I just want to ask what is the net effect of this Resolution, particularly as far as (a) is concerned, because that is the important part of it. Does it mean an increase or a decrease?
Financial Resolutions. - Resolution No. 3.
Question proposed: That the Committee agree to Resolution No. 3.
[An Leas-Cheann Comhairle took the Chair.]
An increase of the duty from 15 per cent.
And what about (b) and (c)?
(B) is mainly designed to secure that embroidery work is done here. It is mainly desired to protect the hand-embroidery industry, which is affected by the exportation of linen, which is embroidered abroad and re-imported and sold here as hand-embroidered Irish linen. It is hoped to protect a very high-class type of trade which was done here to a very considerable extent, but which has recently been subject to competition of a dumping kind.
So far as I can see, the duty under (a) was 15 per cent. Now it is being trebled. Why is that being done?
The manufacturers made application for an increase of the duty on the ground that there was a small import trade carried on for other considerations than value—because of trading connections or reasons of that sort. Certain firms engaged in the distributive trade were also drawing supplies from parent houses outside the country. It was desired to stop that business and to secure that small amount of additional trade for the Irish factories. As the Deputy is aware, the Irish factories are supplying a very large percentage of our requirements, and have an export trade as well. They are capable of supplying all our requirements. But there is an import of certain highly-advertised brands of goods by firms which have association with firms in other countries.
So far as I know, the situation with regard to shirts and collars was—if we leave out certain special articles, of which the Faulat shirt and collar are the main ones— that we were, in fact, meeting the home demand so far as shirts and collars of the ordinary type were concerned. There might, of course, be special items which were not being met. I do not know whether or not the manufacture of dress shirts has got to the point where we could say that the home demand is being met from within the country. I do not know whether or not a difficulty which used to exist with regard to the finishing of some of these articles has been got over. The finishing of some of these goods for shop window-dressing purposes had to be done outside the country. These articles were manufactured here, exported for finishing purposes and re-imported. Are these articles now to be charged this extra duty on the value of the articles themselves, or only on the value of the addition to them by whatever process takes place outside? Take the question of laundering, so far as certain types of shirts are concerned. Some firms assert that they cannot get that done inside the country. The practice is to get it done outside the country. Is the 90 per cent. going to be applied to articles exported for a particular process and imported again?
It is only 45 per cent. in this case. That question has been under examination, and I think it is no longer the case that that particular process cannot be done here. That concession was given in the past because of certain difficulties, but I think those difficulties have ceased to operate. The question whether that concession can be continued is up for consideration, apart altogether from the amount of the duty in operation. If it were decided to continue the concession, then this new duty would operate upon the value added by the laundering process done outside the country.
It is going to be 45 per cent. instead of 15 per cent?
It is more likely that the concession will be withdrawn altogether.
Is the Minister clear as to what the component parts of shirts are?
Yes.
Are buttons component parts of shirts?
No. Collar bands are the main items concerned.
Is the Minister satisfied that buttons will not be held by the Revenue Commissioners to be component parts of shirts?
Quite satisfied.
They are just as much a component part as collar-bands.
The idea is to prevent cut parts being brought in to be sewn up here.
The Minister referred to one component part—the band. Certain manufacturers in Deputy Dillon's constituency felt that the cutting or shaping of the band, the trouble in sending it out to be laundered in a particular way and the sending of it back again caused so much trouble and expense that it was better for them to import the bands. A very successful industry was built up in Donegal in these circumstances. It is a pity to spoil the most successful, to my mind, of the tariffed industries by putting on a tax of 45 per cent. in relation to bands which, in certain localities, are better brought in. Compared with the trouble and expense, the number of people who will be put into employment will be quite negligible. As I consider this to be a successful industry, I should like to see it getting whatever slight remaining portion of the home market it has not got. Again, the 15th November is the fateful day for this industry, which has a good export trade. It is likely to lose that if the 10 per cent. duty goes on in Britain, and the signs are that the 10 per cent. duty will go on. If this duty is mainly directed against the Faulat shirt and collar it is very welcome.
They are actually being made here.
If it is intended to get them to manufacture fully and entirely here, it is a very welcome duty.
They are doing that.
Under (e) could the Minister tell us if there is any definition of embroidery? Would a hemstitched handkerchief be held to be embroidery?
No.
Is there any definition in the Revenue Commissioners' Department of embroidery as applied to handkerchiefs?
It would cover a design or inscription or a flower pattern on the handkerchief.
Does it mean work done subsequent to the manufacture of the handkerchief? Does it mean hand-work?
It may be either hand-work or machine work. Firms in the Saorstát have installed machines for doing embroidery in that way. One of the main difficulties is that Irish linen is sent to Madeira and China, embroidered there by very cheap labour and sent back and sold here as Irish linen, hand embroidered. That embroidery work was mainly done in Donegal in former times and the purpose of this duty is to secure that embroidery business for the hand-workers in Donegal. The firms engaged in machine embroidery are quite capable of protecting their own interests.
This is a tariff of which I entirely approve. I agree that it is high time that a tariff was put on, because the very thing the Minister described was happening. Embroiderers in Donegal and other parts of the country were being left without any work to do. But has he considered that tailors and makers up here are in the habit of putting in the collar of a coat an embroidered label made by people like Cash & Co.?
This only applies to handkerchiefs.
Then I cordially support it.
As to item C., this is an elevation of an old duty?
Yes. This new duty applies to underclothing made of silk which is usually sold at a very high price, and, in fact, upon articles of that kind the operation of the tariff was of little effect, because the difference in price which operated did not in fact influence the purchase of articles made here as against those imported. They were being imported by certain firms which engage in this very high-class trade, and the duty is being increased to secure that the work will be done here, where it can be done and done excellently, as several people who are competent to do so have certified. It is only by making the price of the imported article substantially higher than the price of the native article that the attention of the customer will be drawn to the fact that an advantage is to be secured by buying the native article. In view of the high price that rules for these things, the difference in price which has operated heretofore has not been sufficiently effective.
Why component parts and particularly accessories?
That is the same as the original duty.
What was the original duty?
Thirty-five per cent., which operates since the recent Act.
That is raised to 90 per cent.
On special articles of silk only.
On this range of things, including accessories of underclothing. The Minister should examine between this and a later stage how far the people who promised to engage in the manufacture of underclothing of this material can actually make the various accessories here. Shoulder straps are one thing. Then there are certain insertions and motifs, and I doubt very much if there is going to be any making of them.
The particular motifs which the Deputy has in mind we propose to exclude from duty by an amendment to the Finance Bill. I take it his point is that accessories may not be of silk, but of all types.
They are to be of silk alone?
And not to be accessories of other types?
I did not say so. There are certain things which are accessories which are caught under this and not likely to be made here.
I will look into the matter.
If there is to be an underclothing trade under this why spoil it by putting 90 per cent. on the small accessories, which will not be made here?
As far as they are accessories of silk I think the duty will apply.
Against accessories of silk?
That is quite clear from the wording.
If it means silk accessories that is a different thing. I do not think that is what is here.
I agree.
Question put and agreed to.