In Committee on Finance. - Financial Resolution No. 4—Customs.

I move:—

(1) That the several Acts mentioned in the second column of the Schedule to this Resolution shall be respectively amended or otherwise affected in the manner set out in the third column of the said Schedule opposite the mention of each such Act in the said second column and shall have effect as so amended or affected in respect of articles imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 30th day of September, 1933.

(2) It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution shall have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1927 (No. 7 of 1927).

SCHEDULE

Ref. No.

Act Affected

Nature of Amendment

1

Finance (Customs Duties) (No. 2) Act, 1932 (No. 11 of 1932).

The duty imposed by section 4 of this Act shall be charged, levied, and paid:—

(a) on boots chargeable with that duty and made wholly or mainly of rubber, rubber-proofed material, rubber-coated material, or any two or more of those materials at the following rates, in lieu of the rates mentioned in the Second Schedule to the said Act, that is to say—

(i) if the over-all length of the boot measured from heel to toe on the outside exceeds nine inches— at the rate of two shillings per boot, and

(ii) in all other cases—at the rate of ninepence per boot, and

(b) on articles mentioned in paragraph 3 of the Second Schedule to the said Act, and made wholly or mainly of leather and skin or either of them— at the rate of thirty per cent. of the value of the article in lieu of the rate mentioned in the said paragraph.

Sub-section (2) of the said section 4 shall not apply to the duty imposed by that section where that duty is chargeable at a rate fixed by either of the foregoing paragraphs.

2

Finance (Customs Duties) (No. 2) Act, 1932 (No.

The duty imposed by section 7 of this Act shall be charged, levied, and paid:—

11 of 1932).

(a) on proofed coats chargeable with the said duty under paragraph (a) of sub-section (1) of the said section 7—at whichever of the following rates produces in each particular case the greater amount of duty, that is to say, the rate of two shillings and sixpence per article or the rate mentioned in the said paragraph (a), and

(b) on overcoats and suits suitable for wear by men and chargeable with the said duty under the said paragraph (a)—at whichever of the following rates produces in each particular case the greater amount of duty, that is to say, the rate of ten shillings per overcoat or suit (as the case may be) or the rate mentioned in the said paragraph (a), and

(c) on coats, waistcoats, and trousers, suitable for wear by men and imported separately and chargeable with the said duty under the said paragraph (a)—at whichever of the following rates produces in each particular case the greater amount of duty, that is to say, the rate of four shillings per coat, two shillings per waistcoat, and four shillings per trousers or the rate mentioned in the said paragraph (a), and

(d) on overcoats and suits suitable for wear by boys and chargeable with the said duty under the said paragraph (a)—at whichever of the following rates produces in each particular case, the greater amount of duty, that is to say, the rate of five shillings per overcoat or suit (as the case may be) or the rate mentioned in the said paragraph (a), and

(e) on coats, waistcoats, and trousers suitable for wear by boys and imported separately and chargeable with the said duty under the said paragraph (a)—at whichever of the following rates produces in each particular case the greater amount of duty, that is to say, at the rate of two shillings per coat, one shilling per waistcoat, and two shillings per trousers or the rate mentioned in the said paragraph (a), and

(f) on bathing costumes at the rate of an amount equal to forty-five per cent. of the value of the article in lieu of the rate mentioned in paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of the said section 7, and

(g) on the following articles when chargeable with the said duty under paragraph (d) of sub-section (1) of the said section 7—at whichever of the following rates, produces in each particular case, the greater amount of duty, that is to say, the rate mentioned in the said paragraph (d) or the rate of:—

(i) on overcoats, five shillings per article;

(ii) on suits suitable for wear by men or by boys five shillings per suit;

(iii) on coats, waistcoats, and trousers, suitable for wear by men or by boys and imported separately, two shillings per coat, one shilling per waistcoat, and two shillings per trousers;

(iv) on suits and costumes suitable for wear by women or by girls, five shillings per suit or costume (as the case may be);

