Amendment 11 should be a Committee amendment.
Public Business. - Finance (Customs Duties) (No. 2) Bill, 1932—Report Stage. (Resumed.)
Amendment 11. In page 10, lines 49 to 68, to delete Section 15 (1).
My amendment should be a Committee amendment and, in fact, it meant practically the deletion of the section. I was timorous that it might be ruled out of order when I put it in, and I was informed that, in that event, we could move the rejection of the section. That opportunity was denied us on the debate the other night, inasmuch as it was within two or three minutes of the hour agreed on for the division when we came to these amendments, and we were then informed, those of us who were interested, that we would have an opportunity on Report Stage of developing our arguments. That is the exact position.
This is obviously a Committee amendment and, therefore, cannot be moved at this stage.
Therefore, we did not get an opportunity of moving it on any Stage.
Of course, the Deputy realises that that is not within control of the Chair. The Chair is only concerned with matters of order, and if arrangements are made, the Chair has no control over these things.
Am I at liberty on Report Stage to oppose the section?
The Deputy is at liberty to oppose the Bill.
I know that, but am I at liberty to oppose the section? This is a matter of supreme importance to three industries. It is an illustration of the difficulties the Ministry have placed us in brushing——
I do not want to interrupt the Deputy but, after ruling against him, I cannot allow him to develop his case. The Chair is clearly bound by certain rules and regulations and this is obviously, as the Deputy himself understands, a Committee amendment.
I quite agree. You, sir, are perhaps powerless but a Deputy is absolutely powerless to advocate his intentions in this Dáil because I cannot move what was my obvious intention to move. I got no opportunity of moving it.
I move amendment 12:
In page 10, Section 15 (1) (a), lines 57 and 58, to delete the words "or for the carriage of goods or for the carriage of both persons and goods."
This amendment, and amendment 15 having a somewhat similar purpose, deals with matters which the Minister promised to consider. At an earlier stage, the Minister promised to consider the points I raised in connection with this matter, and I have not had any indication from him as to whether his consideration led to any favourable result or otherwise. I pointed out that there is a particular hardship imposed on rather the towns, than the farmers adjacent to the Border, by this particular tax. So far as I know, the application that has been made in the past for a tariff was really for a tariff on governess traps, and vehicles of that sort, and not on farm carts or even spring vans that might be used by farmers. I am suggesting that certain words should be struck out; we should have the result of leaving the tax a tax purely on governess traps and vehicles, vehicles for the carriage of passengers. When the Minister was supporting the tax originally, he talked about the coach-building industry and it seems to me that the whole thing was being based on the consideration of employment in the coach-building industry. I do not know whether he used the coach-building industry in such a way as to include in it the construction of farm carts. So far as I know, there is no great importation of farm carts, and I think the Minister should agree to limiting the scope of the tariff to the matters that were dealt with in an application previously before the Tariff Commission. I will move an amendment at a later stage, if the Minister does not accept this, to deal more specifically and more narrowly with the Border difficulty, but, of course, the Border difficulty would be met, as well as perhaps other difficulties, if this amendment I am now proposing were agreed to.
Does the Deputy wish to have the importation of new carts exempted from duty, or is his point that the farmer using a new cart for bringing in his produce would be liable to duty?
I was arguing about two things. I deal specifically with that in amendment 15, but, in this amendment, I am just arguing that the case that was made for the tariff was a case dealing with the coach-building industry, and there has been no argument put forward so far from the Ministerial Benches in favour of a tax on farm carts or on spring-vans. Perhaps the Ministry is fixed on continuing the tariff on these vehicles, but if they are not, and I have no reason to believe that they are, when I have heard no argument on these lines, the whole of the Border difficulty is met by dealing with that. Is there any importation? I have not heard there is. The importation we have heard about is the importation of vehicles intended for the conveyance of passengers only, and I would like to hear what the attitude of the Government is in regard to the whole thing.
