position of Irish manufacturers in the future if he establishes those conditions? Does he imagine that they will be able to compete with the mass production firms on the other side of the Channel? Irish consumers are entitled to receive the same value in goods produced by Irish manufacturers as they would in the case of similar industries on the other side. The price of these goods has already been increased and if this tariff remains on that increase will become permanent. The trader must expect a return from a cash payment for goods and he must add the extra charge to the cost of the article. The consumer will, therefore, have to pay.

I earnestly appeal to the Minister to meet Deputy Gorey in the amendment which he has submitted. It is a reasonable amendment and, if accepted, it will encourage efficiency amongst Irish manufacturers. I am sure the Labour Deputies know something about this question. We do not want to discuss these matters upon Party lines at all. I hate to discuss matters which are concerned with the national upliftment in a party way. I have, on many occasions, found myself differing from my own Party on various economic questions.

A Deputy

Will o' the wisp.

Mr. Byrne

Although we have certain will o' the wisps in the Party, it can never be said that J.J. Byrne was a will o' the wisp. The Deputy who has just interjected should know something about this matter and we should be glad to have his wisdom added to our own. We want to get this industry set up properly when it is set going. Let it be set up on a business and economic basis, on a competitive basis, and then we will have an Irish industry which will be worth while. That is what we want and not stabilisation of inefficiency. I earnestly appeal to the Minister to reduce this tariff from 50 per cent. to 22½ per cent. and I assure him, as one with some knowledge of the trade, that he will not be inflicting any injustice on Irish manufacturers but that on the contrary he will be helping the consumer at no expense to those who produce the goods on which the tariff is imposed.

I support the amendment. I believe the popularity of the Irish article, manufactured in this country, is sufficiently strong to justify us in thinking that a tariff of 22½ per cent. will help this industry very materially. It is within the memory of Deputies that there was a manufacture of this kind in Cork, namely, the old Shovel Mills. You could not wear out the article manufactured there, it was so good. Unfortunately, the price was prohibitive. I believe if you put on a 22½ per cent. tariff now it would give the necessary impetus to revive the industry and would make an appeal to those who want to use the article. Road workers and road contractors use this article in very large quantities. But there is another class of users and these are the small holders, to whom spades and shovels are necessary in the carrying on and in the working of their allotments. You will place an undue burden upon these men if the article can only be sold at a prohibitive price. There is not the slightest doubt but that the price of spades and shovels will rise to the full amount of the tariff. A high tariff offers an undue temptation to place a high price upon the shovel and that will have a tendency to defeat the very object that the Minister has in view. When prices rise to an almost prohibitive point there is a tendency on the part of the people to do without the article altogether. I believe we are not helping the industry or assisting the manufacturers by putting a prohibitive price upon the article. Tariffs of that size will be undoubtedly unpopular amongst the class that want to help this particular industry. I believe if the Minister agrees to this amendment of Deputy Gorey's he will be doing more to help the industry than by placing an undue tariff upon it that would certainly lessen the output.

Deputy Byrne said that the Irish consumer is entitled to the same value in the article he buys, wherever it comes from. He is; and the Irish consumer is entitled to protection against the type of article that is admitted free here. There are several firms in the Free State making other classes of spades and shovels than those coming in. If you get one of those Shamrock shovels, made in Manchester, with a grand shamrock on it, and give it to one of your men he will come back to you the next day with the shovel completely bent up and tell you it was laughing at him.

Mr. Byrne

You know nothing about it.

It is all very well for Deputy Byrne to complain of the tariff. He can bring in a dozen of these shovels at 3d. a piece in competition with Irish articles of the same kind sold at 2s. 6d. and 3s. apiece. We must protect Irish consumers against articles of that description.

The Deputy has referred to Shamrock shovels made in England coming into this country. Would it not be illegal, under the Merchandise Marks Act if that happened? I would refer Deputy Corry to the legal position. He has a remedy by which he could easily prevent what he says is taking place. Whenever the Deputy hears of a lot of these shovels coming in he should have resort to the legal position and put a stop to it at once.

I assure Deputy Dockrell the legal position has been investigated on this matter. Messrs. Scott of Cork are making shovels at the present time. I am rather surprised at the attitude Deputy Brasier takes up on these matters. During the last election he went through my constituency and right, left and centre complained of the unemployment. He took his stand in favour of tariffs as against the other farmer Deputy who was not in favour of tariffs. He talks now as if he were an out and out free trader.

Not at all.

I hold the ordinary plain people are entitled to protection against the kind of articles that are dumped in here. They are quite inferior stuff to those manufactured here. They are made by mass production.

Mr. Byrne

On a point of information I may say that the statement made by the Deputy is absolutely incorrect. English shovels I must say are very good value.

The House is not discussing the relative values of Irish and English goods.

As I say, the Irish manufacturer is entitled to protection. We have these articles dumped in here; they are of inferior quality, and we are entitled to deal with that. I had personal experience of them. I have used both English and Irish shovels. I could show Deputies shovels made in the shovel mills of Killeen many years ago, that are still good and are still in use, while articles bought years after bent up and had to be thrown away. They were practically worthless and useless articles; therefore, I maintain that the people are entitled to protection against this kind of article being dumped here. We hear a lot of talk about unemployment, and we heard all about the assistance that was to be given us to end unemployment. We see the value of that assistance now; not a single attempt made to help the Fianna Fáil Government to protect Irish industry. In trying to find employment for our people we are attacked tooth and nail. There are Deputies in this House who have attacked every single attempt made to protect Irish industry. Not one amongst the Opposition supported it and that is the assistance they have given towards dealing with the unemployment problem.

I do not propose to delay the House because the Minister knows my views about putting duties on things which the agricultural community must have. I put him this question. If, after a reasonable lapse of time, we can prove to him that the Schedule of prices for Irish spades has increased since the Budget of this year, will he take off the tariff? Is he prepared to give that assurance to the House? His contention is that tariffs do not increase the cost of living; that tariffs do not place a burden upon the consumer?

He never said that.

Is it his contention then that tariffs do raise the cost of living? Perhaps the Minister will resolve this difficulty — do they or do they not? The Minister does not care to resolve it. I suggest that the Minister is labouring under the happy delusion that they do not. Will he give an undertaking that if we can prove to him that after a reasonable period of time the prices of Irish manufactured spades and shovels have advanced since Budget day, will he undertake to take off the tariff and expose the people, who are trying to take advantage of the tariff in that way, to the fair breeze of competition again?

I do not quite agree with Deputy Corry on this question of shovels. He is right and he is wrong. There has been coming in to this country a cheap type of shovel which is very accurately described by Deputy Corry as crumpling up when you try to use it and smashing off at the handle. Against that however there is coming in and has been coming in for many years from England a first class type of long-handled shovel used in road work and farmers' work. I know something about shovels, I have handled thousands of them, and up to late years the shovels sold in the South of Ireland were made in Cork City. To-day the majority of shovels used in Ireland are made there. There is no necessity to increase the price of these and they will not be increased. There is the class of shovel, however, a good type of long-handled shovel that has come into extensive use practically all over Ireland. The Minister says this class of shovel is made in Galway. I must say that so far I have not seen any. The English shovel is being imported and I think the price will be increased. I think he should discriminate in favour of this class of shovel at the moment. As far as I know it is not being made in the South of Ireland. I should be glad to hear from the Minister that the Galway men are turning out as good an article as this particular type.

One would think by the general trend of this discussion that opinion was divided as to whether this branch of industry should have a protective tariff or not. The amendment suggested by Deputy Gorey asks for a tariff of 22½ per cent. as against 50 per cent. Representing the Borough of Cork, in which we have a very important mill turning out these spades and shovels, and the prospect of another being established in the near future, I feel that whilst I would be inclined to support the section as it stands, at the same time I must have regard, whilst also having regard for the amount of labour to be given as a result of this tariff (I believe some will be employed but the extent of that employment is, of course, a matter for conjecture), for another class of the community which deserves some kind of protection also — the agricultural class and the labourers on road work and gardening work and so on. I feel that the industry would be sufficiently protected by extending to the 22½ per cent. instead of the 50 per cent. as in the section, but I want to disabuse the minds of anybody who may think that I am against this tariff on spades and shovels, because I do believe, with Deputy Corry, that the Irish-manufactured article, as far as I know it in Cork at any rate, is a far superior article to any that would be imported. If this tariff will result in extra labour, therefore, I will give it my support, but I appeal to the Minister to accept Deputy Gorey's amendment as I do feel that the extension of that much protection to the industry would be quite sufficient to meet any outside competition because, value for value, the article would be better and would last longer, and with this 22½ per cent. you will have sufficient protection.

I want to reply to Deputy Corry. He said that no one Deputy on this side of the House gave any help to the Government in any way to reduce unemployment in any Bill intended to reduce unemployment. I take up that challenge of Deputy Corry's, and I say that I think three or four Deputies on this side of the House did, and we went into the Lobby with Deputy Corry supporting a Bill which was for the benefit of the basic industry of this country. That was the Butter Bill — not that we thought it a good Bill, we tried to amend it — but I personally did support it because I expected it would give a small benefit to one section of the community, the farmers of this country. I do not say it was going to do everything but simply because it was going to give a little help to the creamery supplier I, for one, and Deputy Gorey, I think, supported the Government on it.

I think it has dawned on the Minister now that for the next year or two there is no possibility of getting out supplies to meet the Irish demand. This 50 per cent., therefore, is only for revenue. There is no possibility of the Irish firms meeting the demand for imported shovels. I think the value of these shovels is £210,000. Does not the Minister think that 22½ per cent. would be enough? He could raise it to 50 per cent. next year. I want to reply to Deputy Goulding because he talked sense and he knew something of what he was talking about. The Minister talked about time. I think the Minister ought to put his own house in order. More time is always wasted by Deputy Corry than by anyone else in the House. We heard here about protecting the people from the import of shovels and spades—protecting the people from themselves. We are forcing the people to buy them. The county councils and other local bodies make their choice from experience and they have got to be protected from themselves, not from the English manufacturer, but particularly from Deputy Corry. There is no such thing that I know of as a manufacturer here manufacturing the two-footed spade—the agricultural spade. The spade made in Cork is the wooden tillage spade. The other, which is a different thing altogether, is subject to this 50 per cent. tax. I can see the time coming in the next few years when we may have to make arrangements to ask our neighbour for the loan of a spade or a shovel. We may even have hi-jacking and bootlegging of spades and shovels. Leaving jokes aside, I ask the Minister in all seriousness to ease off for the first year anyhow and make a distinction between the first and second year. This year it is going to cause tremendous inconvenience and his factory will not be set for anything like the production that will be required, and it will mean a tax on the people who can least afford it. If the Minister has any regard for those who are not using steam or petrol power he should have regard for people who have to use these tools with their hands.

Does the £10,000 of imports include implements manufactured in Northern Ireland?

Of the £10,500 in imports, £3,744 represented goods consigned from Northern Ireland.

There are spade factories in Coalisland and Dungannon.

We can either put on a smaller duty and in effect say to people continue to import spades and pay the duty or have a general all round increase in prices. That is what Deputies opposite are advocating and was the policy adopted by the late Government, or else we can put on a duty which will stop imports. This duty is intended to stop imports and we say to the firms here: Go and supply the requirements of the home market.

