There was some discussion on this amendment the other day, and particularly arising out of that discussion the Minister had his notice drawn to the miserable wages paid in the Enniscorthy factory, in the first instance. The second point referred to before the House adjourned was that the conduct of the factory is on alien lines and quite alien to the whole local tradition in County Wexford in respect to the observance of Catholic holidays, which has been the custom in the County Wexford.
Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Orders) (No. 2) Bill, 1934—Committee.
Debate resumed on amendment No. 6.
To delete in page 2 the reference to "The Emergency Imposition of Duties (No. 38) Order, 1934."— (Risteárd Ua Maolchatha.)
I suggest that the management of a particular concern in respect to the matter mentioned by the Deputy should not be raised at this particular point. The point we are discussing is whether duties should be imposed on a certain article of manufacture.
This duty is being imposed for the purpose of preventing the import of razor blades in this country and the development of the manufacture of razor blades here. The Minister has taken all kinds of power to put conditions on all kinds of firms who engage in the manufacture of the articles covered by these duties. The Minister is developing in this country the razor blade industry. He has not given us any satisfactory particulars about the factory in Enniscorthy which is for the manufacture of cheaper razor blades. He suggests that there are to be 100 persons employed but he does not in any way make a case for that. In that particular factory objectionable conditions as regards wages and objectionable conditions as regards working are enforced by the management, who are breaking what is an established social custom and an established religious custom in that county. I think these are reasonable matters for discussion on this section.
The Deputy has put down an amendment to this section—to delete the Emergency Imposition of Duties (No. 38) Order. The Deputy is quite in order in giving reasons why that duty should not be confirmed. But I suggest that an ex parte statement in this House as to the conditions obtaining in a particular factory is not desirable and should not be given publicity here, possibly without proof. I make that suggestion to the Deputy—that the matter might be inquired into elsewhere.
Both of the statements to which I refer were made in this House on Wednesday's debate when we discussed this matter.
Without impugning or reflecting on the veracity of the Deputy in question that was also a one-sided presentation of the case. I suggest that it would be inadvisable to bring in particulars which might be investigated elsewhere. It is not desirable that a statement of that kind should be made and given publicity under privilege.
Very well, Sir. I will content myself by asking the Minister whether he can give some explanation and whether he can tell us if in granting facilities or giving a licence to establish a razor blade factory in Enniscorthy he has attached any conditions with regard to wages or any conditions with regard to facilities for attending Mass on Catholic holidays?
No licence was issued, to that factory.
Will the Minister say whether the factory is such that it did not require a licence under the Control of Manufactures Act?
Yes.
The factory is run by a Saorstát citizen?
It is run by a company.
Will the Minister consider making it a condition of the granting of a licence that none of these sharp razor blades will be given to the Blueshirts?
They are sharp enough already.
If Deputy Davin either here or in his fortnightly conversations with the Government would take an interest in the conditions under which persons are employed in the new industries or in any other aspect of the question, such as was suggested as a cause of complaint in the Wexford case, he would be much better employed than in making jokes.
In this particular case the Deputy and certain of his colleagues on the front bench might have more influence than anybody else.
Deputy Davin and his friends have influence, but they do not exercise it.
As regards the making of razor blades, these razor blades might, if the Minister is acquainted with the language I use, be all right for pointing scollops, but hardly for——
Did the Deputy try to use them?
He did.
He has not grown a beard.
It was a barber shaved me last time. Has the Minister seen a sample of the razor blade made here and sold at a popular price? Does he know what the quality of the article is? You can get the hoop of a barrel and say you will make a razor blade out of it. Then you can seek a tariff and dump them on the market, but the poor man cannot pay for that razor blade. I agree with the tariffs going on and with the making of the blades here, but we should see that the quality of the article we get approximates to the quality of the article which we have been accustomed to use. Did the Minister take any steps in that direction before he imposed this Order? He knows that I am not speaking against the Order or against his power to make the Order. Since I have come in here, I have felt that the imposition of tariffs by Order has become the rule rather than the exception. I should like to know what steps the Minister took to secure that a reasonably good razor blade would be made here at a reasonable price.
I am not responsible for running this industry or, generally speaking, any industry. If the opportunities are afforded, we expect private enterprise to avail of them. An opportunity is being afforded to people to engage in the manufacture of razor blades and, presumably, if one firm does not take full advantage of that opportunity and put on the market a commodity that will satisfy the public, another firm will. The only question which concerns the Dáil is whether we should impose a duty on razor blades in order to encourage their manufacture here. I am prepared to defend that, but I am not responsible for the manner in which any firm is managed or conducted.
I did not raise that question.
So far as I know, there is no ground for complaint with the product now on sale either in respect of the suitability of these products or their price. In any event, the duty imposed here, working out, as it does, at less than ½d. per blade, will not necessitate anybody growing a beard in order to avoid shaving.
Some of us grow moustaches, or try to do so. The Minister has not dealt with the point I raised. I agree that it is not the Minister's concern to inquire into the affairs of any individual firm unless that firm is in receipt of a trade loan or moneys from some Government Department. The private individual must be allowed to squander his money if he wants to do so, instead of using it for profitable purposes. However, it is not the individual we are concerned with now. A duty is being imposed upon an article which is made here, or about to be made here. In the case of an article which was not made here and on which a duty is to be imposed, I suggest that it would be only ordinary business procedure on the part of the Minister to satisfy himself that a case had been made for the imposition of the duty. In making that case, it should be demonstrated to the Minister that a reasonably good blade would be put on the market. The Minister argues that the duty means only ½d. per blade and that we will not go without a shave because we have to pay 2d. or 2½d. for a blade. I am sure that the Minister does not believe in that argument, that he has a different idea of his duty as a Minister. When he imposes a duty, he imposes it to help industry. If a reasonably good article is not put on the market, we shall have to pay an extra ½d., and this duty, instead of helping an Irish industry, will only provide the Minister for Finance with more revenue. Surely, that is not the object of protection, as conceived by the Government. If it is, I do not think it is a good one. Speaking commercially, I have been looking for good Irish blades, and I have not yet found them. I should like the Minister to give me privately the addresses of people who could provide these blades, because I could put a good deal of business in their way.
The only address I can give you is that of the only firm producing them at the moment.
They are very bad ones.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the Schedule."
The Dáil divided: Tá, 41; Níl, 21.
Tá.
- Aiken, Frank.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Davin, William.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Doherty, Joseph.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Victory, James.
Níl.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Brennan, Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Desmond, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Keating, John.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Reilly, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
I move amendment No. 7:—
To delete in page 2, the reference to "The Emergency Imposition of Duties (No. 39) Order, 1934."
This amendment refers to the imposition of duties in the Imposition of Duties Order, No. 39. The Order purports to impose a duty equal to 50 per cent. ad valorem up to the 30th June, 1934, on manufactured hay-forks, manure-forks, potato-forks, digging-forks, and, secondly, on component parts, whether completely or partially manufactured, of any of those types of forks. I asked the Minister, on the 5th December, to give us information as to the total value of the articles imported into the Saorstát in the twelve months ending 30th December, 1933, and in the six months ending June, 1934. The Minister gave no information in reply to that question. He gave no idea as to the extent of the market for these articles in this country. I asked him to say what the revenue anticipated would be as a result of this duty in the first twelve months following the dates on which protection came into operation. The Minister gave no information in regard to that. I asked him the total number of firms engaged in the production of these articles in the Saorstát, and the average number of persons employed. The only information he gave in reply to that was that the matter would be dealt with in the Bill. As to the production of agricultural forks and component parts, he said there is more than one firm established, but the principal one is located in Galway, and is in production. No information, however, as to the number of these factories or their location, or the extent of the employment they give, is given in any of them.