As a matter of fact, this was put into the Bill after consideration. There is an importation of farm carts, but the principal importation is through the ports, and not across the Border. They come, I believe, from Scotland more than anywhere else, and if this amendment were accepted it would have the effect of allowing the carts to come across the Border duty free and having a tariff on those that come in by sea. I know that the Deputy did not mean that and that it could be made right, but the principal import is by sea from Scotland. There is no great import across the Border from the Six Counties, and I think there will not be any undue hardship inflicted on anybody by this tariff or on those living over the Border, because there does not appear to be any imports from across the Border.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
Question declared carried.
I move amendment 13:
In page 10, Section 15 (1) (a), line 59, to delete the word "seventyfive" and substitute the words "thirty-three and one-third."
I propose again to move that this duty be reduced. I need not take up the time of the House with argument on the point, because it is a similar argument to that used in relation to the other duties—simply, that if there is to be a tariff there is no justification for making the tariff as high as is proposed here. Any purpose that is required to be served could be met by a tariff of 33? per cent. Goods that cannot be kept out by a 33? per cent. tariff in the present industrial circumstances here, ought to be admitted, and if the tariff is to be beyond that, it means an unreasonable burden on the consumer, having regard to the fact that the economic structure of this country, the whole economic fabric, rests on agriculture, which cannot get an advantage, practically speaking, from protection, but which must sell in the open market and which cannot bear to have costs put up against it as these tariffs are doing.
As the only course left to me, I am supporting this amendment of Deputy Blythe's to reduce the tax. It was my original intention with my colleague, Deputy Desmond, who could better argue one portion of the case than I, to move on Committee the rejection of the section. As I said a moment ago, when arguing, perhaps wrongfully, we were precluded from making our case on Committee Stage by the lapse of time, and we understood that, on this Stage, we were to be allowed to debate the amendment that was then on. However, we were not. I am opposing the 75 per cent. tariff for the principal reason that it will be a considerable hardship on numerous small farmers and others who, at the moment, are the largest users of imported traps, and when I say imported traps, I include second-hand traps, which I believe constitute the greater portion of these imported vehicles. Under this section of the Bill, the Minister proposes to add to these second-hand traps, a tax varying from 75 to 150 per cent. This will possibly be a more serious hardship on the farmers and other users of this class of vehicle in this country than most Deputies, except those living in the country, realise. Possibly three-fourths of the traps one sees farmers driving every day in the country to Mass and for other purposes are imported traps.
This has been a declining industry in this country. The great makers of traps and such like vehicles in the State, hitherto, have gone into the motor trade, and if they make any traps at all, they are made as a side issue and at prohibitive prices. Most of the people who are producing traps, practically all of them, have of late years gone into the motor trade, and, as I say, if they manufacture traps, they manufacture them at prohibitive prices, prices that the ordinary small farmer cannot afford to pay. Of late years, farmers have been able to purchase the imported trap for anything from £15 to £20, quite a good trap and a trap that cannot be produced at the money here. This Bill proposes to add a duty of 75 per cent. to that £15 trap and a vehicle of lower value would have a greater tax added to it. Outside of the extreme injustice that this tax does to the farmers, it will possibly have the effect of extinguishing two declining industries in this country, two industries which provided considerable employment for a certain class of workers, who, if they lose that employment, will find it difficult to procure another sort of employment. I refer to the livery and undertaking trades in the country, and when I allude to the undertaking business I allude to the horse drawn hearse business, and not to the motor trade. Any undertaker in the country who carries on a large trade, knows full well that if it were not for the landaus and closed traps and other vehicles that he supplies when providing a hearse, he could not carry on his business. As I said, this is a question which Deputy Desmond, who is in the trade, could argue better than I if he were here, but so far as I know, practically all the vehicles used by the livery people and undertakers are imported. I do not know that I am right in saying that they are not made in this country, but I believe I would be right in saying that landaus and such vehicles are not at present being made here. At any rate I am right in saying that the men carrying on the livery business and the undertakers who supply the needs of the country population in carriages and other vehicles, do get all their requirements from imported articles. If this tax is persisted in, it will, to my mind, have the effect of driving the livery proprietors out of business and, in doing so, driving a considerable number of men, elderly men, men in the fifties and sixties, who have grown up in the trade, out of employment, and who, when disemployed will have no other avenue of employment. This will certainly be one of the effects of this tariff if it is persisted in. It was, as I said, my intention to propose the deletion of the whole section; but as that is not permitted, as the next best course, I heartily support the amendment by Deputy Blythe to reduce the tax from 75 to 33? per cent.