They are not able.

Let us face the realities. We are attempting to face the task of supplying the home market. The imports represented £10,000 which would keep four or five factories engaged in the manufacture of these goods. If, as we anticipate, this stops imports completely, and if our requirements are met from these factories the increased output will mean £2,000 or £2,500. It seems trivial in relation to the total production of a factory, but there can be no question at all of our ability to supply the needs of our people. I think it is clear to most Deputies that it is only in respect to the implement mentioned by Deputy Goulding, the park shovel, that there can be any question. In relation to spades and shovels I think the requirements of the country are capable of being met, and met to a greater extent than at present by existing concerns. In respect to the park shovel there is undoubtedly a preference existing amongst those who have been using it for that particular type. As I explained, in the case of one county council they tried to get a similar product from Irish factories, and they succeeded in doing so. They found the Irish product equally satisfactory. Other county councils can do the same.

Has the Minister any information to show that these shovels are really satisfactory? I have had some information to the contrary.

I have this information that Galway County Council expressed themselves satisfied.

I am informed that Galway County Council was not satisfied with the shovels.

We cannot reconcile these statements here.

I want to know if the Minister had any inquiry made to ascertain if the shovels which were supplied to Galway County Council were found satisfactory.

The fact is we have a number of firms engaged in this industry, and some additional firms propose to come in by excluding imported products. We know that a better way to keep down prices than by adopting the alternative method suggested, would be to permit imports subject to a small duty of 15 per cent. That method of tackling the problem is similar to giving an invitation to firms to raise prices. There is going to be effective competition between Irish firms, and it is as a result of that competition that prices will be kept down. I was asked if the prices went up would the duty be removed. That question is so hypothetical that it is impossible to answer it. It is not the cost price I am talking of, but of this duty which is intended to increase the price of imported goods so high that no one will buy them.

Is the Minister aware that four of the firms to which he referred were written to for prices and quotations and not one of them replied? That happened over a month ago.

I am not aware.

Mr. Byrne

I am telling you what is a fact.

If we found that Irish firms were constituting themselves into a ring, and by ring methods tried to force up prices unduly, we would be quite prepared to remove the duty, if there were no other means of defeating that attempt to exploit the market and fleece the consumers. There are other means by which it could be done, but I assure the Deputy that if we find an unreasonable increase in prices taking place we will have some effective method of dealing with the position. I do not anticipate that that will take place. I do not anticipate any likelihood of a ring of manufacturers here in the case of this particular industry. It is an industry in which there is likely to be very intensive competition, and certainly there has been no indication up to the present that what he fears is likely to prevail. It seems to me that this duty is thoroughly justifiable. The value of the imports is small, but the competence of the Irish firms to supply goods now imported cannot be questioned. In respect to the park shovels, a certain balance of opinion is possible. There is no doubt that good shovels can be procured here, and they should be sufficient in addition to the imposition of the duty.

Has the Minister any application for the establishment of a new factory to supply these things?

Any information about the Nenagh factory?

People proposing to start a factory; not making application.

The Minister founded his case previously on a new factory at Nenagh.

Nothing additional. I did not found my case on that. If that factory was not contemplated there are enough firms to supply these things.

The Minister must not get away from that. No one questions the competency of Irish firms to produce shovels. The question is: can they produce shovels in sufficiency and at a price the people will pay? The Minister does not see any reason why there should be an increase in prices. He stated previously that there would be an increase in prices. The only thing we are asking is to have a check on prices. It is not a question of not giving a tariff. Have a check on prices. That check is the imports coming in here. Such importation is good and should be favoured. It is not a question whether a tariff should be given or not, but of having some check on prices. In the circumstances which the Minister mentioned there are going to be increased prices.

Is the Minister satisfied that Irish firms will be able to turn out all that is required this year? Our information from experts seems to be to the contrary, that Irish firms are not able to supply these goods this year. If that is so, will the people have to buy the goods subject to a 50 per cent. tariff?

The output of Irish firms plus the stocks in the country should be adequate to meet the requirements of the country this year.

Mr. Byrne

In view of the information that I have, that these people were asked for prices and never gave a quotation, is it not fair to conclude that they had no goods to offer?

I am not accepting that information.

Mr. Byrne

The Minister will accept nothing. That is what it amounts to.

Question put: "That the word proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá 66, Níl 47.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Allen, Denis.
  • Anthony, Richard.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Blaney, Neal.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Boland, Patrick.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Bryan.
  • Brady, Séan.
  • Breen, Daniel.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Browne, William Frazer.
  • Carty, Frank.
  • Cleary, Micheál.
  • Colbert, James.
  • Corry, Martin John.
  • Crowley, Tadhg.
  • Curran, Patrick Joseph.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • De Valera, Eamon.
  • Dowdall, Thomas P.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flynn, John.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Geoghegan, James.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Gormley, Francis.
  • Gorry, Patrick Joseph.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
  • Humphreys, Francis.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
  • Kissane, Eamonn.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Ben.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moane, Edward.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • O'Rourke, Daniel.
  • Powell, Thomas P.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ruttledge, Patrick J.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheehy, Timothy.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C. (Dr.).

Níl

  • Beckett, James Walter.
  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Blythe, Ernest.
  • Bourke, Séamus A.
  • Brasier, Brooke.
  • Broderick, William Jos.
  • Brodrick, Seán.
  • Burke, Patrick.
  • Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
  • Doyle, Feadar Seán.
  • Duggan, Edmund John.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Fitzgerald, Desmond.
  • Good, John.
  • Gorey, Denis John.
  • Hassett, John J.
  • Hayes, Michael.
  • Hennessy, Thomas.
  • Hennigan, John.
  • Keating, John.
  • Kiersey, John.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • MacDermot, Frank.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • Byrne, John Joseph.
  • Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
  • Conlon, Martin.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Craig, Sir James.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Desmond, William.
  • Dillon, James M.
  • Minch, Sydney B.
  • Mongan, Joseph W.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • O'Brien, Eugene P.
  • O'Connor, Batt.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Mahony, The.
  • O'Neill, Eamonn.
  • O'Reilly John Joseph.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Reidy, James.
  • Roddy, Martin.
  • Thrift, William Edward.
  • White, John.
  • Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Boland and Allen; Níl: Deputies Duggan and Doyle.
Question declared carried.
Section 5 and 6 agreed to.
SECTION 7.
(1) In lieu of the duties now chargeable under Section 16 of the Finance Act, 1925 (No. 28 of 1925), as amended by subsequent enactments, a duty of customs shall be charged, levied, and paid at the rates mentioned in this sub-section on every of the articles mentioned in this sub-section imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 26th day of April, 1932, that is to say:—
(a) on all suits, overcoats, hats, and caps made wholly or mainly from woven tissues wholly or partly of wool or worsted and suitable for wear by men or boys, all proofed personal clothing and wearing apparel (not including umbrellas), all personal clothing and wearing apparel (except gloves) wholly or mainly made of leather or leather substitutes, and all component parts and accessories of any of the articles beforementioned in this paragraph—an amount equal to sixty per cent. of the value of the article;
(b) on all shirts and collars not made of woven tissues which are wholly or partly of wool or worsted, all straw hats, all felt hats, all hats of any description (other than straw hats and felt hats) intended for wear by women or girls, and all component parts and accessories of any of the articles beforementioned in this paragraph—an amount equal to twenty-two and one-half per cent. of the value of the article;
(c) on all personal clothing and wearing apparel not mentioned in either of the foregoing paragraphs of this sub-section and all component parts and accessories of any such personal clothing or wearing apparel—an amount equal to forty-five per cent. of the value of the article.
(2) The duty imposed by this section shall not be charged or levied—
(a) on boots, shoes, slippers, goloshes, sandals, or clogs or component parts or accessories thereof, nor
(b) on any accessory of personal clothing or wearing apparel imported separately from the clothing or apparel and made wholly or mainly of non-textile materials, nor
(c) on any component part of personal clothing or wearing apparel made wholly or mainly of non-textile material other than leather, nor
(d) on any component part of personal clothing or wearing apparel made wholly or mainly of leather and suitable for and intended for use in the manufacture of hats or caps, nor
(e) on any component parts of umbrellas, nor
(f) on any article of a surgical or medical character and intended to be worn because of or as a preventive against or remedy for any physical ailment or defect, nor
(g) on ornamental feathers or artificial flowers imported for use in the making or trimming of personal clothing or wearing apparel and so imported separately from such clothing or apparel, nor
(h) on any component parts of corsets made wholly or mainly of non-textile materials, nor
(i) on hoods and shapes for the manufacture of hats which require for the purpose of such manufacture to be blocked, shaped, or cut, and in respect of which it is shown to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners that the process of blocking, shaping, or cutting represents a substantial portion of the process of manufacture.
The following amendment stood on the Order Paper:—
Amendment to Section 7:—
14. In sub-section (1) (a), line 48, after the word "overcoats," to insert in brackets the words "(other than suits and overcoats for sale as second-hand articles.)"—(Deputy T. J. Murphy.)

Before Deputy Murphy moves his amendment I would like to say that the amendment and another amendment relating to second-hand clothing, if passed in the form in which they appear on the Paper, would render necessary a number of consequential amendments in this and other legislation. Since the matter was raised on the Second Reading I have given it some consideration with the object of seeing if there was any way out of the very considerable difficulties that would be raised if there was any differential treatment in respect of second-hand clothing. In the circumstances, I would like the Deputies concerned to postpone their amendments until the Report Stage. I may be able to arrange to have an amendment moved which, if carried, would overcome these difficulties. I am not promising to support the amendment, but it would be in a form which would permit the enactment of it without any consequential difficulties arising. If, therefore, we allow the matter to stand over until the Report Stage, I think it would be better.

Is the Minister prepared in the framing of that amendment to go as far as wiping out the duty completely?

No. I think in no circumstances can we contemplate wiping it out completely. It would mean practically making a breach in the ready-made clothing duty which might have very serious reactions upon the industry. There always has been a duty on second-hand clothing, and I think that the wiping out of the duty completely is something which could not be contemplated under any circumstances.

Mr. Murphy

How far is the Minister prepared to go? This is a very heavy duty.

I am not promising to go anywhere. The more I have examined it the more difficulties I see in the way of any modification in respect of it. What I am promising to do is to arrange to get an amendment drafted and to have that amendment moved on the Report Stage. The amendment will be in a form which, if carried, would mean that there would be a concession in respect to second-hand clothing enacted by an amendment of this Bill alone. I could argue that the Deputy's amendment is not in order, but I do not want to do that. If it were carried, it would involve not merely consequential amendments in this Bill, but further amendments in the main Finance Bill, or else the introduction of a special proposal, because it is proposing to take off a duty which was imposed by another Bill and not this Bill. If I can get an amendment in the proper form, we can have a discussion on the Report Stage.

Mr. Murphy

I do not think the Minister will succeed on that point. He unsuccessfully contested that point last night. In any case, there is this difference, that this particular Bill heavily increases the duty already in existence. I am not disposed to argue the matter at any length, but if the Minister will give me an undertaking that the amendment in the terms he has mentioned will not be opposed by him, I would be disposed to withdraw my amendment.