The Order gives power to the Minister to issue licences to persons for the import, without payment of duty, of these articles; and the Minister was asked, on 5th December, for information as to the extent to which licences were issued, and also as to the extent to which licences were refused. Again, the Minister gave no information with regard to that. Now, the imposition of a 50 per cent. duty on articles of this particular kind, used in agricultural work, may be important from the point of view of the process of these articles. We want to know from the Minister to what extent there is an increase in prices; to what extent the duty in that way is fully operative as far as a rise in prices is concerned. We ought to get from the Minister some information as to the extent of the market for these articles, the extent to which there is already an industry in the country; and, further, we ought to get information as to the development the Minister expects in that industry, both in the value of the additional output and of the additional employment that he anticipates will be given in that industry when the effect that he expects from this Order will have fully taken place; and, in the meantime, what is the effect of the Order at the present time.
It is, of course, entirely incorrect to say that I refused to give information concerning the previous imports of these goods or the extent of the market for them here. I told the Deputy what is the fact, that that information is not available. There is no means of ascertaining what the extent of the market is, or what the previous imports were, and full information on that point cannot be ascertained until the existing firms have been in operation for some time supplying the demand, whatever it is, and are able then to speak with authority upon the normal requirements of these goods. Until that has happened, however, there is no means of getting the information. It was not refused to the Deputy. He was told precisely what the position was. The manufacture of these goods has been undertaken in Galway. I have had no complaint whatever concerning either the price or the quality of the goods produced. The prices are competitive, and before the duty was imposed the Department of Agriculture was consulted on the matter, and expressed themselves quite satisfied that the duty should be imposed. I, personally, am quite satisfied that in this industry we have an industry of value, and one that should be fostered.
What does the Minister mean by saying that the prices are competitive?
I mean precisely what the words convey: that the prices are competitive with the prices of similar articles produced anywhere.
With 50 per cent. on?
50 per cent. on does not apply.
Will the Minister explain what he means when he asks us to pass an Order imposing a duty of 50 per cent. and then tells us that it does not apply?
These goods were being made by this concern before the duty was imposed.
What concern?
By the concern in Galway.
Why put on 50 per cent.?
In order to keep out the imported articles.
Why should it come in if the Galway article was competitive and better and cheaper? Is it not obvious that the Galway article was not cheaper than the foreign article? That seems to me to be manifest. The putting on of a tariff may be justified in certain circumstances, I admit, in order to protect a firm, say, in Galway, that was engaged in the manufacture of some agricultural process; but what is the object of a 50 per cent. tariff? Surely the object is to open the way for that company, or for any other company to extract the largest price that it can possibly get out of the agricultural community for these commodities. I should be glad if the Minister, when he is dealing with these duties, would tell us whether this Order applies to the factory that supplied him with fork or shovel handles, or whatever it was that we heard so much about in County Cavan recently; and if so, whether that factory has gone out of production as a result of this tariff or prior to the imposition of this tariff. I think that the House should be informed on these questions and, furthermore, I think that the House should be reluctant to consent to a 50 per cent. tariff on any commodity of daily use in this country unless they are satisfied that it is not going to be used for the purpose of profiteering and in order to pile up more expenses on the backs of the people.
Such a tariff is necessary in order to offset the prejudice against Irish industries which Deputies opposite are fostering in every speech that they make on the subject.
That kind of ramáish deceives nobody.
"Ramáish" again! It is raméis.
All that they say largely consists of rámaish. One expects it from them. I think, however, that the Minister ought to try to use commonsense and discharge his common duty to this House. His duty is to tell us why it is necessary to put a 50 per cent. tariff on an article produced in the country already, and whether its object is to give that company an opportunity of extracting approximately the entire amount of that tariff from the agricultural community. No doubt, the Minister will reply that he is doing it in order to secure that a profitable industry will be set up so as to secure a living wage for everybody engaged in it. But if it is going to provide a wage of £2 a week at the expense of the agricultural labourers, who, his colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, says ought to be able to get along on 6d. an hour, or 27s. a week, for a 54 hour week, it is time that Deputies there should realise that and should realise that while it may be desirable and necessary to put on tariffs in certain circumstances, it is neither necessary, desirable nor just to secure 40s. or 45s. a week for labourers in the City of Galway at the expense of labourers in rural areas, who, their agricultural spokesman, the Minister for Agriculture, says, ought to be able to get along well enough at 27s. a week for a 54 hour week. Let justice be done on both sides. It is a monstrous thing to be driving the agricultural community and the agricultural labourers in this country down into destitution, and at the same time to be piling up on their backs further expenses in order to provide fair rates of wages for the workers in the city.
Does not the Deputy think that there was an obligation on him to make some inquiry as to the real facts of the case before coming in here and making this charge against a private firm—that they were engaging in profiteering and exploiting the agricultural labourers? The Deputy should make some inquiries before making such a charge. I notice that the members of his Party have had the grace to stay out of the House while he is making these speeches. The Deputy, as usual, is completely wrong in what he says, and there is no foundation whatever for the speech he has delivered. I suggest that if he is a member of a responsible Party, he should do what commonsense and justice would dictate: get some information from some reliable source before making these charges. He did not attempt to do that. He never does. I am quite certain that he need not have put himself to any trouble to find out the facts, because any Galway member of his Party could have given him the necessary information to prevent him making a fool of himself.
We had better get this straight. The Minister, whenever he is driven into a corner, always tries to kick up a row. That is his great refuge. He prays that the public will forget the net point that he was called upon to answer, and that he is unable to answer. This is the procedure that is at present being followed: there is to be a scene in Dáil Eireann in which the Minister for Industry and Commerce attacks Mr. Dillon. "Truth in the News" is to come out in the morning with grand headlines and the essential point is to be forgotten. The essential point is this: the Minister is putting a tariff on to start an industry.
That is the first point on which the Deputy is wrong.
Then the Minister is putting on a tariff to preserve an industry. The Minister will not undertake to preserve the industry at the expense of the public unless he is satisfied that fair wages are being paid in that industry. The Minister will agree with that. The Minister will agree with me, too, that £2 a week is not, to say the least of it, an excessive wage for factory operatives working a full week.
Is that the Deputy's information that £2 a week is being paid?
I am not asking the Minister to assent or dissent from his proposal. What I am asking him to do is to assent or dissent from my proposal.
What has £2 a week got to do with this proposal?
Does the Minister consider that £2 a week is a fair wage for factory operatives in this country?
What has that got to do with it?
I take it that the Minister is protecting the industry on the condition that the industry pays fair wages. I notice that the Labour Benches are empty. They are conveniently withdrawn.
Your own were empty too. That one did not come off.