Of all the arguments we have heard from the Opposition against this tariff surely those of the last Deputy were the most ridiculous. He out-Herods Herod in his opposition. It is ridiculous for any Deputy associated with rural life to argue that Irish coachbuilders cannot build cars and carriages.
I did not say "cannot."
Surely the Irish coach-building industry is one of the most efficient we have.
I did not use the word "cannot." I said "did not."
To suggest that they have gone into the motor-building trade is no argument. If that is his case he should have been very enthusiastic about the proposals of the Government to put a tariff on imported motor bodies. I am sure in that case he would argue against the tariff and say that Irish coachbuilders are not able to build motor bodies. The Deputy cannot have it both ways. It is ridiculous that this tariff should be hindered in the way proposed in the amendment. If the Deputy goes on these lines his case will be that the Minister intends to kill the undertaking industry. If better arguments cannot be found such amendments should not be moved. The proposal is to reduce the tariff from 75 per cent. to 33? per cent. The obvious conclusion must be that the Opposition are prepared to force the consumers to pay 33? more for imported cars, carts and carriages. They are prepared to fleece the consumer to the extent of 33? because they hold that with a 33? per cent. tariff the foreigner can send in vehicles. Under the tariff proposed in the Bill the foreigner cannot send in vehicles, but there is the chance with healthy competition here that prices will not increase. It was stated here to-day, and it cannot be contradicted by the Opposition, that certain of these tariffs will have the effect of depriving the Government of a certain amount of revenue. The only effect of the tariff which was put on by the last Government was to collect revenue at the expense of the consumers. The same thing will happen if this amendment is passed. The only effect will be to collect revenue while no adequate protection will be given to the home industry. The tariff proposed in the Bill will prohibit the importation of newly made and second-hand vehicles. That will give a chance to home industry. It cannot be said by the Opposition that the Irish coachbuilding industry cannot make coaches or carriages and supply the demand. I think it is not fair on the part of the Opposition to obstruct in this way. Tariffs are either going to be a success or not. They cannot be a success by the half-hearted protection which the amendment would give. This country has to face the problem of building up industry. It is a very big problem and must be tackled in a big way. Even risks must be taken when tackling it in a big way. The claim that every tariff that is put on is going to hit the farmer, and the farmer only, is surely a ridiculous one. On another occasion the Deputy who used that argument claimed that the farmer is carrying the main burden of taxation on his shoulders. Undoubtedly the farmer has been carrying the main burden, because there are no other industries to carry part of the burden. I say that the farmer is quite prepared to support the Government in creating industries that will take the weight of taxation off his shoulders. I understand the main outlook of this Government to be that industries must be created in order to lighten taxation on the farmer. Arguments against this tariff were put up by certain Deputies who have no other interest than that of the profiteers. The most ridiculous argument was put up by the Deputy who spoke last, to have the tariff 33? per cent. and to allow the foreigner to send in his vehicles and sell them at an enhanced price. The Bill proposes to fix a tariff that will create healthy competition and give a chance to an efficient Irish industry. By competition prices will be lower than they are at present.