I have had representations made from every Party in the House for a modification in respect to second-hand clothing and also against the modification. It is quite clear that there is no Party feeling on the matter. There are strong feelings both ways within the ranks of every Party. I would be inclined to have an open discussion and to leave it to the decision of the House, if the administrative difficulties, which are very considerable, can be surmounted. I think it will be possible to surmount them, and to have an amendment introduced which would avoid the more considerable difficulties. We can then have a discussion on the amendment and an open vote of the House upon it. It would not, however, mean the entire abolition of the duty—that could not be contemplated—but it would mean a reduction of the duty that is being charged at present, because at present the full rate of duty is being charged. In view of the difficulties of producing certificates of origin, the preferential rate of duty cannot be given by the Revenue Commissioners. In any case, I think it would be desirable to have in respect of second-hand clothing no preferential rate of duty at all, but merely one rate which would apply to all second-hand clothing, irrespective of where consigned from. An amendment on those lines, which will involve also a reduction of the duty, can be moved on Report and discussed, and would, I think, meet the main objections to the increased duty which have been raised and, at the same time, meet the big administrative difficulties which would arise if a reduction were decided upon by the Dáil.

Mr. Murphy

I am not quite happy about the attitude of the Minister. I do not like to press him too far, but in view of the statement he made on the Second Reading, he ought to give an indication that he will approach the consideration of the amendment sympathetically. Leaving it to a free vote of the House is a rather doubtful method of dealing with a question of this kind, as all of us know from experience. In view of the attitude the Minister took up on the Second Reading, and the appeal made to him by a member of his own Party, he ought to indicate that he is prepared to accept the amendment.

I understood from the Minister, on the Second Reading that he was prepared to concede something to the expressed views of many Deputies who must have come into personal contact with him in the matter. That was the inference I drew from his statement. The Minister has used the words "proper form." Am I to understand that a form of words will be introduced which will mean that if the duty is not removed entirely the greater part of it will be removed? When the Minister suggests a free vote of the House, does he mean that the Government Whips will not be put on? In view of the relatively large sum that these dealers in second-hand clothing have to pay for a hawker's licence, namely £10 per annum, and as they are a very deserving class of the community who go from fair to fair——

The Deputy is now discussing an amendment which has not been formally moved.

I understood the amendment had been moved by Deputy Murphy.

No; the amendment has not been moved.

Is the Minister prepared to say now that the amendment he suggests will mean, in effect, the removal of this duty altogether on second-hand clothing, or a modification of it in some way?

An amendment will be moved which will propose to the Dáil a substantial modification of the duty now chargeable, but it will not mean the removal of it. My attitude towards that amendment will be largely determined by the manner in which we find it possible to prevent the remission being used to defeat the main duty on ready-made clothing. It is obvious that if we give a concession in respect to second-hand clothing it might conceivably open the way for a wholesale evasion of the main duty. I think Deputy Blythe had that problem under consideration for some time after the first ready-made clothing duty was imposed and refused to modify the duty in respect of second-hand clothing because he could see no way out of the administrative difficulties. I think it will be possible to surmount the major difficulties and to get an amendment in a form which will make it not so easy to use the concession for the purpose of evading the main duty. My attitude will be determined by the success of our efforts in that connection. An amendment which, if carried, will mean a definite concession in respect to the duty upon second-hand clothing will be moved upon the Report Stage, and I would be inclined to take the opinion of the House upon the amendment—to leave it to a free vote of the House to decide one way or the other.

Before this amendment is allowed to be withdrawn, will the Minister give us an undertaking that he will consult the public health authorities about the importation of these garments? Will he further give an undertaking that he will consult the ready-made clothing manufacturers to ascertain whether, if these clothes are allowed in under a preferential rate, or under the low rate, without producing a certificate of origin, they will in effect destroy the whole measure of protection?

Mr. Murphy

I suggest that the Deputy is not in order in dealing with that, because he is dealing with the effect of an amendment which has not been moved.

I am asking if the Minister will give a certain undertaking in order that the House may unanimously permit the withdrawal of the amendment. If Deputy Murphy does not like that, I will not consent to the withdrawal.

Mr. Murphy

I object to Deputy Dillon killing the proposal with kindness in that fashion. He has gone into the merits of the question and I think that is unfair.

Discussion on an amendment not moved is, of course, out of order.

I am not discussing the amendment. I am asking the Minister a question as to whether he will ascertain the views of the public health authorities on this matter.

I can assure the Deputy that the views of the public health authorities will be ascertained.

I want to ask the Minister in view of the unusual procedure suggested by him, first will he move an amendment himself?

That is a matter that will come on afterwards. It will be moved all right.

It is a very important matter. It will be the Minister's amendment framed by himself, and I want to point out and to ascertain first by whom will it be moved, and if it is moved on the Report Stage will the Minister go into Committee for a discussion, at least on that amendment, because I do not think it could be adequately discussed if we are to be tied down to the usual procedure on the Report Stage. This is rather an important matter and I think we ought to be told by whom this amendment will be moved.

The amendment will be moved all right.

By whom? Is it to an official amendment? Am I to understand that the Minister proposes to put down an amendment himself for the Report Stage in regard to second-hand clothing, and does he propose that that amendment will contain modification of the present tariff and, if so, will it contain modifications in the direction of a lower tariff than the tariff proposed at the moment? Will the Minister go further and say that any reduction that he will propose will be at least as low as the tariff that at present exists?

The answer to the first two parts of the question is in the affirmative and to the third part in the negative. I propose to get an amendment which will reduce the duty on second-hand clothing and at the same time provide for the consequential amendments that would follow. I do not mind moving it myself if that is the most suitable arrangement, and I may adopt the practice set by the Deputy's colleagues of voting against it afterwards. We can have a free vote of the House as to whether there should be any concession in regard to second-hand clothing.

And a further free vote in the House as to further modifications that may be moved to the amendment proposed by the Minister? If the Minister is to bring forward an amendment that may not meet the case we may require to move further amendments to it and we want to be in a position that we would be able to do this after the Minister's amendment has been circulated, if the Minister's amendment will be circulated to the House in time.

The amendment will be circulated to the House all right.

Is the whole matter to be left to a free vote of the House?

I am prepared to consider that concessions will be given but we may get to the stage where the amendment may nullify or destroy the whole tariff on ready-made clothing and thus do irreparable damage to an Irish industry. If there is any case at all to be made for the concession it must be a case for a modification of the duty only to the point where it will not damage the main industry of ready-made clothing in this country.

Supposing it were possible to have an arrangement by which second-hand clothing could be admitted free without nullifying the effect of the tariff already imposed is the Minister disposed to admit second-hand clothing free?

I would not say so.

Supposing that there would be no considerable reaction in the ready-made clothing trade, would the Minister still require ——?

There are other considerations. As the Deputy is aware, the public health authorities impose very stringent regulations on the importation of ready-made clothing.

They would have to be made.

And the public health authorities are in fact proposing to favour the closing or the stoppage of these imports. These considerations would have to be taken into account.

I would like to ask the Minister if in this particular point he is making a departure from his usual view on tariffs? Is he making a departure in the woollen and ready-made industry from his usual viewpoint? I think he told us that a cheaper class of garments would be made here and in increasing numbers; and that the price of this particular class of goods would place them within the reach of persons who hitherto had to depend on the imported ready-made clothing.

Mr. Murphy

I call attention to the fact that we are going into the whole question again. Deputy O'Neill should not be allowed to say what I am not allowed to say.

I think the question of the duty ought to be decided here and now.

I discussed with the Minister previously the question of dispensing from duty second-hand clothing sent from one charitable organisation outside this country to a charitable organisation inside this country. The Minister was disposed then to give sympathetic consideration to that matter. I ask now if the Minister would give some consideration to that before the Report Stage, and that the necessary licensing provisions would be introduced in the Finance Bill.

I would like to support Deputy Norton in the first part of this question. I know that there is a big amount of charitable work done between one charitable organisation and another, and that it is a matter of great importance to poor people in this country.

I have given consideration to that problem, but there are very important administrative difficulties arising and it may not, in my opinion, be possible to get over these. However, we are to have the question again before us on the Report Stage, and if we can find the means by which that can be done without doing damage in other directions or widening the area of concession to an extent much larger than Deputy Norton contemplates, then we can have a decision in the Dáil upon the merits of the proposal when the matter is next before us.

Would the Minister give consideration especially to the licensing feature? A concession in that direction would make it possible for these charitable organisations to work on the lines I have put before the Minister.

If these concessions can be made is the Minister prepared to grant exemption for second-hand clothing in support of a charity?

The House has spent sixteen minutes in discussing an amendment which has not been formally before the House. Amendments 14, 19 and 25 are not moved.

Mr. Murphy

I ask the Minister in accordance with Deputy Morrissey's suggestion if he will permit the widest possible discussion on this amendment on the Report Stage, because it is obvious that there will need to be such a full discussion. Will the Minister permit the widest possible discussion?

I take it that amendments 14, 19, and 25 are not moved.

The following amendment stood in the name of Deputy McGilligan:—

Amendment 15.—In sub-section (1) (a), to delete all words from and including the word "all" line 50 to and including the word "substitutes" line 54.

Amendments 16, 17, 21, 22 and 74 have some relation to this amendment.

Yes.

The following amendments stood in the name of Deputy McGilligan:—

16.—In sub-section (1) (a), line 56, to delete the word "sixty" and substitute therefor the words "forty-five."

17.—In sub-section (1) (b), line 60, to delete the word "all" where it occurs the second time and substitute therefor the words "other than" and in lines 60 and 61 to delete the words and brackets "(other than straw hats and felt hats)".

21.—Before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 16 of the Finance Act, 1925 (No. 28 of 1925) as amended by subsequent enactments, or of the foregoing sub-section of this section of this Act no duty of customs shall be charged, levied or paid on any of the articles mentioned in the Third Schedule to this Act."

22.—In sub-section (2) to delete paragraphs (c), (d) and (h).

THIRD SCHEDULE.

74.—Before the Third Schedule to insert a new Third Schedule as follows:—

"THIRD SCHEDULE.

1. Component parts of personal clothing or wearing apparel made wholly or mainly of non-textile material other than leather.

2. Component parts of personal clothing or wearing apparel made wholly or mainly of leather and suitable for and intended for use in the manufacture of hats or caps.

3. Component parts of corsets made wholly or mainly of non-textile materials.

4. Hats of any description for wear by women or girls and all component parts and accessories thereof.

5. Gloves, other than knitted gloves.

6. Ladies' and children's stockings of silk or artificial silk.

7. Girls and children's coats.

8. Woven underwear of silk, or silk and wool.

9. Woven wool bathing costumes and caps.

10. All articles of the following types: Belts of leather or suede, scarves of crepe-de-chine, silk, or artificial silk, neckwear of lace, crepe-de-chine, silk, artificial silk or cotton, collars and cuffs of rubber, shaped frillings in silk, cotton and lace."

I think the discussion can be abbreviated if it ranges over the totality of these amendments. That is to say, I might be allowed to discuss amendments 15, 16, 17, 21, 22 and 74 together. Really the vital parts are amendments 21 and 74. The other things are subsidiary, though of considerable importance. I briefly want to have certain things removed from the tariffs altogether, and the things which I want to remove are those which are set out in the new Third Schedule which I propose to have inserted. In order to do that I must get amendment 21 considered.