(v) on coats, skirts, and other parts of suits or costumes, suitable for wear by women or by girls and imported separately, two shillings and sixpence per article.;

(vi) on frocks and dresses, suitable for wear by women or by girls, two shillings and sixpence per frock or dress (as the case may be); and

(h) on overcoats and suits, suitable for wear by men or by boys and chargeable with the said duty under paragraph (e) of sub-section (i) of the said section 7—at whichever of the following rates produces in each particular case the greater amount of duty, that is to say, the rate of five shillings per overcoat or suit (as the case may be) or the rate mentioned in the said paragraph (e), and

(i) on coats, waistcoats, and trousers, suitable for wear by men or by boys and imported separately and chargeable with the said duty under the said paragraph (e)—at whichever of the following rates produces in each particular case the greater amount of duty, that is to say, the rate of two shillings per coat, one shilling per waistcoat, and one shilling per trousers or the rate mentioned in the said paragraph (e), and

(j) on hose and half-hose, on knitted underwear, and on knitted cardigans, pullovers, jerseys, waistcoats, and similar articles when chargeable with the said duty under paragraph (e) of sub-section (1) of the said section 7 or under paragraph (c) of subsection (I) of section 6 of the Finance (Customs Duties) (No. 4) Act, 1932 (No. 34 of 1932)—at whichever of the following rates produces in each particular case the greater amount of duty, that is to say, the rate mentioned in the said paragraph (e) or the said paragraph (c), whichever is applicable, or the rate of:—

(i) on hose and half-hose, six shillings per dozen pairs;

(ii) on knitted underwear, twelve shillings per dozen articles;

(iii) on knitted cardigans, pullovers, jerseys waistcoats, and similar articles, twenty shillings per dozen articles.

At this reference number the word “trousers” shall be construed as meaning a single article, whether described as “trousers” or as “a pair of trousers,” and shall also be construed as including long trousers, short trousers, breeches, knickerbockers and other similar articles.

3

Finance Act, 1932 (No. 20 of 1932).

Sub-section (7) of section 22 of this Act shall be amended as follows, that is to say:—

(a) by inserting in paragraph (e) the words “or bulbs” after the words “seeds,” and

(b) by adding at the end of the said sub-section the following word and paragraphs, that is to say:—“and

(f) bath salt cubes, and

(g) insecticides.”

4

Finance (Customs Duties) (No. 4) Act, 1932 (No. 34 of 1932).

This Act shall be amended as follows, that is to say— at reference number 12 in the First Schedule, by deleting the word “plates” where it occurs in the second column and substituting therefor the word “mountings.”

5

Finance Act, 1933 (No. 15 of 1923).

This Act shall be amended as follows, that is to say:—at reference number 3 in the Second Schedule—

(a) by deleting in the second column all words from the words “but excluding” to the word “springs,” and

(b) by inserting in the fifth column the following provision—“Whenever the Minister for Finance after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, so thinks proper, the Revenue Commissioners may by licence authorise any particular person, subject to compliance with such conditions as they may think fit to impose, to import without payment of the duty mentioned at this reference number any articles chargeable with such duty either, as the Revenue Commissioners shall think proper, without limit as to time or quantity or either of them or within a specified time or in a specified quantity.”

As Deputies have now got copies of the Resolutions and as the references in the Schedule refer to previous Acts, it is perhaps better that I should explain what the changes are instead of merely reading the Resolutions and Schedules. Reference No. 1 imposes the duty levied in Section 4 of the No. 2 Act of 1932 on rubber footwear made to cover the ankle at the rate of 2/- per boot where the outside measurement of the boot exceeds nine inches and in all other cases at 9d. per boot. Paragraph (b) of the same reference raises the duty on boys' and girls' boots and shoes to the level of the duty chargeable on adults' boots and shoes. Paragraph (a) of Reference No. 2 imposes a minimum duty on waterproof coats. Thead valorem duty remains as at present but where the ad valorem duty falls below 2/6 per garment, a rate of 2/6 per garment will be levied. Paragraph (b) imposes a minimum duty of 10/- per overcoat or suit on overcoats and suits. The ad valorem duty payable continues to be payable but where it falls below the minimum rate set out, the minimum rate will be chargeable. Paragraph (c) imposes the same duty but divides it up as between the different parts of the suit in case they are imported separately. Paragraph (d) imposes a minimum on boys' overcoats and suits of 5/- per overcoat or suit and paragraph (e) divides that duty up as between the different parts of the suit.