I think the statement of the last speaker, coupling undertakers and funerals, has brought the discussion into a very funereal atmosphere. I think Deputy Cleary is not quite honest in twitting Deputy Bennett about supporting a positive tariff policy by substituting 33? per cent. for 75 per cent. Deputy Bennett was at great pains to explain that he wished to have the whole section deleted as he was opposed to every part of it. However, there was nothing left for him but to support the amendment moved by Deputy Blythe in order to forward his case. I am very glad to hear from Deputy Cleary that coachbuilding is a very widespread industry in this country. I do not know where it exists at present. It has practically ceased to exist as far as the building of vehicles mentioned in the section is concerned, landaus, governess traps, and the class of carriage used in connection with funerals. I do not think these are made to any extent in this country nor are they likely to be. As Deputy Bennett pointed out, the man who is going to suffer is the small farmer. If he went to an Irish coachbuilder, such as Deputy Cleary speaks of, and asked him the price of a horse-drawn trap, a back to back trap, or a raleigh trap perhaps he would find that it was beyond his capacity to pay for. These vehicles are imported second-hand and in good condition. Owing to the prevalence of motor-cars in other countries they are sold cheap. The farmer is enabled to buy them at a low price and to have a decent turnout going to Mass on Sunday. Deputy Cleary and his Party would deprive the farmer of the advantage of turning cut in a decent trap, and would send him back to the springless cart, another corollary of the hairshirt economics. I only want to point out that Deputy Cleary was not quite honest in his reply to Deputy Bennett, because even if a tariff of 33? per cent. is put on it will be prohibitive. We do not approve of that but this amendment is the best thing we can move to show our disapproval of the whole section.
Deputy O'Neill put down a Parliamentary Question to-day asking me to suggest, or to take steps to substitute, in Bandon some industry to replace one that had recently disappeared. I think I am correct in saying that coachbuilding was once firmly established in Bandon and that a large number of people found employment at it. I think the remnants of that industry still survive and that there are still people there engaged in coachbuilding. I would suggest to those who are interested that they should consider what developments are now possible in the coachbuilding industry in Bandon in consequence of the imposition of the duty. It seems to me that we have at present, and for a long time to come, a substantial market for horse drawn vehicles of one kind or another, which will have to be supplied from within the country. The position is that we are capable of supplying our own requirements. When the coachbuilders went to the Tariff Commission with an application there was no opposition from any quarter in respect to horse drawn vehicles of any kind. The Tariff Commission recommended against the imposition of the duty, very largely on the ground that they considered that a duty was not necessary. In my opinion they were wrong in that. It is true that there are not very large imports of new cars and carts. The great bulk of the imports are second-hand cars and carts. It is the influx of these cars, often at ridiculously low prices, that injured the industry here. It is true that farmers are not going to get second-hand cars at the very low prices at which they were hitherto available.
We are going to preserve and, in fact, develop an industry of a kind which is very suitable to this country. It is an industry that was, at one period, fairly widely established; an industry that was associated with rural towns, and that requires a very high percentage of labour in relation to the value of the total output. Skilled labour is available. The skilled workers who were formerly engaged in the industry have been, for a number of years, unemployed in large numbers. For them the future looked hopeless, because they saw little prospect of being engaged at their own craft. That prospect is now bright. The imposition of this prohibitive duty gives them the prospect.
Under all the circumstances, it is a duty that should be maintained at the prohibitive rate which was originally imposed. There is no reason why we should permit the importation of any of these cars or carts. The farmer who might have had the temporary advantage of being able to buy a cheap second-hand cart will undoubtedly lose, but at the same time we are going to do a great deal of good for the country and in the long run the farmer will be no worse off. We are not increasing the cost of production. It may be that individual farmers may have to go to Mass in a cart instead of in a trap.
He will probably have to walk.
The cost of production will not be increased in any way. It may be that the farmers' position will, in fact, be improved. One of the ways in which we can improve the farmers' position is by giving employment to those people in the towns who, at the moment, are unemployed. The amount of employment which this industry can give is very substantial.
