When we were dealing with this on Friday I was speaking on amendment 46: "To delete sub-section (4)." I want to press for this amendment. There is an amendment down later which changes the form in which the sub-section stands, but only in small points—changes it by, in fact, befogging the issue to some extent, because it pretends to take the responsibility off the Minister, as it is mentioned here, and put it on the Commissioners, which, in fact, it does not do. The only argument in favour of this was that certain people were likely to come in and establish packing machinery and indulge in packing in the Free State in a variety of commodities. It is pointed out that that is only to take place whenever two Ministers are satisfied that a person bona fide intends to establish in Saorstát Eireann equipment and facilities for packing and that then a licence may be given. I have answered that first of all if people are going to come in to institute packing facilities, the sooner they come in the better, and it would put a little extra pressure on them to come in if we delete the clause. If we keep this clause as it stands we will not put pressure on them.
With regard to the subsidiary pleas advanced in connection either with the sub-section as it stands or the amendment that is later to be proposed—the points that certain people coming into the country might lose their market, that the people might get on to some other product or give up the use of their article altogether and take to some substitute, Deputy Blythe queried what were the substitutes. Were they Free State or were they from outside? Because clearly if they were Free State it would not be the same to give facilities for an article not produced here as for a Saorstát substitute easily available. The point subsidiary again to that was that if packing facilities were not granted and if there was no Saorstát substitute, people might abandon the hope of taking or using whatever the substance is and consequently there would be a loss of trade. The Minister for Finance in connection with this amendment did say—and in so saying countered some of the arguments he has been making in other sections—that it would be wrong to put on the consumer the extra cost which would have to be increased by reason of the package tax. That is rather contradictory and contrary to what has been hitherto said by both the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce—that British manufacturers are always willing to bear the cost, to meet any sort of tariff, particularly in a position to meet them where they are very small. Apparently the Minister falls back on this particular item—that if you do not allow for the giving of licences and if people show themselves ready to bring in machinery, and if the bringing in of that machinery is going to be delayed that in the meantime the consumer will have to pay the extra cost. Evidently, the consumer will have to bear the cost. He is going to pay it in particular where there is no home product in competition. He is going to pay it where the home product, if produced here at all, is only produced in such a small quantity or in such small numbers that there will be very little or practically no internal competition, and in particular the consumer will pay no matter what point home production has reached where for a fraction of a penny requirements which are the only check they have upon prices are removed, and the only check upon prices is the height of the tariff. The tariff is kept at a relatively low point. It always has to be kept at a relatively low point in consideration that the value of the article produced should not go beyond the limit which the tariff can give. If a tariff is very high the consumer is at the mercy of those bringing in the particular article. The tariff is merely an application from a manufacturer to be allowed to increase his price on the consumers. I have pointed out that the granting of a licence is for that purpose, and when a trade had no competition from outside or inside then your prices were going to soar to whatever height will be allowed by the height that the tariff amounts to. As it says here: "Twopence if the weight of the package does not exceed two pounds, and in any other case one penny on every pound or fraction of a pound of the weight of the package or, if the content of the package does not exceed two pints, twopence, and in any other case one penny on every pint or fraction of a pint of the contents of the package." If these things are taken in relation to a vast number of articles likely to fall for tax under them, the tariff is not small—it is extremely high. Consequently the other principle would come into practice— that is, that the prices will go to an extraordinary height. If people are going to come in here to manufacture, we should test out the bona fides of their statements that they are coming in here by saying to them to come in at once, and the best way to do that is to have no alleviation of the tax because through that you are going to get a definite agitation among the consumers of certain articles either that the tax will have to be modified or that the Minister will have to see that those who are coming in will come in and that they will come in without delay.
Fundamentally, I have an objection to the paragraph as it stands, and that is that it is allowing two Ministers jointly, on representations made to them that a person bona fide intends to establish equipment and facilities for packing, to grant licences. I think that that is a power that should not be given to any Minister—such discriminatory power between the Ministers. I suggest that the only safe line is that, if discrimination is to be accepted at all, it should be accepted in the simplest and easiest way, and that is by a tax. This, however, is a licensing system, and I have a fundamental objection to that licensing system, which is not removed by the amendment later to be moved. I do prefer to keep this, with its objectionable principle, rather than to have what is to come on afterwards. I do not like the principle, and hence I am pressing that the whole sub-section should disappear. If the sub-section disappears, it puts it beyond the discriminatory control or discriminating judgment of one or two Ministers to interfere in this matter. It is only a question thereafter of a situation being presented, the public mind having this agitation about them, and being agitated because prices have gone high, and being further agitated because they are told of the possibility of packing of a certain type being established here, in which all the pressure that then can come will come on the Minister not to exercise discrimination with regard to licences, but to say that, as soon as possible, certain people will be introduced into the State.
I cannot understand why there is a time limitation in the sub-section. The section, as it is at the moment, allows the Minister for Finance to authorise the Minister for Industry and Commerce to use his discretion as to the issue of a licence "to import at any time or times before such date (not being later than 12th day of November, 1932)." If there is any meaning in that, it means that the two Ministers are convinced that before 12th November this year any machinery or establishment of equipment and facilities for packing can be brought about. If that is so, I do not see any reason for giving this peculiarly vicious power of discrimination to any two Ministers for such a period, and I cannot think of it, in the circumstances that we find ourselves in at the moment, in which one of the Ministers mentioned is to depart from this country by the end of this week, and will not be here to exercise any sort of personal judgment on this matter for many weeks to come, unless my forebodings about the particular Conference he is going to attend happen to be correct, in which case he will come home earlier probably than he imagines himself, but the mere fact that the date is put in weakens entirely any argument that can be advanced for keeping the paragraph. I do not think that anybody, supposing that this year was the only time we were faced with what I call this vicious principle of discrimination —and we are faced with it simpliciter and only here in this country—would argue for it. It is such a bad thing, and the introduction of such a serious check on business ideas as they ordinarily prevail in a country that I do not think anybody could argue for a date limited by such an early point as 12th November. It has only been tolerated here at all, even with that date in it, because there are so many other vicious things which have been introduced in the course of this finance legislation and the accompanying legislation, and because this particular point of discrimination has been founded already, or has been limited, at any rate, by a point of time, with power to license being given to the discreation of a certain Minister within that period. I do not see any reason whatever in any of the arguments advanced for refusing to accept amendment 46 and have the entire section wiped out.
Notice taken that 20 Deputies were not present; House counted, and 20 Deputies being present—
[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]