Does that apply to second-hand clothing?

That particular reference does not apply to second-hand clothing. Paragraph (f) increases the duty on bathing costumes from the present level of 15 per cent. to the rate of the general duty on wearing apparel, 45 per cent. Paragraph (g) imposes a minimum duty on second-hand clothing at the rate set out, 5/- per article on overcoats and 5/- per suit. Where the suits are divided up, the duty will be 2/- per coat, 1/- per waistcoat and 2/- per trousers. Suits and costumes for women will be chargeable at the rate of 5/- per suit or costume and coats, skirts and other parts of suits and costumes suitable for wear by women or by girls and imported separately, 2/6 per article, and on frocks and dresses suitable for wear by women or by girls, 2/6. Paragraph (h) imposes the same duty on second-hand overcoats and suits for wear by men or boys. Paragraph (i) divides up that duty. Paragraph (j) imposes a minimum duty on hosiery and half-hose at the rate of 6/- per dozen pairs; on knitted underwear, 12/- per dozen articles and on knitted cardigans, pullovers, jerseys, waistcoats, and similar articles, 20/- per dozen articles.

Reference No 3 imposes a package tax on bulbs, bath salt cubes and insecticides. Reference No. 4 extends the duty on coffin plates to cover coffin mountings. Reference No. 5 extends the duty on perambulators to cover parts thereof with a licence provision. At this stage, I presume, it is merely necessary to give a brief explanation of the circumstances which occasioned the imposition of these duties and, presumably, Deputies will require an opportunity of examining them before discussing them in detail, which opportunity will be afforded when the resolutions come forward on report. Reverting to resolution No. 3, reference No. 1, at the present time there is a duty on assembled bicycles with free admission of certain parts of the bicycles in order to ensure that the assembling of the bicycles will be done here. The duty is now being extended to cover bicycles hubs which are being assembled here. That is a minor change. Reference No. 2 imposes a duty on insoles for boots and shoes which are now being manufactured here. It is not of any major consequence.

Is that largely directed at manufacturers, or would they be ordinary insoles made to retail?

Insoles sold as insoles. Reference No. 3 imposes a minor duty on leather boot studs which are now being manufactured here. Reference No. 4 imposes a duty on machinery belts and belting. Duties were imposed on machinery belts and belting of all kinds, but under an open licence clause so that wherever a belt or belting of a certain kind is required free entry can be given. The only belting manufactured in the Saorstát is leather belting, and it would of course, have been impracticable to put a duty on leather belting and not on other forms of belting, ballata belting and the like, as the duty would merely mean a change-over on importation from one class to another. In the majority of cases, leather belting is quite suitable for this purpose, and the only doubt that has been raised has been in relation to creameries. In the case of creameries, the Department of Agriculture are arranging to have the use of leather belting experimented with. If, however, it is found unsuitable, as certain people say, a licence provision will be operated to allow ballata belting in. In the Finance Act of this year, a duty was imposed on advertising signs. The manufacture of Neon signs has now been undertaken here and the duty on signs has been extended to cover Neon signs.

What are Neon signs?

Signs illuminated by Neon tubes.

They are the things with the little round tubes?