Did the Minister say that second-hand carts were imported? I never heard of any.
There are some second-hands carts imported and there is a fairly considerable importation of new carts.
I think the Minister forgot to mention that the decline in the coachbuilding industry was not caused by the competition of foreign vehicles, new or second-hand, but was largely due to the increase in motors and the lowering of the price of motors.
I do not accept that. Undoubtedly the advent of the motor car started a decline in the coachbuilding industry, but in this country, as things are at present and as they are likely to be for a long time, there will be a substantial market for horse-drawn vehicles of one kind or another, and we should reserve that for the home industry.
Has the Minister considered what effect this will have on the livery business?
The only people who might be affected are those to whom Deputy Cleary has referred. I do not anticipate any decline in the undertaking industry.
Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand"—agreed to.
Amendment 14 not moved.
I beg to move amendment 15:—
In page 11, Section 15, before sub-section (2) to insert a new sub-section as follows:—
(2) Farm carts imported by road from Northern Ireland shall not be liable to the duty imposed by the preceding sub-section.
When I first raised the point dealt with here the Minister said he would consider it. I do not know whether he is disposed to meet the point or not. As I pointed out, there are towns in the Free State—I mentioned one in particular, Clones—near the Border and other towns perhaps not quite as close to the Border and not quite as much affected, but they are still very seriously injured by this tariff. The point is that these towns are market towns for areas in Northern Ireland. The farmers have been accustomed to go in there with their produce and dispose of that produce and they buy considerable quantities of household necessities in the towns. The imposition of the tax on horse-drawn vehicles has meant that there are certain difficulties in the way. While the farmer living quite close to that town and some distance away from another town may overcome the difficulties and still have the Free State town as his market town, the man in whose case the difference between the Saorstát town and some possible Northern Ireland town is not so great will not attempt to overcome the difficulty and will not continue to go to the Saorstát town.
I suggest, in the first place, that the importation of farm carts is a small matter. I was not aware that there was any importation worth talking about. Whatever importation there is will be an importation by ship. No importation in the proper sense of the word, no additional importation, will occur if the Minister were to accept this amendment. All that will happen will be that the farmer accustomed to visit Saorstát towns for market purposes will be able to come in under the old conditions. There will be no formalities of any kind to comply with. He will drive his car up to the Border, will go across and will not be asked to have any document or to comply with any formalities. I think it is necessary, in order to prevent Saorstát towns suffering a loss of trade, to relieve farmers of the formality necessitated by this tariff.
I was told in the case of the town I have referred to that farmers accustomed to go there with pork had gone elsewhere rather than face compliance with any formalities there might be. The position has probably been very much eased as compared with the first few days of the tariff. I think complete relief is the only thing that will prevent a number of marginal farmers —the people who can, without terrible inconvenience, go to a Northern town —being driven northwards. I do not think any harm will be done by accepting the amendment. It may seem illogical that a cart imported one way would be subjected to tax while if imported in another way it would not be subjected to tax; but in practice you will not have carts shipped to a Northern Ireland port, fitted there for transport by road and then dispatched to some destination in the Saorstát. This amendment will only have the effect of relieving the farmers of the need for complying with any customs formality.
The object the Deputy has in mind is quite clear, but I doubt if any of the desired results would be achieved by adopting this method. It might mean, for example, that a cart imported by ship at Buncrana would be subject to duty, but a cart imported at Derry and wheeled over the Border would be exempt from duty. The difficulty the Deputy is trying to meet is one that I have discussed with the Revenue Commissioners. It seems that by far the most practical way of dealing with it is the way we are attempting, namely, by interpreting the existing exemptions in such a way as to overcome the great majority of the inconveniences and difficulties that resulted from the duty.