The Minister contends that a factory or an industry protected at his instance must pay fair wages. Will the Minister contend that £2 a week is an excessive wage?
What has that got to do with this?
Will the Minister contend——
Will the Deputy contend that the moon is blue?
The Minister does not negative the contention?
The Minister is not under cross-examination. Neither is the Deputy, and that fact should be realised.
The Minister, fortunately, is not under cross-examination. I hope to expose his latest attempt to draw a red herring across the floor of the House. The Minister holds himself out as an apostle of fair wages, and I fix a fair wage for factory operatives, working a full week, at not less than £2 a week. I do not know whether the Minister wants to have a lower rate of wages, but we shall assume that he assents to my proposal. I object to laying a burden on the backs of the agricultural community——
What burden?
——in order to secure those wages for the operatives in that factory, so long and only so long as the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Agriculture, says that for a similar 48-hour week the agricultural labourer, who is going to use the fork, is only entitled to 24/- a week. That seems to be a perfectly plain, simple case. When I make that case to the Minister he gets up and says that Deputy Dillon attacks an industrialist in Galway and charges him with being a profiteer. I might use a nasty word to describe that misrepresentation. All I will say is that the Minister is either so stupid or so deaf that he did not hear what I said. I made no reference at all to the profits of the enterprise in Galway. I made reference only to the fair wages condition which the Minister presumably exacted before he undertook to protect the industry. I repeat that it is not justice that fair wages of £2 a week should be exacted for the operatives of Galway from a community of people whom the Minister for Agriculture says are entitled to no more than 24/- a week for a working week of the same duration. Now that is a dilemma to which I invite the attention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and that is the question he has got to answer.
The Deputy has asked no question at all. He knows nothing whatever about the conditions prevailing in this industry in Galway. He does not know if there has been an increase in price and, I am sure, will be surprised to learn that there has been a decrease. The Deputy's method is to assume a number of facts, about which he knows nothing and which I may say are all incorrect, and then proceed to base an elaborate argument on that. That is typical of him. My advice to him again is that before committing himself to public utterances here on any question of public importance, he should try to find out something about it. There are other members of his Party who could have given him information on it. As I have said, if he had got the information he would have the wit, I think, to say nothing here this evening.
Is not the man paying fair wages?
Quite.
In regard to price. If this man is manufacturing at a price lower than that at which these things can be imported, what is the necessity of putting on a tariff of 50 per cent.?
I told the Deputy.
If the Minister desires to attempt to put it over on the House that he would be justified in putting on a tariff of 50 per cent. in order to off-set the prejudice against Irish industry in this country, he is simply fooling the House, and the House knows it. That is the kind of stuff that might be good enough for a secondary school debating society, but it ought not be good enough for the Minister for Industry and Commerce in Dáil Eireann, because it is manifestly untrue, to begin with.
That there is a prejudice against the products of Irish industry?
That the Minister has to pretend, in justification for putting on a tariff of 50 per cent., that it is to counter the prejudice that exists in this country against Irish manufacture. No such prejudice exists in any part of the country to my knowledge, and these are commodities, hay forks, etc., in which I have been trading for many years. Where supplies are available from Irish sources it is both more convenient and desirable from every point of view to get them here than to import them. In certain circumstances, as I have already said, it might be legitimate to put on a modest tariff in order to compete against American and British products, which are produced on mass production lines. The Minister has made no case at all for the imposition of this 50 per cent. tariff.
Then vote against it.
We are now at amendment No. 7, and I just want to draw the attention of the House to this, that there are 13 amendments on the Order Paper to this Bill. The first and, of course, the last, are in the name of Deputy Dillon, and the remaining 11 in the name of Deputy Mulcahy. I submit that there is not the slightest substance in any of them. They have been put down as sheer obstruction and nothing else.
The Deputies were entitled to table these amendments.
We have just had from the last speaker a sample of the Ministerial tactics in this matter. The Minister for Industry and Commerce puts on a tariff of 50 per cent. on a certain number of articles as set out in the Order, and then comes to the House and asks us to pass that duty.
Is not the Deputy in favour of protection?
We are in favour of Irish industrial development, but we submit that a sheaf of importation orders and of quota orders or stuff of that kind that will afterwards go into the wastepaper basket is no substitute for Irish industrial development.
Do you want the Minister to stop in his activities?
We want him to tell us what else there is in this question of Irish industry with regard to these forks other than that bit of paper that I hold in my hand.
My remark was intended to convey that that is your attitude to everything.
I would like the Deputy to assist us in finding out whether it is reasonable for the Minister to come before the House and say "Pass that Order." When he is asked what is the extent of the market for these things he says he does not know.
I think that is what he really ought to do.
Ought to do what?
Put them through or bludgeon them through.
This is Ministerial policy.
Minorities have no rights.
Deputy Donnelly says minorities have no rights.
We never had any, none whatever.
We have seen an instance to-day of majorities having no rights when they are told by their Front Benchers to shut up. We have also seen a kind of second line of the majority Party being told that they have no rights when they are made to shut up. We discussed the condition of the agricultural industry and the financial position of local bodies——
Not on this motion.
Not on this motion. But the Labour Party were then told to shut up. The Ministerial Benches were told to shut up.
There was a lot of good advice going round if you listened to it.
Now we have the Ministerial benches coming to the rescue of the Minister. They want to impose on the Opposition Party, whose help they say they want so very much, the same type of silence as is imposed on themselves. We here are interested in industrial development and we are questioning the Minister on these points. We know that the only decent industrial development that has taken place here since the new Government came into power has been on foundations solidly laid by the last Government. We think it unreasonable that the agricultural community should be asked to face this tariff of 50 per cent. without being told something about it. All we are told is that the Minister does not know the extent of the market here and that he does not know the extent to which forks of this kind came into the country in the past. He says that there are more firms than one in Ireland making forks, but would he tell us in what county they are? Would he tell us what employment is given in them and what is the total production? The Minister has apparently some information in regard to it. We should have as much information as the Minister can give us.
I have given it.
The Minister has mentioned Galway. He has put one spot on the map. Outside that we do not know how many firms are making these forks. We do not know what the production has been or what the number of employees is. The Minister has not given us the slightest suggestion as to what increased employment will be created. The Minister simply draws a veil over the whole question. He does not tell us whether the Order is operative at the present time. We infer that it is fully operative. We infer that no licences have been issued to import these articles without duty. We are left to infer all that, but when the Minister is asked specifically about it, he does not tell us. All we know now is that the duty is being imposed.
As I said before, the Deputy wants a prophet and not a Minister.
The Minister may be vacating the position of being a prophet. Like the Minister for Education he may be repudiating his former prophecies. It is not asking the Minister to act as a prophet when we ask that in introducing this Order, he should give us some general statement on the position, give us whatever facts he has and indicate that in some way he has examined the position. The Minister has said nothing that would indicate that he has examined the position. All that we are left to infer is that he is approached by a certain number of people who say: "We are running a particular line and we want a tariff on these goods" and the Minister says "Here is your tariff, I will cover up your tracks, I will give them no more information than I gave them in respect of other things."
What are the Deputy's reasons for not imposing the tariff?
My reason for opposing is that the Minister has clapped on the tariff and has given no information as to the present position, no evidence that he has examined the position at all or that this tariff is imposed as a result of his examination of it.