In connection with liquid driers, the varnish duty was chargeable on terebene and similar driers until July of this year when following representations made by certain importers, the Revenue Commissioners decided that it was not properly chargeable in all cases. There are various grades and while certain quantities come within the varnish definition, other quantities, forming the bulk of the imports, are definitely not chargeable as terebene. Owing to the difficulties of administration which would arise if large consignments had to be examined at the time of importation, and submitted, if necessary, to the State chemist for analysis, it was decided to permit the importation of commodities free of duty in all cases until further consideration of the matter. However, the paint manufacturers of the Saorstát are now making these liquid driers in all the varieties and quantities required. Consequently the duty has been extended in a manner which will ensure that it will apply definitely to liquid driers of all kinds. Reference No. 7 is a minor duty on electric lamp shades, gas lamp shades and oil lamp shades which are substantially made of textile material or parchment.

Are these manufactured here?

They are being manufactured, and it is hoped to extend their manufacture to cottage industries in the Gaeltacht.

I take it that enamelled iron would not be affected.

No. At present there is a duty upon certain cement products, and when the Cement Act has been brought into operation, by order there will be prohibition of the importation of cement, except under licence. Neither that Act nor any existing Finance Act imposed a duty on cement blocks and slabs which are being imported in fairly considerable quantities, mainly in the Border counties.

Is the Minister now discussing Reference No. 8?

Yes. The intention is to restrict the importation of cement products. That is secured by imposing a duty of 50 per cent. on blocks and slabs.

Is there any danger that that may affect the continuance of housing work in the way of increased cost to public authorities for bathroom and lavatory fittings?

No. In the Finance Act of this year a duty was imposed on glazed articles manufactured from clay. There is a duty on glazed pottery except in the case of teapots. This duty only applies to concrete blocks and slabs. It does not affect Dublin or the South, where importation is not taking place. The only areas affected are Border counties where the importation of blocks and slabs from the Six Counties is occasionally undertaken. There is no difficulty whatever in manufacturing them here. They are being made in every county.

Toilet and bathroom fittings for housing schemes?

They are not dutiable under this proposal.

They will not be interfered with.

Will tiled surrounds come under this?

Anything subject to a process of glazing or polishing is not subject to this duty.

In the case of a tile, whether finished dull or glazed in the ordinary way, would there be a distinction?

If manufactured from concrete and if it has not been subjected to any process of glazing it is dutiable. If not manufactured from concrete it is not dutiable.

I do not want to press the Minister on technical points now. Will he look into it to see whether tile surrounds and curbs would be dutiable?

I take it that the Deputy is referring to clay tiles baked from clay.

The tiles are baked from clay but are assembled either with plaster or cement. Would they be dutiable? The framework is concrete or plaster.

I am not quite certain that they will not be deemed to be concrete slabs or blocks.

I would like if the Minister could say whether tiled curbs and tiled surrounds are dutiable or not.

Not under this reference.

What would the Minister say about a cement roofing tile.

That is dutiable already.

Will it come under the 50 per cent. duty?

It is dutiable already under the Finance Act of 1933.

What category is a cement tile with a glazed surface in?

The only thing I know is that it does not come under this category, if glazed or polished in any way.

When the Minister says that it is under another category like a slab made from Portland or other material would not that bring cement under this category? I am talking of a roofing tile which the Minister said is chargeable under another schedule and which is to be brought under this.

No, they are already dutiable under another duty, and would not be described as blocks or slabs.

I have a high opinion of the versatility of the Revenue Commissioners.

They have been given power to allocate the proper duty on any article. Reference No. 9 deals with artificial wreaths and crosses, the manufacture of which is about to be undertaken here. It is anticipated that substantial importations may take place in anticipation of the imposition of such a duty. It is proposed that the imposition of this duty should operate under a licence provision, to ensure the supply of a reasonable quantity of these goods until firms commence manufacturing here and are able to supply the requirements of the country.

Who is going to make the glass containers?

It will be necessary, probably, to licence certain parts such as glass containers until manufacture commences here, and also, perhaps, the artificial flowers until their manufacture is undertaken.