The Revenue Commissioners are prepared to administer the duty in such a way that a cart driven by a farmer or his servant to and fro across the Border would not be held liable to duty at any time, even a new cart if it be used for the farmer's purposes. The difficulties that exist at present in relation to the Border and in relation to the transportation of farmers' carts across the Border would not be removed even by the insertion of an amendment such as the Deputy suggests, because there are large classes of goods now subject to duty which were heretofore free. Numbers of these items are now subject to duty, such as poultry and meat, so that a certain amount of supervision would have to be exercised over the farmers' carts crossing the Border in the towns in the Border area. I am anxious to reduce to a minimum the inconvenience caused to the farmers, and I am satisfied that the easiest way in which to do that is by administrative action. That administrative action is being taken and the inconvenience and trouble caused by the duty in that area is being reduced to a minimum by the instructions issued by the Revenue Commissioners to their officials and by the permission given to the farmers to bring their carts across the Border to and fro.
I should like to know from the Minister what are the formalities that now exist? Is the farmer able to drive up to the Border; that is to say, can a man who has not been crossing for some time, on signing a simple form go right through, or has he to give prior notice of his intention of going across? How is the matter of admitting these carts arranged at the moment? Some particularly simple formality would not deter the farmer but if he had to do anything substantial such as is the case with the motor car owner it would be sufficient to prevent the farmer from going into a particular town. The people quite close to the Border would not be affected, but the people who have already the choice of another town in Northern Ireland would be affected.
I am afraid that I cannot give the Deputy an outline of the arrangements made by the Revenue Commissioners, but as I understand them the formalities are reduced to a minimum. Even in the case of new carts used by the farmers for their own purposes for visiting a market town, no prior notice is required. However I will make more definite inquiries.
I would suggest to the Minister that it would be possible to get a form of words that would carry out his intention. It seems to me that it would not be satisfactory that a Bill should leave this House in a particular form and that then the Revenue Commissioners would be instructed that they were not to carry out the Statute which the Oireachtas had enacted. That would be most unsatisfactory. I would ask the Minister whether he could not on the Report Stage devise some form of words giving effect to the intention now expressed in the House? For instance he might say "farm carts in actual use driven by the owner or his servant and imported not for the purpose of sale." Just some form of words like that. I am only giving a rough outline. If the Minister could put in words like that then the Bill would leave the House and become Statute Law expressing the full intentions of the House; that would be more satisfactory than that the Bill should leave the House in a particular form with an undertaking that it would not be administered in that form.
We do not propose to ask the Revenue Commissioners to exceed their powers under the Bill, but there are certain exemption provisions designed to deal with that situation already in the Bill and it was to this manner of the administration of these particular provisions that I was referring. The Revenue Commissioners can devise the method of administration which will reduce the inconvenience to a minimum. These provisions are contained in sub-sections (3) and (6) of the section. They exempt from duty an article imported previous to its exportation or an article that had been first imported prior to 6th May, 1932, or that the article had been imported on or after the 6th day of May, 1932, and the duty chargeable by virtue of the section had been duly paid thereon. A cart imported by a person making only a temporary stay would also be exempt, so that there is ample provision there to exempt from duty the particular carts referred to. The manner in which the Revenue Commissioners can ease the situation is by the administration of their powers under this sub-section.
Take the case of a motorist living near the Border and crossing several times a day. Could it not be easier to administer this Bill with regard to ordinary farm carts than in the case of motorists?
You are dealing with quite a different sort of man. I take it that we have the Minister's assurance that all complaints in this matter will be most sympathetically dealt with and that within the limits of the Bill the procedure will be simplified and formalities reduced. The Minister understands the difference it may mean to the farmer. The farmer is not the same as the motorist who is crossing frequently.
We are trying to get the simplest possible method of administration.
The Bill will be well received in the country.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment 16.
In page 12, First Schedule, paragraph (3) (d), line 44, to delete the word "five" and substitute the word "fifteen."—(Daniel McMenamin.)