The framework to which I move these amendments will have to be explained. At the moment, there are two rates of duty chargeable upon personal clothing and wearing apparel. An original 15 per cent. duty was imposed without any preferential rate and at a later stage the 15 per cent. duty was raised to 20 per cent. and so I say the items that are down in paragraph (a) of (1) of Section 7 are mainly these. I can refine it further by saying that the duty must relate to clothing made of woollen or worsted materials.

Into that position comes the present proposal of the Minister, that certain rates of duty should be put on certain specified articles, with a preferential rate of two-thirds, as stated in paragraph 3. The operative duties, therefore, are proposed to be 40 per cent. on everything contained in lettered paragraph (a) sub-section (1) of Section 7, that is to say, on all suits, overcoats, hats and caps made wholly or mainly from woven tissues, wholly or partly of wool or worsted and suitable for wear by men or boys, all proofed personal clothing and wearing apparel (not including umbrellas), all personal clothing and wearing apparel (except gloves) wholly or mainly made of leather or leather substitutes, and all component parts and accessories of any of these things. It is proposed to have a duty at the rate of 22½ per cent. with a two-thirds preferential rate on shirts and collars not made of woven tissues which are wholly or partly of wool or worsted, all straw hats, all felt hats, all hats of any description (other than straw hats and felt hats) intended for wear by women or girls and all component parts and accessories, and, finally, on all personal clothing and wearing apparel not mentioned in either of the foregoing paragraphs and all component parts and accessories, it is proposed that there shall be a 45 per cent. duty, operatively 20 per cent. There is a series of exemptions, but these exemptions really, in the main, only go to exempt from the new section things which were previously exempted from the old rate, and, therefore, to a certain extent, they make no change.

I am proposing to take out of paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 7, proofed personal clothing and personal clothing made of leather or leather substitutes, and I am proposing to take out of the second section hats intended for wear by women or girls, and then I get the whole thing brought down to the exclusion section which I propose to the Third Schedule, and, therefore, I ask the House to agree that there should be excluded three certain items, but mainly I want to get taken out from the section the items I have enumerated—hats of any description intended for wear by women or girls and all component parts and accessories, all gloves, other than knitted gloves, ladies and children's stockings of silk or artificial silk, girls and children's coats, woven underwear of silk or silk and wool, woven wool bathing costumes and caps and articles of a number of types mentioned. Again, this is an industry in which I have a very definite interest, because it was one of the industries which we picked out as suitable for a tariff, and, consequently, I am very anxious to see that the best possible success should attend that industry, and that the duties should be so adjusted as to enable those firms, which have got going under the tariff, to concentrate on the articles in which they have shown considerable efficiency in production, and, to aid them in their endeavours, to remove from them certain articles in which they have not shown any great progress, and about some of which, at least, they have said they are not likely to be manufactured in the country.

I should make the point, first of all, that when I move to reduce the rates of duty, as I propose to reduce, say, the 60 per cent. to a certain point, and the 45 per cent. to a certain point, I am founding that upon the meetings which I engineered myself as between the clothing manufacturers and the woollen manufacturers last year, and in the early part of this year, in an attempt to get an accommodation between them. To a considerable extent, the rate of duty imposed on wearing apparel must depend on the rate of duty imposed on woollen fabric. The two industries run together, and the tariffs associated with them are what have been described as the two-tier tariffs. If one goes up, the other must go up something, if the old rate of protection is still to be continued.

At the most favourable of these meetings which took place between the two sections of the industry, it seemed to me that accommodation could have been got as between them, on the basis, that if the whole exemption limit went for the woollen fabrics, then the clothing manufacturer would require a duty of something between 30 per cent and 33? per cent. operatively. There was no case made for 33? per cent. A case was attempted, but when the figures were analysed, it was proved that not merely were they getting the particular type of suit put forward that they said was essential but an addition of 6/- item of profit, and that was left over for further consideration and when the meetings were held, no accommodation was found to be possible between the two sections of the trade. I am consequently moving to bring the duty back to what was a suitable point, and which I think would be regarded by the trade itself as suitable, if they were forced to argue this point, in detail, as they might have been forced to argue it before the Tariff Commission, and to justify themselves in asking for a licence to charge more for certain types of clothing.

The exclusions are the main things, although the other things are of considerable importance, and, again I base myself on this, that, if we are going to give the apparel manufacturers an extra tariff, we have got to recognise that it is going to be, for some period, at least, an extra burden on the consumer, because it is going to give them a chance to raise prices still further, and I think we should equate that by remitting taxation to the family as opposed to the individual, and that if we are going to give the clothing manufacturers a chance to raise prices on articles intended for wear by men and boys, we should consider the family and remit taxation in respect of women's clothing to some extent, and in respect of children's clothing to some extent. I I picked out, as suitable for exclusion, hats for wear by women or girls and all component parts or accessories, because, in the main, there has been no great improvement in the business here, and if that business were taken away and other lucrative businesses given to the firms, I doubt if they would have very much objection to start off. If they got the point where they could handle these businesses we can later on accommodate them. I picked out gloves, because it is admitted that, other than knitted gloves, there are very few gloves made in this country. There are one or two individuals who make, to order, gloves of a specialised type, and who will still continue to make them, but, except for knitted gloves, there are really no gloves being made in the country, and that after five or six years of a tariff.

With regard to the third item, stockings of silk or artificial silk, I have more hesitation. These are not being made here and attempts to get factories established here for the making of them failed, because it was understood that the purchasing unit here was not sufficient to enable any factory even specialising in these things to be started. No factory was started. The only hesitation I have in this is the possible reaction of this on the woollen stocking trade. It may be argued, and argued with some force, that if silk or artificial silk stockings are let in here free of duty, certain people, who are now using woollen stockings, will turn over to the use of these things, but I do not think that that will bear much investigation. I do not think there was ever a fashion which so completely ran around the whole world, and this country, even penetrating to the bogs, as the artificial silk stocking fashion, and it is very doubtful if there are any people likely to fall for that fashion who have not already fallen. I picked out also, as suitable for exclusion, girls' and children's coats. I have often had it represented to me by the trade that the reason why there was not more progress made in the manufacture of coats for children, particularly, and for girls, even especially, was that more work had to be put into these things, that more work was required, and that the prices on the whole were not remunerative, not at all as remunerative as the price relative to the work employed on men's and boys' clothing.

On the footwear side, as far as footwear of silk or silk and wool is concerned, there is no production here. A bathing costume is perhaps a small item, but it is one for which the demand has not been met in this country to any extent at all. The articles I have enumerated in sub-section (10) which I am proposing to the Third Schedule are I think ones that may simply be noted. There is no production in belts made of leather or suede; scarves made of the material I have mentioned, neckwear of the material mentioned, or rubber collars and cuffs and shaped frillings in the materials mentioned. I am accordingly proposing to exclude articles that are not being made here in the main or, where they are being made at all, can certainly with the goodwill of the firms be excluded, if and when we are proposing to give an additional tariff on the manufacture of the goods which they have been able to produce to some degree, with considerable efficiency where they are produced at all, but which are not at all yet being introduced in sufficient quantities to meet the requirements of the country. I ask again that we should not speed the machine too fast and beyond what the factories can cater for. We can give them a better situation than that in which they now find themselves, by removing from the scope of the tariff all articles in the manufacture of which they have not to any extent engaged up to date.

The duty imposed by this section is 60 per cent. with a preferential duty of 40 per cent. on all woven tissues made wholly or partly of wool or worsted, in the main for wear by men or boys, also on personal clothing and wearing apparel, except gloves made wholly or mainly of leather or leather substitutes and their component parts. In regard to the items mentioned in paragraph (b) the position remains the same as it was. The effective rate of duty there is 15 per cent., which duty has been in operation since 1925. Under paragraph (c) the main items which are made the subject of a higher duty than that heretofore prevailing are women's ready-mades and garments of one kind or another. The Deputy is proposing to reduce the duty in respect of men's and boys' ready-made clothing.

To reduce the new duty and to increase the old one.

He said that by doing so it gave those engaged in the industries an ample measure of protection, a measure of protection at least as great as it was before and would enable them to retain or extend their position in the market here. In order, however, that the measure of protection should be as the Deputy stated, it is necessary for him to bring in an amendment later on in the Bill reducing the duty now imposed on the cheaper woven cloths and he is proposing to do that.

This is founded on the duty being as it is in the Bill.

I certainly think that the Deputy will find it very hard to argue that with a duty of 20 per cent. on cloth, and a duty of 30 per cent. on clothing, the ready-made clothing manufacturers will have the same amount of protection as they had before these duties were imposed. In any case I think it would be undesirable to limit the duties to that extent. The Deputy said that raising the duties to the point at which he proposes it it should be placed, gives these manufacturers a chance to raise their prices still further. In fact these manufacturers have not been raising their prices at all. I do not think the Deputy denied there has been very keen competition in the ready-made clothing trade. The firms who are engaged in that trade in the Free State and also in other countries, say that the margin of profit available here is much lower than elsewhere because of the keenness of competition and prices have been cut down to the minimum. In fact they have been cut so low that the firms engaged in the business are making, generally speaking, lower profits than firms engaged in kindred industries.

In respect of the articles which the Deputy proposes to exclude from duty altogether the position is as follows. In so far as the articles are covered by paragraph (b) we are leaving the position unchanged and they will be only subject to the duty which operated heretofore. Again, I think it would be a mistake to remove the duty which was imposed in 1925, because by doing so we would announce our abandonment of all hope that the manufacture of the various classes of goods could be undertaken here. In respect of gloves, the position is, as the Deputy stated, that heretofore only knitted gloves were made here, but the Deputy will know that we have an amendment on the Paper which is designed to give us power to permit of the free importation of parts of gloves made of leather or similar materials for a period of twelve months from this date. That concession is required because the manufacture of leather gloves is now about to commence here and those about to engage in the manufacture of these gloves have asked us for that period of twelve months in which they can be engaged in training workers in the apparently very highly skilled process of cutting the different parts. The process of stitching parts, stretching and shaping gloves is, although involved, nevertheless capable of being done here without any very prolonged training by Irish workers. In any case, it seems to me the position is different to that which the Deputy had in mind when tabling the amendment. He was assuming that the manufacture of these classes of goods would not be undertaken here. That is now about to be undertaken. One factory for the manufacture of that class of gloves is likely to be opened here in Dublin next week.

In respect of artificial silk stockings, I do not think that the Deputy is correct in saying that the size of the market here does not make their economic production possible in the country. We have had some tentative approaches from people who are contemplating the manufacture of these articles here and on the other hand we have been ourselves considering the possibility of, as it were, inviting certain firms operating at the moment plants in other countries similar in size and in output to that which would be required here. If we fail and if we find after an experimental period that there is no possibility of getting the industry established, that there exist difficulties here that do not exist elsewhere, then the duty can be removed but there is no indication that such failure is likely to result as yet.