It is really assembly.

In some measure. Reference No. 10 increases the duty on letterpress printing from 10 per cent. to 50 per cent. It does not increase the duty on lithographic printing. The position has been that the duty which we imposed on all printed matter has had very beneficial results, and the lithographic printers are at present exceedingly busy, so busy that skilled workers have had to be brought in from abroad to enable orders to be completed. The duty had no effect, or very little effect, on the letterpress printing trade, the bulk of which is concerned with orders from business firms, financial institutions, insurance companies, and other firms which require documents of that kind. The reason why the duty had not that effect was that firms on the other side, who did the printing, could quote for repeat orders much lower than firms in the Saorstát could quote. Once the Saorstát firms got, a first order they could quote repeat orders as low as firms on the other side. The fact, however, is that it has been found impossible to effect the actual change-over, as the duty had little effect. It is hoped that by increasing the duty to 50 per cent. it will have that effect. If not, it may be necessary to go higher still.

When the effect has taken place, will the Minister reduce the duty to the original figure?

I am sure the Deputy agrees that there is no reason why letterpress printing should not be done here.

None whatever, but that is not a reason why they should be charged three prices.

In the other resolutions the effect in relation to the majority of them is to change the form of the duty. There has been a considerable importation, not merely to this country, but to Great Britain of very low priced goods from Japan and other countries. The influx of low priced goods has occasioned concern not merely to the Government of the Saorstát but to the Government of other European countries, and various measures to deal with that situation have been considered in the different capitals. The standard of living and the rates of wages and other things operating in Japan are so low as to permit of the production of various classes of goods, at prices at which firms who maintain any reasonable standard of wages at all could not compete.

It is impossible to check these imports by any system of ad valorem duty except the ad valorem duty was raised to extraordinarily high levels. It is not desired to do that, particularly when one considers that the ad valorem duty, thus raised, would have to apply not merely to the low-priced goods the import of which is to be checked but to all goods of the same description. Consequently, we are proceeding to deal with this particular problem by the imposition of a minimum duty. The first of these duties is on boots of rubber-proofed material made to cover the ankle. We are not increasing the duty upon the plimsoll canvas shoe with rubber sole. We are making the increase applicable only to boots made of rubber-proofed materials that cover the ankle. The position is that the British Government imposed a duty on these goods recently, with the result that there was, as is usually the case, a diversion to this market of a considerable quantity of goods prepared for the British market but excluded by their duty. If Deputies examine the trade returns for the first seven months of this year they will notice that there is a considerable increase in the imports here of boots and shoes of material other than leather. The manufacture of rubber boots has not yet been undertaken here but their sale in considerable quantity at low and even dumped prices, owing to the British duty, interferes considerably with the Saorstát leather boot industry. We are imposing upon these boots, when imported, the same duty that the British Government imposed upon them when imported into Great Britain.

Is the Minister aware that a large quantity of what country people call "low shoes" came into this country?

I am aware that a large quantity of shoes came in but it is not intended to put any check upon these shoes.

These are not plimsoll shoes.

I am aware of that. The second paragraph increases the rate of duty upon boys' and girls' shoes from size 1 from 20 per cent. to 30 per cent., which is the general rate on adult footwear. At the time when the duty on footwear was increased, development in the production of boys' and girls' shoes was not as extensive as in the case of adult shoes. Since then, the position has been rectified. Three or four manufacturers have considerably extended their plant for the manufacture of children's shoes and one new factory, confined to the production of children's shoes, has been started. There is no reason why the differentiation in duty should be maintained and an increase of duty is necessary in order to ensure complete development of the industry.