Might I suggest to the Deputy that his Government refrained from putting a tariff on these goods for ten years without examining the position?
The Minister takes up the attitude that people who oppose these things are opposed to Irish industrial development. I tell the Minister what he already knows, that any decent Irish development that has come about has been raised on foundations which were securely laid by us.
I want to ask the Minister this simple question and I want an answer to it. When this question of hay forks first engaged his attention and he first excogitated the question of whether he would impose a duty under an Emergency Imposition of Duties Order, somebody must have come to him and said "We can produce these hay forks at such a price. They cost so much to produce abroad." Somebody must have said to him "Hay forks cost so much to produce in Ireland and so much to produce abroad. To secure that Irish firms will get a monopoly of the market such and such a tariff is necessary." Can he give us, from that information, what approximately the cost of production of hay forks in Ireland is and what the cost of production was heretofore, free to quay, Galway or North Wall? Has the Minister got that information?
If the Minister has not got that information, or if he will not say whether he has or has not it, he could perhaps tell us in what other county besides Galway are these forks being manufactured. He has said there is more than one factory established but that the principal one is located in Galway.
I did not say that.
Column 599, Official Report of the 5th December, 1934:
"The factory for the production of razor blades was established in Enniscorthy and is at present in production. As to the production of agricultural forks and component parts, there is more than one factory established but the principal one is located in Galway and is in production."
It is only in Galway that complete manufacture has been undertaken up to the present.
That is not a correct statement then. Will the Minister say whether, in imposing this duty, he had in his mind other counties, not to be too specific, where he hoped or had reason to believe that the manufacture of these forks would be begun?
Again the Deputy is asking me to appear before him in the role of prophet. I am aware that other people are considering the manufacture of these goods and, in fact, a very large number of external firms have applied for licences to manufacture these goods, but the only firm that is in production for the complete manufacture of these articles is located in Galway.
Was there not another firm in Cavan?
The Deputy's information about that particular matter is as incorrect as his information about most other matters.
Was there ever such a firm in Cavan?
There was not.
For the manufacture of broom handles.
If the Deputy had studied the Encyclopaedia Britannica and other well-known sources of information he would have discovered that broom handles are not made in a fork factory.
We were told they were making fork handles.
The Minister is only prepared to refer to the Galway factory. The Galway factory has branched out into this particular line of industry because it was a factory that existed before for making other agricultural implements. In his survey of the position before he imposed the tariff did the Minister ascertain that there were in the country any other factories of the nature of the factory that was then in Galway? Will the Minister say, if he found factories of that particular kind, in what counties he found them?
Quite a number. There is the Galway foundry, and there are foundries in almost every county.
But the Minister is not in a position to say that he hopes for the development of the manufacture of these in any other county?
My hope is that all our requirements in forks and implements of this kind will be manufactured in Ireland efficiently and cheaply.
Perhaps the hope is as general as the Minister's remarks?
Perhaps already it has been realised.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted, stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 39; Níl, 22.
Tá.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Cleary, Micheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- O'Doherty, Joseph.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Victory, James.
Níl.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Desmond, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Keating, John.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Reilly, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
Tellers:—Ta: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
I move amendment No. 8:—
To delete in page 2, the reference to "The Emergency Imposition of Duties (No. 40) Order, 1934."
This is the Order which imposes a duty of 30 per cent. ad valorem on machines which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, are completely or substantially assembled and are designed, constructed and suitable for the automatic sale, by means of the operation of a mechanism set in motion by the insertion of a coin in the machine, of all or any of the following articles, whether exclusively or in addition to other articles, namely, tobacco in any form, matches, sweetmeats, including chocolates in any form, and articles which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, are substantial assemblies or parts of any such machines as described in the foregoing. In connection with this, too, the Minister was asked if, in regard to the imposition of this duty, he would tell us the value of these articles imported during the 12 months ended 31st December, 1933, and the six months ended 30th June, 1934, and the Minister gave no information. He gives no information as to the value of these articles that are taken annually into the country.
He was asked if he would state the total number of firms engaged in the manufacture of these articles; the employment they gave; and the extent to which licences had been issued for the purpose of admitting these articles free of the duty he imposed. Again, I ask the Minister if he considers it reasonable to impose a duty like this and to give no information, good, bad or indifferent, as to the circumstances existing in the country which induce him to impose this duty or the circumstances which he hopes to bring about in the country.
The duty in this case was imposed on general principles. A number of these automatic machines were coming in and it was felt that the firms concerned should be encouraged to do the assembling of them here. There is no information as to the value of the importation in previous years and nobody has yet started assembling.
So that the position at the present time is that the Minister imposes a revenue duty on these articles coming in here, but he does not see any prospect of the development of an industry here arising out of his action.
I have not said that. I said that nobody has yet started assembling these machines.
Was there any consultation with interested parties prior to the imposition of this duty by Order?
No. When I say no, I should like to qualify it by saying that interested parties, to wit, traders in various towns of the Saorstát, have for years been agitating for the prohibition of automatic machines altogether, but the Order made here would permit, of course, the utilisation of automatic machines, either machines imported subject to duty or machines assembled here on which no duty was paid.
Observe that it is very important to cross-examine the Minister on an Imposition of Duty Order, because we were told first that this Order was made in pursuance of general policy, to promote the manufacture or assembly of anything in this country that can be sold. We then pressed for further particulars, and we now discover that the purpose for which this Order was made was to prevent the use of automatic machines in rural towns.
I said nothing of the kind.
At least the Minister said this, that that weighed with him in making the Order.
I said nothing of the kind.
The Minister just mentioned that fact for the fun of mentioning it. It had no particular relevance at all to the Order in question.
I mentioned that fact in the vain hope of giving the Deputy some information, the value of which he would appreciate.
The fact is that the Minister made an entirely irrelevant observation. He might just as well have said that pigs have not wings——
A most intelligent remark. Now we are getting on—pigs definitely have not wings.
We have now subsided, I take it? The Minister might just as well have said that pigs have not wings as to inform us at this juncture that the rural shopkeeper wanted to exclude these automatic machines——
Does the Deputy remember the question he asked me?
——because he hurries on to observe that that factor did not weigh with him at all in imposing this duty. Of course, it is manifest that it did weigh with him when he imposed the duty, and it now transpires that the duty was imposed for a purpose entirely other than that which he first suggested to the House. I invite the Minister to make up his mind as to why he did impose it——
Just to give the Deputy an opportunity of making a speech.
——in order that we can make up our minds as to whether it ought to be confirmed or not.
Apparently, from what we have now ascertained from the Minister, the proposal in this Order is neither fish nor flesh, but just a good red herring. He is drawing a red herring across the track of his inability to make up his mind as to what he wants to do. This is supposed to be Irish industrial development and he does not know whether it is simply revenue he is making; whether he is putting a stop to the use of automatic machines; or whether he is developing an Irish manufacturing or assembling industry here. It is no wonder that when the subject of Irish industrial development is approached by the Minister in that nebulous state of mind, he is not able to come before the House and, with each Emergency Imposition of Duty Order, give us a clear statement of his intention or his hopes.