In moving amendment 16, I want to say the object of the amendment is to increase the amount of the exemption here from 5/- to 15/-. The Minister originally brought in sub-section (d) to exempt articles which do not exceed 5/- in value, so as to allow the farmers to get the small parts for their agricultural implements and machinery. It was discovered in practice that 5/- is not a high enough figure and it is proposed to extend it to 15/- so that it would include parts in common use such as knives. The knives cost 10/-; a Pitman or connecting rod costs 11/6d. These are wholesale prices. These are parts of the machinery very often broken and they would cost between 11/- and 12/-; pinions cost 6/-; cranks 6/-. In the case of ploughs the mould board will cost 14/6d. and a head 14/6d; a coulter will cost 6/-. Now none of these will come within the limits of 5/-. If the Minister will accept this amendment it will give people who have to import these parts an opportunity of procuring the parts free of duty. I ask the Minister to accept the amendment.
This amendment is one which could not be accepted at all. It would mean, with the exemptions to which we have already agreed, that no duty would be payable. No duty is payable on 90 per cent. of the parts imported. Quite a number of these parts could in fact be made in the existing factories here. In regard to other parts they can be produced in the factories here. The result of the exemption would be to defeat very largely the tariffs altogether. I did not catch the names of all the parts which the Deputy mentioned. These knives are, I understand, made in sections. The sections can be imported duty free under the exemption. They cost about 1/- each. In any case, most of the parts to which he refers can be procured through the Irish factories, even parts for foreign machines, and that applies particularly to ploughs. There is no reason whatever why this exemption limit should be increased.
Amendment put and negatived.
I move amendment 17:
In page 13, Third Schedule, paragraph 1, line 27, to delete the word "Seventy-five" and substitute the word "fifty."
I have the same argument to apply in moving this amendment as in moving certain others of these amendments. It is with the object of asking the Government to consider again the imposition of a much more moderate tariff than they are at present inclined to impose. I do not know what the present position is in relation to the building of motor bodies. The Minister indicated when the matter was last before the Dáil that there were going to be great and immediate developments in this particular line. I do not know whether there have been any definite negotiations or any definite promise held out of development of this industry along these lines. Certainly there is no prospect I should say of employment to the extent that has been frequently indicated. If all the requirements of the country were to be made here, and if they were to be made by any sort of up-to-date and efficient process, the amount of employment that would be given would not be very considerable, taken on the whole, because the amount of machine work would be very great. If they are not to be made by an up-to-date process, there may be a much more considerable amount of employment, but the burden on the consuming public is going to be very high. I think in this respect the burdens are very much too great and that there ought to be a reconsideration of the proposal. The Dáil has already accepted the proposal for a tax and it ought to be graduated and something that is more reasonable, and displays more consideration for the consuming public, ought to be adopted.
I take it we will discuss all the remaining amendments together because they all relate to the same duty.
Except one.