Certainly I will say to the House that in so far as these articles are not essential, in so far as they are capable of bearing for a time a duty at the rate we impose, and that we think should be imposed, that duty should be maintained until all the possibilities of getting them manufactured here have been thoroughly explored. It seems to us that if a serious and consistent drive is made to get them produced here we can get that done. The position in respect of women's ready-mades, and particularly girls' and children's goods, has been unsatisfactory heretofore. The import duty has been operating, but only quite recently has any start been made in the factory manufacture of these things here. There has always been, of course, a very considerable business in the manufacture of this class of goods by private dressmakers and people of that kind, but only quite recently was a start made, to any extent, in the manufacture of these things by factory methods. Other firms are now proposing to engage in the industry—some of them external firms with very long established and very widespread reputations. It would seem to be very undesirable that we should, at this stage, remove that duty, because it now seems possible to get as rapid development in respect of that end of the industry, which heretofore remained undeveloped, as we got in respect of the men's ready-made clothing industry when the first duty was imposed. There are, it is true, a number of articles of wearing apparel of comparatively minor importance which are covered by the general duty and which have always been covered by the general duty but which have not been made here and, conceivably, will not be made here. We have given some consideration to the possibility and advisability of excluding these articles from the duty but it was found to be almost impossible to do so inasmuch as definitions could not be found that would cover precisely the article in mind and not a much wider range of articles. The articles in question, however, are of comparatively minor importance and are by no means essential. Consequently, it is considered best that we should maintain the duty rather than risk the doing of something which would mean a general reduction in the measure of protection afforded.

A case has been made in respect of certain classes of children's socks which are now imported from Japan at remarkably low prices. That case has also been examined but the examination convinces us that it is undesirable that a concession in duty should be given in respect of them. Children's socks are manufactured here and the factories engaged in the business are undergoing considerable extensions at the moment, so that we will have a much larger supply from these factories in the near future. It is, of course, absolutely impossible for any factory here to engage in the manufacture of these goods at prices which would compare at all with the prices at which the Japanese goods are sold here. We could not do that unless we were prepared to reproduce here the conditions in respect of wages, labour and so forth which exist in the factories from which these goods are being sent. I do not think we should try to do that. If these goods are imported, the amount of duty payable upon them will be very small but the duty should be maintained in order to give protection to the factories which are making similar articles here.

In the woollen industry, there is also a prospect of considerable development in the near future. I have mentioned that some of the factories are putting in additional plant and, generally, extending their business. There have also been approaches by Six-County firms and other firms proposing to engage in particular ends of this business. They have been encouraged to do so where the proposals were such that they were considered satisfactory. Certain proposals came forward—proposals which involved merely the importation of certain prepared fabric, the cutting out of the neck and some small sewing here. In that case, we could not consent to these firms coming in because it would have meant that instead of having a proper fully-developed hosiery industry here, such as we will have, we would rather have a mere sewing and finishing industry. This duty was fully considered before its imposition and it seems to me that the exemptions mentioned in sub-section (2) are the only ones that should be contemplated by the Dáil. It would be a mistake, in my opinion, to extend these exemptions to any considerable extent because there can be no doubt whatever that it is an industry suitable to this country, one which is quite capable of rapid development and one in respect of which the difficulty of supplying skilled workers, and similar difficulties, do not exist. The protection which has been given to it is sufficient to secure its development and is securing its development.

In my opinion, a reduction in that measure of protection would have the effect of definitely slowing up development, if not preventing it altogether. I do not think that should be done. In this case, it is not possible for Deputies to argue that any increases in price are likely to take place in consequence of the duty. I have mentioned the very keen competition that exists in the readymade clothing trade. I should also like to mention that the leading firms engaged in the hosiery end of the business have definitely reduced their prices and sent out an amended price list for this year since the imposition of the duty.

What about the price of raw wool? Has that gone down?

The price of raw wool is remarkably low at the moment.

I thought so.

I am talking of the amended price list which went out since the imposition of the duty—the price list for this year.

What does that prove?

Deputies can always explain a reduction of price. The fact is that a reduction of price has taken place, not an increase.

The fact is that raw wool has gone down considerably in price.

Presumably, there is always an explanation of a reduction of price. The only other point I wish to deal with at this stage relates to the proposals contained in another amendment in my name, to reduce the 15 per cent.—that is, the old rate of duty—chargeable upon certain forms of sports goods which are enumerated in amendment No. 18 and also to exclude from duty the carnival cap which has heretofore been taxed as wearing apparel. That is referred to in amendment 23. These are, I think, the only amendments which could be considered of the duty imposed by this section. It seems to me that this is a duty which should be maintained because it is likely to give, in employment and in the establishment of new factories, much more rapid results than some of the other duties. I should be very sorry indeed if the Dáil were persuaded to modify it in any substantial particular.

I want to intervene again on this question of prices. The Minister says this is not a tariff in respect of which anybody can allege that the prices charged are unreasonable or bear hardly on the Irish consumer. He says that there is fierce home competition. There can be no such fierce home competition, seeing the big revenue still derived from the apparel business. What does it amount to? Does the Minister know what last year's figure was? It amounted to well over half a million. In answer to a question I put down, the Minister said that this year he estimated the revenue would benefit by £150,000 extra.

I should say that I referred to the competition which operated in the men's readymade clothing industry. The Deputy is talking about the whole wearing apparel industry.

I am talking about the whole apparel duty and I thought the Minister was talking about that too. As far as the whole wearing apparel duty is concerned there is something in the region of £600,000 still levied by way of tax which people have to pay on the goods they purchase, and the Minister estimates that there will be an additional £150,000. In answer to a question of mine the Minister said, on 12th May, that in the case of men's and boys' clothing, the existing factories are in a position to produce the entire requirements of the country, and, he went on to say, in the case of certain branches of the women's clothing trade and the hosiery trade, the existing firms are not now in a position to cater for the total home requirements but he anticipated that rapid developments would take place in these industries. In answer to a supplementary question of mine as to whether the Minister would give an estimate of the revenue that was likely to accrue from the tax the Minister said about £150,000. I take it that this amount of £150,000 was expected to come mainly from the women's clothing trade and the hosiery trade, while he believes that men's and boys' clothing was likely to be made at home. I am discussing, in the main, women and children's clothing trade, and the Minister has made no satisfactory answer to that. I am moving to have certain things excluded and to have an extra tariff on those items upon which he is convinced satisfactory progress is being made, and about which he said the existing factories are in a good position to produce the entire requirements of the country. But he did not give any detail.

I have an amendment down to have this tariff of 60 per cent. imposed upon men's overcoats, suits and caps made wholly or mainly from woollen or worsted reduced from 60 per cent. to 45 per cent. I have moved to reduce the effective duty from 40 to 30. The Minister said that that was on the basis that a certain amendment I had down was passed and I answered it was not. I am confining myself to the clothing manufacturing side when putting up their case.

They were considering the situation that would exist if the total exemption limit were abolished. If it were abolished then such duties as were on would fall upon the cloth now exempt. The Minister is moving to put the rate on cloths we exempted a little bit higher—two or three per cent.—than what it would be if the exemption limit was abolished while the old duty remained. In these circumstances the clothing manufacturers put forward a demand for a 33? per cent. increase. The duty on their materials would be raised from 20 to 33?. I am proposing to raise it from 20 to 30 and I am doing so, because when their case was examined and the number of items that they brought forward as typical were examined, it was discovered that not merely would they get a contribution but that they would gain something like 6/- extra profit on a suit of a fairly cheap type. Therefore I say there is no case for 33?. I am putting it that there is a case for 30, but that is on the basis of the existing cloth coming in. I do make my case definitely inside the limits I describe. When the two groups met those who met them were convinced that accommodation was going to be easy enough on a tariff ranged between 30 and 33? per cent. I do not know whether we should raise it to 60 or operatively to 40. I say that while raising this tariff to the point they want, in the conditions we can envisage happening under this Bill, why not take other steps and limit this extra burden which is going to be put on, in addition to the old amount, which used to be charged on women's clothing and hats and other wearing apparel? They are going to get an additional £150,000 this year from that. If we are to give these people a chance by giving them 10 per cent. more on an article that they can manufacture than what they asked to have given them, why not pass the other way, and say, "Very good, we will give you an amount that will be prohibitive and we will insist on your meeting the requirements of the country"?

That does not mean an abandonment of the tariff with regard to any of these items excluded in a temporary way. It is only taking out these things in which you are not making any progress here, and in regard to which the Minister admits there is no production in the country. I ask again that there should be serious consideration given in the Resolution to the terrific burden of taxation that is being put upon the people. We are giving an amount of protection on the side where it is necessary, under certain conditions, and I take the Minister's own statement that some of the articles that I moved to exempt are not made in this country at all. In such cases the tariff is pure taxation. I do not see why we should not exclude all articles of footwear from sizes 4 to 10, women's and girls' hats and gloves other than knitted gloves. If necessary when there is some better approach to a factory in the leather glove side, the Minister has under his control the Provisional Imposition Order, and in that way he can come in. But why include with this, other gloves, not leather and not knitted and about which there is no attempt at manufacture here? Similarly with regard to artificial silk stockings. They could be considered when we are to have a factory established here for the purpose of manufacturing them. The other things are not manufactured here and the Minister has admitted it. There ought to be this year remission of £150,000 which is going to be landed on things that are not made here at all. Give the remission from that £600,000 or whatever portion of it is tariff which is put upon those articles not made here at all.

I am rather surprised that the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce should make a statement here that artificial silk stockings are not made within the Twenty-six Counties.

I have seen artificial silk stockings and socks made here. I have washed them myself. The best machinery in the world is in the Twenty-Six Counties and the former Minister for Industry and Commerce should be well aware that the machinery is lying there —the most up-to-date machinery—and the workmen are walking the streets of the town. The town I refer to is Balbriggan. It is well-known that the hosiery made in Balbriggan is the most up-to-date and they have the best workers in the world. They have proved that in the medals and awards they have from exhibitions all over the world. The best class of machinery is there lying idle and the men are hardly able to get the dole. I invited the Minister for Industry and Commerce to go down this day week and I think it is his duty to go down. I said the late Government had gone there and nothing had been done.

I worked in that hosiery firm. I was a washman, and I know what I am talking about. I went in to work there when I was 17 years of age. You can go to Ballsbridge and see the work on exhibition there and I defy contradiction that you can get a better class of work in the world. If he allows this duty to be taken off you will have all kinds of cheap stuff coming in. You can go down to Guiney's in Talbot Street and get the German stuff for 2½d, and I say it should be prohibited altogether. The Minister should investigate the workings of this firm.

The Deputy is not in order in referring to a particular firm.

It has been stated that there is no machinery to make artificial stockings. I deny that. The machines are there and the men are there. I agree that they are not being made now; but why? About seven years ago in the Press I challenged a certain man that he was giving his orders to England and getting them sent from England under the name of Balbriggan. That is why I asked the Minister to investigate this. There is something radically wrong because he does not want to cater for the Twenty-Six Counties. The best men and women in the world are there and they can make any class of hosiery.

Why are they idle?

I am asking the Minister to enquire into it, unless he is, just like some of you on the Opposition Bench, catering to the foreigner. They are playing too much to England and that is why these works are idle. The staff, however, are fully paid. They are never idle and everybody knows that you cannot pay a staff £300 a week and the workers not working unless there is something wrong. The machinery is there and I invite the Minister to go down and see for himself.