I just say that this is the type of thing we like to do, because it is something in respect of which we cannot lose. Either the machines will not be imported, which I think is all to the good; or we get revenue, which is equally good; or we get some employment in assembling them, which is also good.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 39; Níl, 23.
Tá.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Doherty, Joseph.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Victory, James.
Níl.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Desmond, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Keating, John.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Reilly, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
I move amendment No. 9:—
To delete, in page 2, "The Emergency Imposition of Duties (No. 44) Order, 1934."
In the first place, this Order imposes a duty on all tanks, cisterns, drums, barrels and kegs which are made wholly or mainly of iron or steel or a combination of iron and steel; are of a cylindrical or elliptical shape; have a capacity of not less than three gallons, nor more than 50 gallons, and are imported empty. The rate of duty is equal to 33? per cent. of the value of the article. Secondly, it imposes a duty on all other tanks, cisterns, drums, barrels and kegs made wholly or mainly of iron or steel, or a combination of iron and steel, and imported empty. The rate of duty here amounts to 15 per cent. of the value of the article. In the third place, it imposes a duty on component parts (made wholly or mainly of iron or steel, or a combination of iron and steel) of any such tanks, cisterns, drums, barrels or kegs as are mentioned in either of the foregoing paragraphs, at a rate equal to 15 per cent. of the value of the article.
We endeavoured to get from the Minister some information as to the market for these things, the extent to which they were imported during the last 1½ years, the extent to which they are being manufactured here, and what exactly is the licensing position. The Minister has given no information in reply to the questions asked him. I want to know what the purpose of the Order is.
The purpose of the Order is to increase the existing rate on cylindrical metal drums, the best known of which, I think, are the ordinary tar drums. The duty has been increased because the manufacture of these goods on a mass production scale has been undertaken in Dublin by a very well-known firm which is capable of supplying all the requirements of the country. There is no information as to previous importations of these goods because they were not listed separately in our import list. On that account it is not possible to state with accuracy what the market is. In any event the market varies considerably from year to year. The position is that a well-known factory is turning out these goods in whatever quantities they may be required, and considerable additional employment is given on that account. The purpose of the duty is to discourage the import of these things.
Can the Minister say how many persons are employed in the production of these goods at present? He says that the consumption varies considerably from year to year. Will he say what is likely to be the effect of that, or the employment that will be given here? What is the position with regard to the issuing of licences to import these goods at present without duty?
The Minister has mentioned that these drums are principally used for containing tar. I do not think there is any Customs duty on tar.
No.
Can the Minister say if there have been any imports of tar in the past, and if the increased price of containers would put tar produced in this country at a disadvantage as compared with tar from foreign sources, in cheaper containers?
I do not think there was any tar imported, worth talking of. Most of the tar is got at home, and is, as Deputies are aware, a by-product of gas works. We have certain production which is probably all that we require. It is not possible to state with any accuracy the number of people engaged in the concern manufacturing these drums, as they make a very large number of other goods. In case of fluctuation in demand that would not mean less employment for those in the concern, as individuals would be put from one process to another, as demand fluctuated. The equipment installed in the factory for the production of these goods is as up to date as that in any part of the world, and is on a mass production basis. I do not think it is correct to assume that there will be any higher cost of production here, other than the cost of raw materials which may be somewhat higher.
Will the Minister say how soon production will keep up to requirements?
I have no reason to believe that the firm concerned is not capable of meeting all requirements at present. Licences are not being issued under this Order, except occasionally for some odd article of special design, or intended for a special purpose, or of such a description that it could not be manufactured here.
In fact, the duty applies now as far as the ordinary type of cylinder is concerned, and yet the Minister is not in a position to tell us about the increased amount of employment that will be given, or that there is not a rise in prices, as a result of the imposition of the duty.
There has been a considerable increase of employment, but I could not say the exact number.
Has the manufacture of a 2-gallon cistern been attempted at all, so that it could be used instead of the 3-gallon cistern, which has always been used here?
In relation to the cistern the Deputy has referred to, the Order does not impose any increase of duty. Theoretically there is a decrease from 22½ per cent. to 15 per cent. The duty on these goods has been 22½ per cent., with a preferential rate of 15 per cent. In future there will be a flat rate of 15 per cent. on these articles. It has not been varied in the Order.
In view of a possible water shortage, would not the question of having a 2-gallon instead of a 3-gallon cistern be worth taking up and pushing on, as has been done extensively elsewhere?
Yes.
Do I understand that this Order covers cisterns used in connection with the water system attached to houses?
It does not increase the duty. It decreases it. There has been a duty of 22½ per cent., with a preferential rate of 15 per cent. on all cisterns. The duty is increased on cylindrical tanks and made a flat rate on all such containers.
That still leaves us with an important question unanswered —the amount of employment that will be given by the Order. The Minister says that a considerable amount will be given. What about the difference in price, brought about as a result of the imposition of the Order.
I do not anticipate that there will be any difference in price.
Apparently there is.
I say that subject to this qualification, which must always be made in relation to industries of this kind, where imported raw materials must be used, that there may be higher raw material costs for concerns here than for concerns abroad. But the process of manufacture need not be any higher. in fact, it is possible that the cost of production here is somewhat lower than in other concerns. The most up-to-date method of production has been installed.
Nevertheless, the position is that, together with the inquiries made by the Minister, he had three months' operation of the Order before carrying on discussions with the people manufacturing these goods. Yet he cannot give the information asked for.
I have given the Deputy a large amount.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 38; Níl, 22.
Tá.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Doherty, Joseph.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Victory, James.
Níl.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Keating, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Reilly, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
I move amendment No. 10:—
To delete in page 2, the reference to "The Emergency Imposition of Duties (No. 45) Order, 1934."
This Order imposes a Customs duty at the rate of 75 per cent. ad valorem on all electric filament lamps consuming not more than 500 watts, but excluding electric filament lamps which are, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, designed, constructed, and intended for use in hand lamps energised from a dry battery, or for use exclusively for scientific or for medical or surgical purposes. The Minister was asked to state in this case the value of the electric lamps imported into the country during the 12 months ending December 31st, 1933, and for the six months ending 30th June, 1934. He said he cannot give the House this information. He cannot tell the country from which these lamps were imported. We are told the Order is a completely new Order. The Minister was asked if he would state the total number of firms engaged in the manufacture of these articles, the average number of persons employed, and he has not given us the information under this head either. The Minister has been asked what is the position with regard to the licensing arrangement. He was asked if there is a free importation of electric lamps at the present time, and whether there is anything in his Order which would warrant the rise in the price of electric lamps. The duty is a very considerable duty. The suggestion is that it is a prohibitive duty in order to allow of the development of the manufacture of electric lamps here for the fuller requirements of the country. We have not been told anything about that either. Again, I say it is absurd to put a proposal before the House without such information. We expect some facts from the Minister as to what the actual situation is and what he expects will be the result of it.
It is not possible to state precisely what were the imports in previous years in the matter of electric films and electric lamps which are made subject to this duty. Nor is it possible to state precisely what the annual requirement in lamps is to be. Nobody has as yet manufactured these lamps. At present the normal requirements are imported free of duty, under licence. There is consequently no occasion for a rise in the price nor will there be after the duty has become operative. The concern which is erecting the factory for their production has agreed that their products will be sold at the standard price now prevailing. It is anticipated that the firm will come into production early in the New Year and the duties will become operative simultaneously. It is not possible to say exactly the number of persons who will be employed, but the number will not be inconsiderable and may possibly increase as the manufacture is extended to other classes of lamps than those which are now being made the subject of duty.