As regards paragraph (a), we are imposing a minimum duty upon waterproofs. Waterproofed goods have come in here at extraordinarily low figures. They have come, in the main, from Great Britain, due to the fact that, in some parts of Great Britain, the waterproof industry seems to have developed along the lines of a home industry. I will not call it a cottage industry but rather a tenement industry. Deputies will understand the necessity for this action when I point out that the standard rate of pay in this industry in the Saorstát is 1/1 per hour, while our information is that the standard rate in Manchester is 4d per hour. It would not be possible for manufacturers here to maintain themselves against competition coming from industries organised on that basis unless they were themselves prepared and able to bring down the rate of wages here, which I am sure nobody would consider desirable. The industry here is quite efficient and highly competitive. A number of firms are engaged in it and are in keen competition with one another. In certain lines, they are not unhopeful of developing an export trade in certain markets. The quality of their goods and the prices at which they are able to produce them have secured very favourable comment from people interested in this business. The only thing impeding their development has been these low priced articles——

Does the Minister state that the rate of wages paid here is 1/1 per hour?

To women workers?

On the basis of an 8-hour day, that would amount to from 50/- to £3 per week.

I cannot say what the hours of work are, but the standard rate of pay is 1/1 per hour. That was fixed recently by agreement between associations of employers and employees.

Is the Minister satisfied that that is really the case?

Is is an amazing rate, judging by the general rates obtaining in the clothes-making industry.

I know that they earn up to £4 per week.

The next item imposes a minimum duty on overcoats and suits for men and, following that, on overcoats and suits for boys. Deputies will have seen in the Press resolutions passed by interested bodies concerning Polish clothing which was coming in here. The actual quantity of Polish clothing imported up to the middle of the present month was not very considerable, but, during the past week or ten days, much larger quantities have come in. That clothing is of very low grade. It is manufactured from cloth which is entirely cotton and it is sold at very low prices. While it would be quite practicable for Saorstát firms to import cloth and produce clothing at the exceedingly low prices quoted, a number of them are not anxious to do so because the articles themselves are such very bad value for the money that their trade name would probably be damaged and customers would certainly be dissatisfied. The actual quantity of the clothing which has come in, up-to-date, has not of itself caused any serious damage. The damage has been caused by the anticipations of manufacturers that much larger quantities might come in, their fears in that regard causing certain developments which might have been proceeded with to be delayed. The imposition of this minimum duty will ensure that this clothing will not continue to be imported. It comes entirely from one district in Poland which specialises in the production of this low grade cotton clothing.

Because of the fact that we are imposing a minimum duty upon ready-made clothing, we have necessarily to impose a minimum duty on second-hand clothing to prevent evasion. Apart from that, the duty on second-hand clothing has proved almost impossible of administration because of its being on an ad valorem basis.

The methods of evasion adopted by importers have been so ingenious and numerous that it has been almost impossible for the Revenue Commissioners to keep up with them. The only effective way of securing that these methods will be defeated is by changing the ad valorem basis to a flat rate. In respect of the second-hand clothing which is of some value and which is imported by genuine firms, it is possible that the flat rate will not mean any increase of duty at all—that the ad valorem duty would be as great as, or even greater than, that amount. But most of the honest people engaged in that business have been already bankrupted by the tactics of their business rivals. It has come to our knowledge that when the duty on ready-made clothing was reduced some time ago, a meeting of the exporting firms in Great Britain was held at which certain people proposed that in future they would deal honestly and submit genuine invoices to the Revenue Commissioners here, but the proposal was rejected with ridicule.

Paragraph (j) imposes a minimum duty upon hose and half-hose, knitted underwear, and fancy knitted goods of various kinds. The importation of the cheap goods in relation to these products comes mainly from Japan and certain European countries. The industry here has developed fairly considerably and, recently, two or three of the larger hosiery manufacturers considerably extended their plant and installed machinery for the production of the cheaper grades of hose, half-hose, and knitted underwear, and the developments are still proceeding. We have had from these manufacturers an assurance that whatever extensions are necessary in order to supply all the requirements of these goods for the market here will be undertaken by them.

Does this apply to children's hose?

Are you charging 6/- per dozen pairs of children's cotton socks?

Only on imported children's cotton socks.