Are artificial silk stockings being made there now?

Not at the present time. I cannot tell you the reason. Practically no class of sock or stocking is being made and all the workers can get is one day's pay for the stamp.

Are they stockings or works of art?

I find some difficulty in following Deputy Curran's line. I am very much interested to hear that artificial silk stockings are to be had from Balbriggan. I have been looking for Irish made artificial silk hosiery for the last five years and could not find them.

I did not say they were being made, but that they can be made.

But I am much interested to hear that they were made at one time. If so, it would be a source of profitable information to the Minister to enquire why the trade perished. I think it may be because they took no means of bringing their product before the public. I think the Minister himself has some experience, as I have, of this trade, and certainly it was never before brought to my attention, and I doubt if it was ever brought to the attention of anyone else.

I find it difficult to follow the attitude of the Labour Party with regard to tariffs. An amendment in the name of Deputy Murphy was withdrawn to allow second-hand articles to be sold at 1/2 or 2/- which will compete in the same way as the artificial silk.

Is the Deputy aware that I asked the Minister to prevent the second-hand stuff from coming in?

I have been charged with being a will-o'-the-wisp, but at least I am not a detached fragment of a Party. It is becoming bewildering. I listened to members of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party getting up and saying that if the rest of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party betrayed the unemployed, at least there was a faithful few. One Labour Deputy said that in the interests of the poor this Government must admit secondhand clothes and a colleague of the Labour Deputy gets up within an hour or two and says that it is absolutely murderous of the Minister to adopt the suggestion of his colleague. The position of the will-o'-the-wisp may apply to some of the Deputies on my left, but at least it does not apply to a member with no Party affiliation. A group manages generally or should usually manage to say the same thing. I do not think that that is a matter of any importance and I appreciate very much that the deplorable party system is dying and that members are not merely for a political party but for the people who sent them here. I think that is healthy and I hope that at a later stage certain members on my right will come to realise that they are members for their constituencies and not merely for Fianna Fáil.

We are always for our constituencies.

We will give them a chance later on. I think it very desirable that this House should be brought to a full consciousness of the situation arising out of these matters, and that Parties, on certain policies within the House, do not seem to need the support of their own members. I venture to say that it is desirable that members should become a little more independent in viewing these proposals than hitherto and that they should examine each thing on its merits and act with the courage of Deputy Curran, and when others are going off the rails to bring them back with a jolt. I suggest to them to follow his example and when they feel that their own Minister for Industry and Commerce is going off the rails put on the harness and bring him back with a jolt.

I think these Resolutions are drawn wider than the Minister intended to draw them in order to secure his object. I think that was the substance of the point Deputy Dillon was making. I want to pass on to the Minister certain representations that were made to me, some of which may, or may not, have been made to the Minister already. The first refers to the very cheap line of clothes, rather a new line. I am informed that comparatively recently certain cheap raincoats and waterproof coats were introduced into this country which would only be purchased by the working classes; that it was impossible to get such coats made within the borders of the Free State; and that there is no chance of their being made here, as this is a class of article that manufacturers here did not wish to undertake. The effect of the duty will be, not merely to increase the price of the article, but to make it impossible for working people to get such garments at all. The second case deals with gloves to which Deputy McGilligan referred. I am informed that there is not the smallest hope of kid and suede gloves being made in this country. I think the result of the duties will be that certain of the better types of gloves will not be purchasable within our borders, and that damage will be done to persons at present interested in selling these articles.

As to the point raised with regard to gloves, developments are taking place so that leather gloves will be made here in the near future. There is an amendment down which we are moving in order to enable those engaged in the industry to bring in the cut parts free of duty for twelve months. After that they will have to engage actively in making them.

Does not that refer to leather?

Yes, and materials similar to leather. Cheap waterproofs are being made here. I got a circular this morning from a certain Dublin firm asking me to buy a gent's featherweight waterproof coat at 8/11d. and that is cheap enough.

With the new duty?

Irish made.

Since when?

I had to pay one guinea for mine.

Does the Minister mean that Irish-made waterproofs of the quality mentioned can be supplied to meet the existing demand for such things in the near future?

I say that Irish-made waterproofs can be purchased at certain shops in the city for 8/11.

My informant assured me that he required a certain number of articles every week and he found it impossible to get them.

There is a large number of firms engaged in the manufacture of waterproofs here, and two additional firms are engaging in it.

A large number?

A large number. I think we might say that we have almost reached the saturation point.

Could the Minister give some of the names?

I could give them but I have not got them now.

Does the Minister say that there are a dozen firms?

I do not know how many.

Are there six?

Yes. As I mentioned, two additional firms have commenced operations since the imposition of the duty, and some of the existing firms are extending the scope of their establishments.

Might I read an extract from a letter I received for the Minister's information?

I think the letter received from that particular person has been received by every Deputy.

I need not press the matter so.

I think it will be found that possibly every Deputy has a copy of it.

I have not got it.

As I believe there is justification for it I will read it.

I require an average of 200 waterproofs of this class each week, and I find that none of the Irish factories can guarantee me such a delivery, even at high prices. In fact, I find that the Irish factories are not anxious to handle this class of trade.

If that is true, what I have said is correct.

I would be inclined to take that statement with very grave doubts—either the 200 waterproofs per week, or the inability of the manufacturer to give supplies at any price from factories here. It might be that there was a period immediately following the imposition of the duty in which they could not say that requirements would be met. That period has certainly passed, and there is no difficulty at present in getting adequate supplies of these goods at various prices. The main question arising out of it is in respect to women's apparel. As far as men's ready-made clothes are concerned there is no reason for importations. Existing firms are quite capable of supplying requirements, although it is quite true that under the original duty considerable importations of these goods took place mainly by certain firms which operate multiple stores here. The raising of the duty to 30 per cent. would not have interfered with them at first, but the raising of the duty to 40 per cent. has definitely limited importations. Certain of the firms in question are still importing goods, paying the duty and selling here at the old prices, presumably charging the extra cost on the entire cost of running their business over the whole of the United Kingdom and Ireland. In due course, if necessary, in order to ensure that that particular trade will stop, and to ensure that the requirements of the people will be met from Irish factories, that duty of 40 per cent. may have to be further increased. As far as the cheaper ready-made clothes are concerned, the bulk of the requirements are met here. Existing factories are capable of meeting them, and there is very intense competition between them.

In respect to women's clothing, the position is that, as far as lighter outer and under clothing is concerned, existing factories, and certain new factories which have started, will be sufficient to supply all the requirements of our people, plus certain developments in the way of the manufacture of these goods by people in their own homes. It is in respect to women's heavier outer garments that the most difficulty exists, and where developments will be slow. However, a start must be made some time. A start has been made, and I am informed that there will be a considerable development of the whole industry, and the manufacture of these goods at home by women and girls, or through the instrumentality of dressmakers. I have been informed that since the imposition of these duties the sewing machine companies operating here have been unable to cope with all the orders they received for machines, which would seem to indicate that very considerable developments in the way of making these goods in their own homes are taking place amongst the people. In my opinion, that is a desirable development. Progress is now being made, but progress will be certainly arrested by the removal of the duty as is suggested by Deputy McGilligan. I do not think we should remove the duty. Even though, in respect to women's outer garments, we have no factory to meet requirements, we have a very large number of skilled dressmakers, and the imposition of the duty is going to mean more business for them. In respect to lighter outer garments, existing concerns are supplying the requirements, and new firms can come in. I do not think there is any case for the modification in this duty and I urge the Dáil not to accept the amendment.

Will the Minister consider the advisability of admitting free certain articles, such as lace motifs, that are used for trimming up light underclothing? There is no possibility of manufacturing them in this country. I spoke privately to the Minister on that matter and I would like him to consider the advisability of admitting these articles free of duty. The articles I have in mind are used by certain firms for trimming underclothing. If they were admitted free it would be a great advantage and it would help those firms to sell their produce at an economic price compared with the foreign article. The amount of duty will be very small. I do not advocate having them sent in free of duty to shopkeepers, but to the firms that use them in the process of manufacturing ladies' underwear.

Since the Deputy spoke to me I have had certain inquiries made but they have not been completed. If we find it is feasible or desirable to make an exemption of the kind suggested by the Deputy, we would be very favourably disposed to do it and we could have an amendment on the next Stage.

The remark might also apply to shaped frillings in silk, cotton and lace and neckwear of the same type. If these things are not made here they are imported and are used mainly as component parts in the trade.

I think it was Deputy Thrift who made the statement that certain people wanted 200 cheap waterproofs and they wrote to an Irish firm but could not get them. If the Deputy gives me the name of the people requiring the waterproofs I will get them all the supplies they need.

Go to Mr. Richardson.

Owing to the very ingenious manner in which the ex-Minister for Industry and Commerce dealt with tariffs on these materials, Irish firms found themselves practically driven out of competition. I know that in one instance, by reason of the manner in which the last Government imposed tariffs, a firm was obliged to close down. That was four months before the Fianna Fáil Party took office. This firm is situated a couple of miles from where I live. When Fianna Fáil formed a Government the firm reopened. At first they were able to give employment to 30 hands, then to 60, and later they employed 90 hands working double shifts. I believe that ultimately they will be able to engage 200 people in that industry.

Deputy McGilligan asked for a reduction in certain tariffs. I ask the Minister not to reduce the tariffs he has imposed. In the case of a certain manufacture, the relief afforded by the Minister by taking the tariff off the raw material has resulted in a 20 per cent. reduction in the price of the article. The increased tariff in another instance resulted in an English firm coming here and giving orders for £15,000 worth of waterproofs. That represents the business they have in this country. The contract has now been taken by an Irish firm and these English people find they can sell waterproofs cheaper under the new conditions.

Because they are completely escaping all the tariffs by coming over here and getting their articles manufactured by an Irish manufacturer. That gives employment here that was formerly given across the water. The manner in which this whole matter has been conducted by the Department of Industry and Commerce is worthy of the highest appreciation. At any rate, extra employment is being given instead of, as in the case of the last Government, conditions resulting in the closing down of factories. As a result of the way in which the problem has been tackled by the Government, employment has been given to 90 people in my constituency, and it will probably mean later on employment for 300 people. In addition, there has been a reduction in the price of the article here.

That is great.

These are points that I would advise Deputies opposite to consider. With regard to Deputy Dillon's argument, it seems to me the Deputy cannot make up his mind on matters that would be of very great interest to his constituents. So far as we are concerned, we at all times do our duty by our constituents. I am deeply interested in Deputy McGilligan's amendment. If it were adopted I believe it would hurt the industry which the last Executive Council almost succeeded in wiping out of existence. Thank God, under the new régime that industry is again flourishing and giving employment to our people.

After the notorious political economist on that side has spoken, I suppose we should all be silent. However, I will venture to ask two more questions. An amendment is down later with regard to gloves of leather or other material. Will that include gloves of taffeta silk, nap, crepe, suede, doeskin, chamois and fur-back? These gloves are not being made in this country. With regard to the section, the things in regard to which the rate of duty is not being increased under the proposals are shirts and collars not made of woven tissues. Probably the most successful tariff of the whole lot is that on shirts and collars. It is the best of the whole lot. It can be said that these articles are now being produced more cheaply and sold at a cheaper rate in this country than possibly on the other side; even our exported material that goes to the other side is sold more cheaply. Why is it not proposed to increase that duty? There is only one item of production coming in against it, a proprietary article made in Belfast by the firm of Faulkiner and Latimer. They manufacture a folded collar. It is the only thing that could be kept out.