I should like to get some information from the Minister on this matter. I do not know if he has already issued licences. Perhaps he may tell me if he has issued licences or given a right to any firm to manufacture these lamps? Perhaps he would also tell us if a loan has been granted to the firm which proposes to make these lamps?
No licence to manufacture these lamps is required by a Saorstát company. The company which is now about to manufacture is entitled to manufacture without a licence. No licence has been issued to anybody to manufacture these lamps, nor, so far as I am aware, has any financial assistance been given.
Does the Minister tell us that a tax of 75 per cent. will not make lamps, bulbs, etc., dearer?
What I said was that the company had given an undertaking in respect to the sale of lamps. If that undertaking were departed from I think the Government would have to consider removing the duty or they would take some other method of dealing with the question.
Does the Minister suggest that a tax of 75 per cent., which is a prohibitive duty, as he already said himself, is to be put on the taxpayers of Ireland and that nothing but the word of the firm is to be given to the people of Ireland that the price will not be increased.
I think it is quite good enough.
What assurance will the people of Dublin and the people of Ireland have? We are talking about a brighter Dublin and a brighter Ireland. What assurance have we that a brighter Dublin and a brighter Ireland will not cost us more?
I have told the Deputy, on the one hand, that there is an undertaking given by the manufacturers and, on the other hand, the control is in our own hands and not in theirs. If that undertaking given by the firm is departed from to the prejudice of the public interest measures can be taken to remedy the situation.
Who decides on the methods to be adopted or the procedure to be taken?
The Government in office from time to time.
On what grounds?
On the grounds of commonsense.
Commonsense there means that the people of Dublin and Ireland will have to pay the 75 per cent. tariff.
No.
Is it not 75 per cent.?
Yes.
There is this tariff of 75 per cent. on electric bulbs simply because the Government in control at the time think they should do it. There is no explanation from the Front Bench as to why or how or when——
Or where.
——this can be controlled?
There will be no increase in prices.
Surely the Minister is trifling with the House. The establishment of an electric lamp industry is important for this country. But does the Minister ask anyone who was ever inside an electric lamp factory to accept his assurances here that a number of Irishmen are to set up an electric lamp factory here and that they are not going to raise the prices? The Minister tells us that there is going to be considerable employment here and that that is why he is clapping on the 75 per cent. Surely the Minister is trifling with this House and trifling with the people of the country who require the lamps. He is also trifling with the men who are putting Irish capital into an industry who, if I understand the Minister properly, are putting Irish capital alone into this industry. I expect to hear from the Minister something as to the technical tradition of the people who are going to establish and develop this industry here.
They are the bright lights of industry.
In Bray!
Can the Minister tell us anything more? He tells us now that they are the "bright lights" of industry. Can the Minister tell us what foreign firm is assisting in the matter and what experience or guidance gained in other countries is going to be at the disposal of the people who are putting Irish capital into this factory and which is going to be at the disposal of the people who are to pay for the products of this company?
These are not matters for the Dáil. If I were to give the Dáil information on a matter of that kind I would be abusing my position. It is open to anybody to manufacture lamps in this country at the moment provided they are qualified and provided they put up the money for the purpose themselves. If a particular concern proceeds to do it, it is a matter for themselves what arrangements they make to get the technical assistance or to get into communication with firms engaged in this industry. The one point on which we have to be satisfied is that they will supply us, in accordance with their undertakings, with lamps as good as we are getting at present and at no higher price. Let me say—this is a matter the Deputy might consider— that I had considerable questioning in my mind before I was satisfied with a mere undertaking not to increase the prices because, in the circumstances of this industry one might have expected a decrease in price when the manufacture was undertaken here. The Deputy, apparently, had no objection over a number of years to paying whatever price was charged for these lamps without any inquiry as to whether that price was justified or not.
Dealing with such an ignorant class of people as the Minister is dealing with when dealing with us, will he help us to understand what is being done by giving us some of the reasons which he considers should bring about a decrease in the cost of lamps before he asks us, as he is apparently asking in this Order, to increase the price of lamps by 75 per cent.?
I am not asking anybody to increase the price of lamps. I am telling the Deputy that this duty is imposed and will be maintained so long as the price of lamps is not increased.
Are these lamps being manufactured here at present?
No. The factory is being constructed.
When does the Minister expect these lamps to be manufactured here?
Early in January.
This duty has been in force for some time. Surely the House is entitled to consider whether, during that period, the Government is entitled to tax the people to that extent.
There has been no tax.
Or holding up of supplies?
No.
Great Scot!
I have had no complaint or allegation from any source that anyone requiring electric lamps has had any difficulty in getting them in free of duty.
No importer of electric lamps has had any difficulty in getting them?
No.
And there has been no complaint?
No.
How does the Minister propose to satisfy himself as to quality? I observe that the Minister, on the first occasion on which he spoke on this amendment, said there would be no increase in price. At a later stage, he said there would be no increase in price and no decrease in quality. That is a very important consideration, because, in a commodity like an electric lamp, the price consists of two elements—one, the quality, and the other the money asked for the lamp. It is quite easy for anybody to set up in this country and manufacture lamps of a kind at a reasonable price and then manufacture other lamps at a much higher price, these latter being efficient lamps. I should like the Minister to make quite clear that the object he has in view in granting this tariff is to secure that lamps of an efficiency equal to those at present imported will be manufactured here at a price reasonably near that at which we are importing at the present time. If the Minister is prepared to give us that guarantee, I do not see what justification he has for imposing a tariff of 75 per cent. Let us assume that, owing to the special circumstances obtaining in the Free State, it would be impossible to manufacture efficient electric lamps as cheaply as they are manufactured in Great Britain or the U.S.A. or Holland. Let us assume that it would cost 15 per cent. more to manufacture these lamps in Saorstát Eireann than it would to manufacture them abroad, and that we want to give the home manufacturer an ample margin in order to reassure him and induce him to invest the requisite capital in the factory and machinery. Let us add, therefore, to that 15 per cent., actual difference in cost, 10 per cent. in order to give him a wide margin of security. If that course be pursued, there is comparatively little danger of the price rising unduly, because, if an attempt were made by an Irish manufacturer to exploit the home market, the corrective tendency of the duty-paid imports would manifest itself immediately. Under this system, we are creating a system whereby the manufacturer in years to come may push the price up or leave the price stationary long after he ought to have reduced it. The 75 per cent. tariff will continue to protect him to an extent far in excess of what the Minister for Industry and Commerce hoped for from the very beginning. To that objection, the Minister for Industry and Commerce will reply: "You can go to the Prices Commission." I think that the Minister for Industry and Commerce is beginning to realise now that reference to the Prices Commission is a very unsatisfactory procedure and that the consumer very rarely gets satisfaction from it. More and more, as time goes on, that will prove to be the case. More and more, as time goes on, this tariff will be made the excuse for a variety of interests in the trade to exploit the consumer in the country.