The position is that we have to face up to the fact that unless a very substantial rate of duty were imposed we were not likely to get the minds of those engaged in the motor car industry to examine even the possibility of getting the bodies of these cars built here. It is undoubtedly, true that in relation to the passenger car, the pleasure car, there are very considerable difficulties. We realised, however, that these difficulties cannot be overcome, I mean that no serious attempt will be made to face up for the purpose of overcoming them, unless a situation were created that those who wanted to continue in this particular form of business were forced into the position that they had to deal with the concrete fact of a very substantial duty. As far as the goods-vehicle is concerned, the ordinary truck, or lorry, or motor of one kind or another, used for the conveyance of goods, the importation is stopped and the existing firms are at present engaged in the production of these things and doing it quite satisfactorily and successfully. We realised always, and realise still that the really difficult end of the business was in the passenger car, because certain companies that sell the bulk of the cars used here are now building an all-steel body. Formerly the bodies were coach-built, and so long as coach-built bodies were the vogue the difficulties I refer to did not exist. It was the invention, if I may say so, of the all-steel body that increased the difficulty of getting the building done here. We have had various discussions, and are still having various discussions, with those who are thinking of engaging in that business, with those who are engaged in it, and with representatives of firms that are considering engaging in the building of bodies here. Very substantial progress has been made. Occasionally new difficulties are brought to our notice and, as the Deputy is aware, we have slightly extended our powers under the Bill, in so far as an amendment of an earlier section gives power to the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to exempt from duty any part of a motor body which is not manufactured in Saorstát Eireann. That power was taken in order to deal with certain difficulties in respect of particular parts that emerged, but it is a power we do not intend to use except in very extreme circumstances; because, of course, as I said, we have found that we will not get people's minds concentrated on the solving of these difficulties unless they are convinced that there is no easy way out of it. While that attitude has been maintained we found that a genuine effort is being made to overcome these difficulties. Some firms have succeeded in doing so and, undoubtedly, we will have cars with bodies built in this country available here within the time limit we contemplate. Some firms now selling cars in this country may not rise to the difficulties. They have a somewhat small trade and they may prefer to lose that trade rather than to engage in the building here. I do not know that that is likely to happen, because any firms who have difficulties to contend with, that is, firms using all-steel bodies, have all got a substantial trade as well. It is only firms with a substantial trade that can afford to build here. The main firm which sends in cars here has definitely got to the point when it should fix the date of assembly, because it is at present engaged in the installation of the necessary machinery and equipment for the purpose. Discussions with the representatives of other firms are, in fact, going on at present. Despite the fact that there are, undoubtedly, difficulties, I am confident that we will be able to get round them and get this industry established here.
The amount of employment which will be given is hard to estimate. It has been said to be in or about five hundred persons. Five hundred persons, particularly 500 skilled workers, and fairly highly skilled, is an important consideration, and if the imposition of this duty, with the exemption in respect of parts, which we have imposed, does result in the employment of these persons and the revival of the industry, we expect that fairly substantial benefits will accrue, not merely direct benefits in the employment of these persons but also benefits to other subsidiary and ancillary industries.
Altogether the duty is one which certainly should have been imposed and one which if maintained, will produce much the greater part of the results which we anticipate. As far as the goods vehicle is concerned it is completely justified. I do not think that at any time there was any serious opposition to the imposition of the duty on the truck or the lorry. In fact the Society of Irish Motor Traders by resolution some years ago when the matter was coming to the Tariff Commission, agreed to support the application in respect of the goods vehicles. It is equally true in the case of omnibuses, there is no reason whatever for the importation of bodies. They can be built here and in fact have been built here as cheaply and as efficiently as the imported body can be obtained. In respect of the passenger vehicle and the difficulty which exists in connection with steel bodies, we are getting over these. Even if it were found—although I do not anticipate that this difficulty will arise—that we could not get the all-steel body assembled here, and that we had to be content with a coach built body, we should not at all be in an unsatisfactory position because these bodies I am informed are quite efficient and in every way as satisfactory as the all steel body.
Quite a number of people in the motor industry say that the all steel body is being pushed now because the firms engaged in the production of cars bought equipment in their first enthusiasm for the all steel body and, because it was extremely costly, they cannot afford to scrap it and get back into the fabric or coach built body. The general tendency in the opinion of a number of people interested in the industry, as conveyed to me, was that the all-steel body will disappear in time and the coach built body reappear. If that should happen the difficulties in this industry would be considerably less, but even if that should not happen we can still get industry here of assembling the stamped parts of these parts. Considerable progress in that direction is being made. There is still a month or six weeks before the exemption period expires. In that period we hope to get over any difficulties in the way.
Does the Minister not consider that the net result of this tariff will be, considering the motor trade as a whole, and the employment which is given in it, that there will be a decrease in employment?
I do not anticipate anything of the kind.
Motion put and agreed to.
Amendments 18, 19, 20 and 21 not moved.
Question—"That the Bill as amended be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Fifth Stage ordered for Thursday, 30th June.