There was no need to increase the duty. That firm has now opened a factory in Dublin and is manufacturing here, so that import will be stopped.

Why should they open here? Is it not going to be a blind and they will continue to produce in the main factory in Belfast? There is no extra tariff imposed.

I am afraid I cannot answer for the firm. We considered with great care whether or not this particular tariff on shirts and collars should be increased. The position in regard to shirts is that we do a much more substantial export than an import business. The exports are several times the imports. It was not thought desirable that the duty should be increased. The same situation does not altogether apply in respect of collars. We examined the matter for some time and we decided to leave the position as it is in respect to collars. The general position in that respect is still being examined. As regards the other question concerning parts of gloves, the amendment only remits the duty in respect of the parts of gloves made of leather or a similar material. That would not cover gloves of silk or woven materials of any kind. But it would cover suede and articles of that kind.

Yes, in my opinion. It is intended that it should, but that it should not cover merely woven and knitted materials.

Amendment put and negatived.

That governs several other amendments.

Yes, that rules amendments 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, and the amendments to the Schedules.

The following amendments were agreed to:—

18. In sub-section (1), page 5, before paragraph (c) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—

"(c) on all gloves, guards, and protectors which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, are constructed, designed, and intended solely for use in sport, all bathing costumes, bathing caps, and bathing wraps, and all clothing which is suitable and intended for use when wading—an amount equal to fifteen per cent. of the value of the article"; —Aire Airgid.

23. In sub-section (2), page 5, before paragraph (e) to insert a new paragraph as follows:—

"(e) on any personal clothing or wearing apparel made wholly or mainly of paper, nor"

—Aire Airgid.

24. In sub-section (2), page 5, to add to the end of the sub-section a new paragraph as follows:—

"nor

(j) on component parts of gloves made of leather or material similar to leather, where such component parts are imported into Saorstát Eireann before the 1st day of July, 1933, and, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, are not substantially completely manufactured gloves."

—Aire Airgid.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 8.
(1) A Customs duty of an amount equal to 50 per cent. of the value of the article shall be charged, levied, and paid on all brushes (other than toothbrushes) and brooms and component parts of brushes (other than toothbrushes) and brooms imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 26th day of April, 1932.
(6) The duty imposed by Section 18 of the Finance Act, 1925 (No. 28 of 1925), shall not be chargeable or leviable on any article chargeable with the duty imposed by this section.
The following amendments appeared on the Paper:—
26. In sub-section (1), line 1, to delete the word "fifty" and substitute therefor the words "twenty-two and one half".—Earnán de Blaghd.
27. To add at the end of sub-section (1) the words "and not liable to the duty imposed by Section 18 of the Finance Act, 1925".—Earnán de Blaghd.
28. To delete sub-section (6).— Earnán de Blaghd.

I move amendment 26: The three amendments I have down have one purpose and can be discussed together. The object is simply this: that all brushes heretofore taxed remain liable to the old rate of duty and that brushes which have not been heretofore taxed instead of being taxed at the rate proposed in the Bill be taxed at 22½ per cent., with the preference set out in the Bill, making it an effective 15 per cent. A great range of brushes has already been protected and great progress has been made. As a matter of fact, a high rate of protection has been given to the brush industry, and it seems to me that, with that protection, it is excessive to levy the rate suggested in the Bill on these classes of brushes that have been heretofore free. Ample additional stimulus, if it is required, would be given to the industry by a much more moderate rate of duty.

I do not think we can accept the amendment. There is no reason why brushes should be imported. There is one very large firm engaged in the industry; there are four, shall we call them, medium firms and a large number of smaller firms throughout the country. Consequently, it does not appear likely that there will be any diminution in competition, in view of the fact that the activity of all is quite sufficient to supply our requirements, particularly in the class of brushes which are in commonest use. The duty imposed when the tax was placed upon imported furniture was of considerable benefit to the industry. There was a considerable increase in the number employed, although that increase was offset by the fact that during the same period a change from the production of brushes by hand to the production by machines took place which, of course, diminished the amount of additional employment given. There was, however, a large range of brushes excluded from the scope of that duty, some of them classes which have a considerable sale, and they are now made subject to this duty. In fact, the duty is intended to prohibit the importation of brushes altogether, to give these firms engaged in the production of brushes a market here and let them compete amongst themselves for it. The competition in respect to brushes in commonest use will be sufficiently keen to ensure that no undue increase in price will arise.

There are ranges of brushes in which the competition probably will be very keen—the simple sort of brushes which even the smallest firms can make. There are, however, other ranges of brushes that are required and which are very numerous, and there are classes of them where certainly competition will be slight; where these small firms may be ruled out of account, where, perhaps, even what the Minister calls the medium firms will be ruled out of account; and, in fact, the production solely confined to the large firm. It seems to me that, while there may be classes of brushes as to which the duty proposed will do no harm, because there is likely to be competition, there are other classes where there will be no effective competition, and where this policy of exclusion will have all the faults that have been mentioned in regard to it from time to time. It may not be the wish of the firms here, as I know from what they have been doing, but I think the whole effect will in time, if not immediately, lead to the home price being the price of the outside article, plus the tariff. I think it is not good policy here, any more than in respect of any other article, to put on a duty higher than can be shown to be necessary.

The Minister made no attempt to show that the particular duty levied here is necessary. As a matter of fact, the duty of 33? per cent. probably would never have been put on brushes if the duty had been confined to brushes. What happened was that a furniture duty was imposed at a very high rate in order to give a great stimulus to an important industry which would be fairly widespread through the country, and which, unlike many of the other industries here, required a high degree of skill. Brushes were simply swept in accidentally and the rate applied to them was probably much too high. What is happening now is that, in so far as the preference is concerned, the Minister is bringing all sorts and classes of brushes under that rate, and I think some further consideration ought to be given to it. If the Minister is not prepared to accept the amendment, he ought to examine those lists of brushes with a view to ascertaining those in which there is not likely to be very much competition, and consider whether a prohibitive duty should be applied to those classes that can be made only by one or two firms.

We did consider the various classes of brushes in respect of which there was not at the moment competitive production. We excluded toothbrushes as a result of our examination and, presumably, there are certain classes of brushes in respect of which only one firm at the moment is engaged in producing. I refer to such brushes as shaving brushes and brushes required for special purposes. But it is extremely likely that other firms for the manufacture of brushes will go into these lines if there is business to be done in them. I do not think that we need fear that the one firm to which I have referred is at all likely to endeavour to exploit the market. If it does, the logical position or sequence will be that other firms will become equipped to deal with this work, go into the business and take what higher profits are to be made.

The position is that there is a certain limited export trade for the brush products of Irish factories which would indicate that the prices are at least competitive. It think it is better that we should impose duty that will operate definitely to exclude foreign products than that we should impose small tariffs or duties which might be taken to indicate that we contemplate that the prices of the home manufactured articles would go up that amount. We do not contemplate that. If prices are not kept down by competition then we hope to have other machinery by which we can deal with any danger of prices being unduly pressed up by the home manufacturers.

The Minister ordinarily would argue that the imposition of a duty means that the foreign manufacturers will pay. Now he is, for the purposes of this Bill, arguing that prices will go up all round.

Amendment put and negatived.

Section 8 put and agreed to.
SECTION 9.
(1) In lieu of the duty imposed by Section 1 of the Finance (Customs and Stamp Duties) Act, 1929 (No. 5 of 1929), a customs duty of an amount equal to forty-five per cent. of the value of the goods shall be charged, levied, and paid on all woven tissues made wholly or partly of wool or worsted (other than blanketing and floor coverings) which are imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after 26th day of April, 1932, and are so imported in the piece and are of the width of twelve inches or more and of the weight of seven ounces or more per square yard and are of a value exceeding two shillings per square yard.
(2) A customs duty of an amount equal to thirty per cent. of the value of the goods shall be charged, levied and paid on all woven tissues made wholly or partly of wool or worsted (other than blanketing, and floor coverings) which are imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 26th day of April, 1932, and are so imported in the piece and are of the width of twelve inches or more and of the weight of seven ounces or more per square yard and are of a value not exceeding two shillings per square yard.
(3) Whenever the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied that any woven tissue which, but for this sub-section, would be chargeable with the duty imposed by this section is of the nature of blanketing or felt and is suitable and intended solely for use in the manufacture of saddlery or harness or for use by printers for the purpose of their printing business or for use as ironing cloths by laundrymen or tailors, the Revenue Commissioners may, subject to compliance with such conditions as they may think fit to impose, permit such woven tissue to be imported without payment of the duty imposed by this section.
(4) Whenever the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied that any woven tissue which, but for this sub-section, would be chargeable with the duty imposed by this section is imported for use by the importer in the manufacture by him in Saorstát Eireann of personal clothing or wearing apparel for exportation the Revenue Commissioners may, subject to compliance with such conditions as they may think fit to impose, permit such woven tissue to be imported without payment of the duty imposed by this section.

Amendments 29, 31, 32 and 33 are standing in my name:—

In sub-section (1), line 47, to delete the words "forty-five" and substitute therefor the word "thirty". —Earnán de Blaghd, Patrick McGilligan.

In sub-section (2), line 55, to delete the word "thirty" and substitute therefor the word "twenty".— Patrick McGilligan.

In sub-section (2), line 62, after the word "value" to insert the words "exceeding one shilling and sixpence per square yard and".— Patrick McGilligan.

To add at the end of sub-section (2) a new sub-section as follows:—

"(3) A customs duty of an amount equal to 10 per cent. of the value of the goods shall be charged, levied and paid on all woven tissues made wholly or partly of wool or worsted (other than blanketing and floor coverings) which are imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 26th day of April, 1932, and are so imported in the piece and are of the width of 12 inches or more and of the weight of seven ounces or more per square yard and are of a value not exceeding one shilling and sixpence per square yard."

There is an amendment down by Deputy Blythe, Amendment No. 30 to delete sub-section (2). My amendments are more comprehensive than the one in Deputy Blythe's name. I ask leave to move and discuss the four together. The situation here can be explained simply enough, except for this explanation that I have to offer, that I had understood that the old preferential rate of four-fifths was being continued in the new proposals. I understand from the amendments now being put down by the Minister that the preferential rate, instead of being four-fifths, will be two-thirds. That, of course, has knocked out some calculations I was making. Nevertheless, the position is simple enough. At the moment there is a duty of 20 per cent. with an exemption limit for clothing of a value under 2/- per square yard. The duty on clothing exceeding 2/- per square yard is 20 per cent., that is a 25 per cent. duty, which works out at 20 per cent. at the preferential rate.

The Minister proposes to increase the duty in the higher grade of clothing from 25 per cent. with a four-fifth preference, or 20 per cent. for Commonwealth goods, to 45 per cent. duty with a two-third preference, which puts it at 30 per cent. for Commonwealth goods. That is to say, to increase the duty from 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. for British goods. Then he proposes to drop the exemption limit altogether, but to charge these cheaper cloths at 30 per cent. or, apparently, on the two-thirds basis—20 per cent. My amendment proposes that instead of placing on the higher grade of fabric a duty of 45 per cent. which, with the preferential rate explained by me will amount to 30 per cent., we should impose a lower duty. That 45 per cent. is a higher tariff than has ever been claimed by the trade.