I put it to the Minister that the imposition of tariffs of these dimensions, far from serving the best interests of Irish industry, are doing it a serious injury for two reasons. One reason is that it sets a premium on incompetence. There is no urge on the man operating behind a 75 per cent. tariff to make himself as efficient as possible, because there is no threat of competition, proximate or remote. The second reason is that the public mind of this country, when the first fervour of economic nationalism has passed away, will begin to ask itself why Irish manufacturers want to operate behind a 75 per cent. tariff. The man in the street will answer that question to his own satisfaction by saying that either the Irish manufacturers are incompetent or they want to exploit the consumer. The men with whom I am acquainted in Irish industry desire to do neither the one thing nor the other. They want to compete freely against the mass production methods of Japan, Czecho-Slovakia and countries of that kind, and to sell their commodities in competition with commodities manufactured under similar conditions elsewhere. If the conditions are different, we should correct that difference by a modest tariff, and the Irish manufacturer and the foreign manufacturer should have an even start. In every case where that policy has been pursued in the industrial development of this country, the Irish manufacturer has more than held his own. When the boot industry was first protected here, the tariff was, I think, 15 per cent. Under that tariff, there grew up a prosperous, thriving, solidly-founded boot industry.
Capable of supplying 10 per cent. of our requirements.
It developed over a period of years and produced an article that compared with anything that could be imported from anywhere else in the world. They were pushed to that measure of efficiency and success by the constant threat of competition. On that foundation, the Minister, by increasing tariffs, has sought to create a larger development. I seriously apprehend that, far from serving the boot industry, the extravagant system of tariffs at present in operation in that industry will do it an injury in the long run. I admit freely that, at the moment, these mushroom industries are making money, but, in the long run, I believe this system will react against the efficiency of the industries and the excellence of their products, because they will be virtually delivered from competition of any kind. That is a bad system. Every one of the industries that grew up in this country under a low tariff system, only sufficient to protect them from unfair competition, was solidly founded and secured. It is upon these foundations that the present Minister for Industry and Commerce is at present endeavouring to build. If Deputies will consider the matter they will find that in every industry where there is a genuine increase in employment—and they are comparatively few—since the present Minister took charge, it is in those which were founded on a modest tariff basis, and if these industries are now reacting to the tariffs it is due to the manner in which their foundations were laid. If that policy of building only when solid foundations were laid, had been continued, there would be every hope for raising solid structures on such foundations. 75 per cent. of an impost on lamps the Minister can justify, if, as he says, there is no increase in price of the article produced. I think it would be better to have a modest impost on lamp filaments which would give competent Irish manufacturers ample security to compete with foreigners, and not build, from the economic point of view, an inefficient industry which would be no credit either to the occupists or the capitalists.
I wonder if Deputy Dillon has considered every factor in making a case for what he called modest tariffs. I wonder how many people would be induced to embark on the manufacture of filament lamps if they were simply offered a modest tariff. Has the Deputy taken into account that there are combines and rings in connection with the manufacture of filament lamps, and that any of those rings need only order a small reduction in price to wipe out the modest tariff awarded to such a new industry? When Deputy Dillon made that general statement with regard to the establishing of industries in this State, did he realise that there is no such thing as reasonable competition in lamp filament matters? The Deputy mentioned Japan. Can the Deputy say whether Japan is prepared to compete on these modest terms? Can he say if Japan is satisfied to maintain a reasonable price and has no desire to wipe out competing industry in other countries by lower prices? Further, when he speaks of maintaining the quality of the lamps with those imported, what quality had he in mind? I do not know if there is such a thing as standard quality for filament lamps. There is scarcely a householder in the country who has not used dud film lamps, not merely once, but many times.
I want to ensure that they will not get any more.
It has not shaken them up to the present and it has not given them many grey hairs. I do not see why the Deputy should be so worried now that Irish manufacturers are going to turn out these lamps. I think this proposal is particularly welcome. I know one town where there is a great welcome for it. The people of Bray would have very little patience with the Opposition in this present instance. If you take a town like Bray, with no industry and a population of some 12,000 people, you will find they are very glad to see the Government making this effort to give their idle men employment.
Of course they would.
General Mulcahy also should be glad to see these people getting a chance of some work rather than have the problem that was there in his time, at least as much as in the present time, continuing without any effort being made to cope with it. Deputies opposite talk a lot about people profiteering and about the extortion that may be practised by Irish manufacturers. Surely Deputy Dillon does not forget the other phase. If there was anything like free competition at the present time the bulk of the people of this country would be producing butter at 65/- per cwt. to sell wholesale in England. That is Deputy Dillon's idea——
Are they not selling it at 65/- per cwt. in Great Britain now?
No, they are not.
What are they getting for it?
The producers are getting considerably more.
I ask are they not selling butter at 65/- per cwt. in Great Britain?
How does this come in on film lamps? I do not see that it has anything to do with it.
It has a lot to do with lamps if Deputy Dillon's theories are to be acted upon. British imports have to be considered as well as exports.
This is not a discussion on subsidies.
Very well. I welcome this proposal, and I hope the industry will be a success. There is one further remark I would like to make. It is stated the bulk of the labour to be employed will be female labour. I would like if the Minister could make representation to the proprietors that as far as possible they should employ male labour. It is of course very good that even female labour should be employed, but it would be wonderfully good if male labour could be employed. There is a big surplus of unemployed men in the neighbourhood, and it would be a very much more important matter to ensure that this work was done mainly by male labour.
Deputy Moore seemed to be in a state of confusion. He talked of dud lamps. Of course we all know there are dud lamps. I have used several kinds of lamps, and when not satisfied with one make, I go on to another. I have used Phillips, Osram, Mazda, and so on. If I buy Mazda and get a couple of duds, I may still buy Mazda, but I will get a few Osrams as well. If Osram fail me I will get Phillips.
What is the difference?
The fact is that these various types of lamps vie with one another, with a view to producing one of such excellence that there will be a demand for that in preference to some other type. The Minister says that these are all covered in a ring, and that they are the one manufacture. If that is so, it is a great evil. But that is the very thing the Minister is going to do here in the Saorstát; he is going to create a virtual monopoly in Bray. I do not want the Minister to hesitate about setting up a factory in Bray, and making it possible for that factory to pay a fair rate of wages, and to make a fair profit. But having provided for that, I warn him to provide a margin against inefficiency; I want him to provide a fair market to pay a fair wage; and, these being secured, I want him to leave in the offering the threat of competition, if the quality of the commodity falls below the standard, or if the price tends to rise too high.
The Deputy is not opposed to having this industry established, but he is going to vote against the imposition of the duty.
I am going to vote against an imposition of 75 per cent., because the Minister has made no case to this House for it.
In other words, the Deputy would sooner be supplied with lamps by a foreign combine than by an Irish firm.
That is another of the unsavoury and odoriferous red herrings produced from the Minister's bosom, but I am not going to be drawn away by it. As I was saying, I am going to vote against this imposition because the Minister has made no case to this House that a 75 per cent. tariff is necessary——
I am not satisfied that it is enough.