Children's cotton socks are not being produced in this country.

The duty levied here applies to the same goods as are covered by Section 6 of the Finance (Customs Duties) (No.4) Act, 1932.

What are they? Do they apply to the children's goods?

There are various changes in duty, and the Deputy, perhaps, will wait until he has an opportunity of relating this Resolution to the Act itself and he will know the various modifications of duty that apply.

Is it present to the Minister's mind whether the half-hose referred to includes children's?

They do.

Then it is his intention to impose a duty of 6/- per dozen pairs on imported children's cotton half-hose?

On imported hose only.

Does the Minister say that it is possible to get children's cotton socks manufactured in this country?

In quite a number of concerns.

I should like to know them.

Up to recently it is true that these hosiery goods were being manufactured in a number of places from imported fabric which was cut and designed here, but the machinery for the production of the fabric has been installed in a number of centres and the licences for its importation will be withdrawn at an early date.

I am in touch with every manufacturer we have in the hosiery trade in this country and I have yet to find one who will supply me with children's cotton socks. The Minister says that they are able to do it. If they are. I do not know why they do not tell me. They told me that they have not got them.

Will the Minister take steps to see that the manufacturers here will not avail of this duty to increase the prices to the purchasers? They may avail of the opportunity now when they find competition is crushed out to put up the price and thus make the poor who have to buy them poorer still.

The Deputy is incorrectly assuming that the imposition of the duty will stop competition. There are a large number of hosiery manufacturers in the country and all of them are extending considerably, so that one can anticipate plenty of competition.

It is possible that they might do it to the detriment of the poor.

If they do we have adequate powers to deal with them, but I do not think there is much danger of it.

If the Minister will assure the House that he will give them no opportunity to increase their prices or, if they do, that he will call them to account, we will be satisfied.

As to Reference No. 3, the package tax at present applies to flower and garden seeds and things of that kind, but it does not apply to bulbs. There is no reason why it should apply to seeds and not bulbs and it is being extended to cover bulbs. The same thing applies to bath salts cubes. In the case of insecticides, there is at present a duty on imported insecticides sold under a proprietary name or brand. The effect of this, however, is merely to ensure, in so far as they are imported at all, that they will be subject to the package tax and the operation of that tax will benefit those firms in this country who are engaged in the manufacture of insecticides. It will also have the effect of encouraging firms that want to continue to import these at least to pack them here.

As to Reference No. 4, at present there is a duty upon coffin plates but not upon coffin mountings. That has led to considerable administrative difficulty, and as the manufacture of mountings is being undertaken here, as well as of plates, there is no reason why the duty should not be extended to cover them.

As to Reference No. 5, in the case of perambulators the position has been that the duty has operated upon the assembled perambulator and upon certain parts, while other parts were exempted from duty. We have reason to believe, however, that evasion of the duty is taking place to the detriment of the manufacturers of perambulators, and for the benefit of those who are merely assemblers of perambulators. The evasion takes the form of an exaggeration of the price of the imported part that comes in free, and a reduction in the price of the imported part that comes in dutiable, so that only a small rate on the total article is, in fact, paid. In order to prevent that method of defeating the duty, we are proposing to cover all parts by the duty and to operate a licence provision, granting a licence to import parts only to those who are bona fide manufacturers. It is also hoped to get the parts manufactured here. In so far as axles are concerned, a start has been made, and by the operation of the licensing provision we hope to be able to encourage the production of all these parts within the country. These are the duties which it is proposed to impose and, if Deputies require information concerning any particular part of them when the matter comes up for discussion on the Report Stage, if they give me notification in advance of the matters they wish to deal with, I will try to give all possible information.

Will there be two later Stages in connection with these resolutions?

Yes. The discussion usually takes place on the Report Stage.

Then there will be an opportunity for a later discussion of any further matter that may stand over?

Yes, on the Finance Bill.

Resolutions put and agreed to.
Report Stage to be taken on Thursday, 5th October.