As far as I understood the trade recommendations there was no complaint whatever on the higher grade cloth or there was no complaint of any substance that the duty on the higher ranges was not sufficient and was not satisfactory. The complaint that was made was this, that certain cloths that should have been caught by the tariffs were coming in either because the cloth had dropped in value or else that they had been invoiced at a lower rate. The fabric was coming in invoiced under 2/- per square yard, and the cloth, therefore, escaped the tariff altogether. But there was no appeal made by the trade that the duty, so far as it caught the cloth at all, was insufficient. Yet in spite of that it is proposed to raise the duty now from 20 to 30 per cent. In sub-section (2) it is proposed to put a duty of 30 per cent. tariff on cloth under 2/- per square yard or with a preferential rate of 20 per cent.

The complaint has been made that the preferential limit is letting in goods which should have been tariffed. I propose to meet that in this way. I am moving an amendment that cloths exceeding in value 1/6 per square yard should be tariffed up to 20 per cent. I propose to modify the rate proposed in the Bill for cloths under 1/6. Personally I would prefer to leave the lowest grades without a tariff, but again a difficulty might arise. There is a possibility through invoicing of a peculiar type going on that an article which might be subject to duty might escape. In order to avoid that I would put some tariff on the lower grade. This whole thing can be divided into two parts. So far as the upper range is concerned there has been a tariff and it has been admitted that it was successful. There has been no complaint that the tariff was insufficient. Nevertheless, the proposal of the Minister is to increase that tariff on the upper range from 20 per cent. to 30 per cent. I think there is no justification for that and I propose to have some increase, some very small increase on the lower grade. The case has been made with some substance that owing to the decrease in the price of wool, cloth, which it was expected to catch by the tariff imposed on a fabric of 2/- and upwards, is now coming in free. I propose to meet that by having a grade between 2/- and 1/6 per square yard and put on a sufficiently good tariff to keep out that cloth. I would prefer to leave the lower end without any tariff at all, but if there is to be something so as to be able to cope with the shifting down of the values of the cloth, there should be a duty of ten per cent. The cloth at the moment comes in free. I found on the application made by the woollen and worsted manufacturers before the Tariff Commission and on their adherence to the case, that they pleaded and they have since made the case that there were these cheap classes of cloth coming in and that they were not going to make them. When the Tariff Commission made the suggestion to them that while the reputation of an individual firm might be prejudiced because the firm was going into the lower type of cloth, a number of the firms should come together and establish a factory between them for the manufacture of these cheap cloths here they refused to accept the suggestion. I do not see now what is the reason why we should propose a substantial tariff on these cheap cloths when the manufacturers themselves have declined, or when they are unwilling to go into that line of manufacturing cheap cloths. At one time the firms said they declined to go into the cheap line because the good name and the reputation of their firms would suffer by turning out this cheap material and at another time their argument was because of the higher type of machinery required for this class of goods. In either case they did not propose to manufacture them.

At any rate, the fact emerges that they do not propose to manufacture. For that reason, I ask that this division should be made. I assert that I am giving them, under the first proposal, adequate protection on the cloths they want tariffed, and which they have a right to have tariffed, and I say it is adequate, because there has been no complaint made as to its inadequacy to date. In the lower ends I make two divisions and give again what I think would be considered adequate protection on the intermediate classes between 2/- per square yard in value and 1/6 per square yard. For the rest, I propose a very small tariff, and I do not propose to give more than should be granted simply because these people do not admit that they are going to manufacture. As to the whole tariff on this woven tissue, it is probably the best tariff that ever was introduced, not the best, judged by results, but the best from this angle, that there has been a tradition in regard to the manufacture in this country of this material, and that there has been a sufficiency of firms, properly scattered and giving good employment, in the main, and this is, even more than the making up business, one that should be protected, but protected within the limits of what the manufacturers say they are going to engage in. They have not said that they are going to engage in the lower cloths.

The time left for the discussion of this is very inadequate. The position is that there are certain types of cloths utilised in the clothing industry. There is an all-cotton cloth that is not subject to duty. There is a cloth which is a mixture of cotton and wool which is subject to duty, and which is the type of cloth which the wool makers here say that they do not intend to make and should not be asked to make. I understand that the cloth is of very poor quality, which can be given a certain finish and gloss which cannot be given to the cheaper woollen cloth, and it is bought because of that finish, but that its wearing qualities are very limited indeed. They argue that it would require the establishment of a separate mill for each, and that the existing mills making that cloth would get into serious difficulties by the mixing of yarns and the probable deterioration of the reputation for quality of the mills in respect of their woollen cloths. In any case, if there is a desire that that cloth should be made available for ready-made suits here and that the duty should be payable, the difference in price is 6d. or 7d., and I think we can risk the imposition of that duty upon people who desire that particular type of suit, in order to avoid the very great disadvantage, which the price exemption had in the old duty, a disadvantage in fact, amounting, to a very considerable extent, to a complete reversal of the duty.

Oh, no; what percentage came in?

By far the bulk of the percentage. Well over 80 per cent. of the cloth was imported duty free.

Came in duty free? I do not know where the Minister got that figure.

Yes; the figures are available in the Shipping Statistics.

I mean the percentage the Minister gives and not the value.

From 1/10 per square yard up, the Irish mills will, this year, supply the woollen manufacturers in all wool cloth. Heretofore, the cheaper grades of cloth were only made in some mills and other mills concentrated on the production of the higher grades, but, in consequence of certain requests made to them, every mill in the country is engaging in the production of cheap cloth, so that it will be available to the ready-made clothing manufacturers, and the variety, design and price will range over all wool cloth, and, by that, I mean, cloth made in part from reclaimed wool from 1/10 per square yard up, that is 2/8 per trade yard. The bulk of the requirements in the ready-made clothing industry has been for cloth of about 3/6 per trade yard, and the entire requirements of the industry will be supplied by Irish mills this year. The duty, therefore, seems to me to be one completely justifiable and the increase of the duty in respect of cloths in the higher grade is, in my opinion, justifiable also. The mills here are quite capable of supplying all the needs, but, as Deputies opposite know, there are certain trade connections, as a result of which importations of dutiable cloth have been continued. Quite a number of merchants buying even the product of the Irish mills, buy it through English warehouses, and the trade connections that have persisted in consequence of that arrangement, have meant that there has been a fairly considerable importation of dutiable cloth. The increase in duty was intended to stop that and to secure the entire trade for that better class of cloth to the Irish mills, which are quite capable of dealing with it.

Might I ask the Minister whether he would consider the desirability—I am raising this point for the two thousandth time—of suggesting to the Irish woollen manufacturers the establishment of a central spinning factory in this country?

We can discuss that at another stage. This must be disposed of before 2 o'clock and there is no time for side issues.

Before the amendment is put I think the only thing to be done at this stage is for those who have amendments down not to move any further amendments, except, of course, the Minister's amendments, and that certain of them could be moved on Report Stage. Some of them that are down now need not be moved, and some, perhaps, which are alternatives will not need to be put down on Report Stage. Where there are alternatives, one might do, but there is one part of the Bill which, I think, a lot of people want to discuss—the maize meal section. There is no amendment down to that, but I think an amendment could be put down for Report, even although it is not down now, in order to allow the section to be passed and to have a fair opportunity of discussing it on Report Stage.

I do not wish to be unreasonable, but I understood that an agreement was made that all these amendments would be disposed of by two o'clock.

But not that the Stage would be given.

The mere giving of the Committee Stage without disposing of the amendments is of little advantage.

That was never contemplated. It was intended to dispose of as many amendments as possible, but giving up the right to discuss points that can only be discussed on amendments was never contemplated, but, of course, we have not very much time for these things. The point was whether we were going to give the Stage, and give as many of the amendments as possible, but there are certain amendments that really must be discussed, because the points that arise on them cannot be dealt with in any other way.

Last night, the Minister pointed out that, as this was to be concluded by two o'clock to-day, it was not wise to spend too much time at a particular thing.

We do not want to hear the Deputy.

What does the Deputy mean by saying that he does not want to hear me? He will have to hear me whether he likes it or not.

Order, order!

And that applies to Deputy McGilligan, too.

At this point, I want to say that I was definitely informed by our Whips that this agreement involved the disposal of these amendments before 2 o'clock. This is the second time that an agreement of that kind was destroyed by the postponement of amendments to Report Stage and it seems to me that we will have to get a very clear idea of what arrangements are made.

There was never any arrangement to dispose of all the amendments. We agreed to take the Stage and, naturally, that means taking as many amendments as possible.

I was the last person who spoke to the Government Whip yesterday and I said it was my hope that nine-tenths of the amendments would be got through at this stage.

Amendment put and division challenged.

Is this going to mean that we are not to get the Government amendments?

In order that there may be time to move all the Government amendments we propose not to divide on this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

I move amendments 34, 35 and 36:

34. Before sub-section (3), page 7, to insert a new sub-section as follows:

"(3) The provisions of Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1919, shall apply to the duty imposed by this section with the substitution of the expression "Saorstát Eireann" for the expression "Great Britain and Ireland" and as though the articles chargeable with the said duty were included in the Second Schedule to that Act in the list of goods to which two-thirds of the full rate is made applicable as a preferential rate."

35. In sub-section (3), page 7, line 7, after the word "tailors" to insert the words "or for use in the upholstering of furniture or vehicles."

36. To add to the end of the section on page 7 a new sub-section as follows:—

"(5) Whenever it is shown to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners that any woven tissue imported into Saorstát Eireann and chargeable with the duty imposed by this section was manufactured in and exported from Saorstát Eireann and has since such exportation undergone the process of shrinking and no other process of manufacture, Section 6 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1879, shall apply to such woven tissue notwithstanding that it has undergone outside Saorstát Eireann such process of shrinking."

Section 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Section 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

SECTION 12.

I move amendment No. 40:—

In sub-section (3), page 8, line 56, after the word "duty" to insert the words "as fruit shall continue to be chargeable with duty."

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Section 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 14.

I move:—

42. Before sub-section (5), on page 10, to insert a new sub-section as follows:—

"(5) If it appears to the satisfaction of the Minister for Finance, in consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that any article or class of articles mentioned in paragraph 4 of the Third Schedule to this Act and chargeable with duty at the rate mentioned in that paragraph is suitable for use in the making of motor car bodies in Saorstát Eireann and is not manufactured in Saorstát Eireann, the Revenue Commissioners may by licence authorise subject to compliance with such conditions as they think fit to impose and shall specify in such licence, the importation of such article or class of articles without payment of duty."

Amendment put and agreed to.
Section 14, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Section 15, First Schedule and Second Schedule agreed to.
THIRD SCHEDULE.

I move amendment No. 79:—

In paragraph 4, page 13, line 43, to delete the word "or" where it secondly occurs and substitute the word "of."

Amendment put and agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, and Title ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Dáil went out of Committee.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage ordered for Thursday, 30th June.
Top
Share