——in order to give adequate protection to the firm which it is proposed to set up in Bray for the manufacture of this commodity. By all means, manufacture something which would be of advantage to the community. But when you are going to do it, in your anxiety to wield the tariff sword do not wield it to such effect that you cut the legs off all the industrialists in the country for the purpose of setting up one individual in Bray; because if you do that for one individual in Bray, to-morrow, when you start wielding the sword over a gentleman in Arklow, you will cut the legs off the gentleman in Bray. All that I want the Minister to do is to use commonsense.
If I undertake to do that, will the Deputy take a vow of silence for half an hour?
I do not wish to be unkind, but my experience of the Minister's undertaking is of such a character that I would be reluctant to reciprocate. Perhaps, however, Deputy Moore sees what I am getting at now. By all means, as I say, set up an industry and impose a tariff that will be adequate for its protection; but when setting it up and fixing a tariff, do not leave a wide margin, beyond what protection is necessary, wherein to promote either incompetence or profiteering.
I should like to ask the Deputy how he would propose to deal with the question of a ring or a combine that was prepared to operate and make a sacrifice for a time in order to wipe out a little industry such as that in Bray.
I am quite prepared to explain that to the Deputy. It is possible that the Deputy may not have sufficient experience in business to realise that it is undesirable and imprudent to bid the devil good morning until you meet him. It is quite competent for the Minister to come into the House and even to demand the sympathy of the House by saying: "We have determined to set up a factory for the manufacture of these lamps. We consider that under the existing circumstances 75 per cent. is a fair amount of protection and will provide sufficient margin to prevent a factory in Holland, America, the United Kingdom or anywhere else from engaging in dumping activities here." The Minister often has elaborated on the fact that he has the right to stop a ship coming up the Liffey under this Act. So that, if any attempt were made to dump goods here with a view to putting the factory in Bray out of business, he could impose a duty of 150 per cent., if he liked, when the boat was at the bar of the River Liffey, and could serve any ring or combination with full notice that if any attempt was made to do this thing he would have no hesitation in imposing a duty of this kind so as to make it impossible for them to carry on.
Now, the heads of these rings are big business men. They are not fools and they realise that there is no use in battering their heads against a stone wall. Provided that this Oireachtas puts on record that it is prepared to give a certain measure of protection to a factory and to maintain that measure of protection, no matter what any external merchant or manufacturer proposes to do, these men are not going to run their heads against a stone wall. What I maintain will be done under this and what is, in fact, being done, is that somebody rambles into the Minister, or the Minister sends for somebody, and the Minister says: "Will you manufacture lamps?" The person says: "Yes, if you will make it worth my while," and he asks for 50 per cent. or 75 per cent., or whatever it is, and it is whacked on by the Minister.
And an undertaking is given that the price will not be increased. That answers the Deputy's whole argument.
The Minister says that an undertaking is given that prices will not be increased, but he was not at all so sure, on a former occasion, that in addition there was a guarantee that quality would be maintained.
The only relation that prices have is in regard to quality.
The Minister did not think that when he was steering his Cement Bill through the House. He learned it in the course of the passing of that Bill through the House, and if he looks it up he will see that there was an amendment by the Opposition providing not only as to the price but as to the quality as well. He will find that the Minister for Education said that such a proposal was absurd as to stipulate for quality. When the Bill went to the Seanad the quality proviso was put in and it was from the Seanad that that recommendation came down here, and it was put in as a recommendation from the Seanad after being rejected by this House.
Deputy Moore has some business experience and should realise that if people engage in the manufacture of filament lamps with an undertaking that the quality will be maintained, somebody will have to be the judge of the quality. Who will judge the quality? Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Minister for Finance going to examine into it once a month?
Is the Deputy aware that the Minister for Industry and Commerce has the one Department that is qualified to judge them? But what is the use? Do we have to sit here all day for this? I am tired listening to the Deputy.
I am quite aware that the Minister will think twice before he arranges to sit for the whole day here.
I shall say no more. I am tired listening to the Deputy.
I expected that the Minister would be very tired before the day was out.
Often enough we have been tired listening to the Deputy.
You will be very tired before midnight.
Before the Deputy sits down I should like to ask him to explain why it is that he and his Party accepted the Control of Imports Bill unanimously, which provides for monopolies with regard to industry?
Provides for what?
It gives the Government power to create monopolies.
I do not know, sir, whether or not it is strictly relevant to discuss the Control of Imports Act now.
I am afraid that it is not.
If it were relevant, I should be glad to discuss it now or to-night, or on any other occasion if the Chair would permit me. We can have it out in full and, doubtless, the Minister will join us in discussing it.
It is not relevant.
However, I think it comes ill from the Minister to complain that he is tired. I warned him at 10.30 this morning that he would be tired before the day was out.
I did not say that I was tired. I said that I was tired listening to the Deputy. After all, he must remember that there are other Deputies over there who may want to speak. He should not monopolise the whole debate.
We have till 12 o'clock to-night.
Is the Deputy going to speak until 12 o'clock?
There is plenty of time for other Deputies. I have no doubt that Deputy Moore will join in again and give us his view. Perhaps Deputy Moore will agree with me that the protection afforded in this case is a little excessive. If he will agree with me on that, that is all our case amounts to, and if he will join with me I shall have great pleasure in welcoming him into the Lobby with us, if he has the moral and the physical courage to come.
I suggest that an obvious explanation of all this is forthcoming. The Party opposite are merely trying to demonstrate their difference with General O'Duffy who, apparently, supports the Government's industrial policy; but I suggest that it is not necessary to waste the time of this House in demonstrating their present independence of the General.
There would be no necessity to waste the time of the House, or to even appear to waste its time, if the Minister would put his proposals before us in a decent and orderly way and tell us something about what the Government are proposing to the House. Deputy Moore drags across the discussion here what a terrible thing it is to deprive the people in Bray of an industry. He says that the people in Bray are looking forward anxiously to the development of this industry. Why would they not? Their condition, as a result of the policy of the Government for the last two years, made them anxiously accept doles of free meat and free milk and unemployment assistance. They are looking anxiously forward to the day in which some way or another they may get a day's work. What we are anxious about is that they will be sure of that day's work, because whether the duty is 75 per cent., 80 per cent. or 100 per cent. what is important is that we shall have sound industries that serve the people satisfactorily. The Minister is asking us to impose this duty on people already burdened with many other duties. They are burdened with very heavy taxation which has reduced them to their present economic condition. The Minister does not give us any indication that this industry is being established on anything like secure foundations. He knows that it is a highly technical industry, and that it has been developed to a high extent in a number of countries, so much so that he is afraid of dumping from highly organised countries. He, apparently, has neglected to inquire about the technical guidance that the people who are setting up this industry are going to have. He has given them the protection of a 75 per cent. tariff without enquiring how they are going to root their industry without satisfactory technical guidance. I think that it is a crime against the people who will have to bear the duty and against the people who are expecting continuous employment in this country.
Is the Deputy's complaint this: that it is not a foreign firm?
The Deputy is complaining that the Minister is asking the House, in the case of a highly technical industry to impose a 75 per cent. duty, and he gives the House no information at all as to the experience and training that are going to guide the development of this industry.
In other words, that it is not a foreign firm. I invite the Deputy to say out plainly what precisely he means. I am not going to answer him. The speeches from the other side are being made simply for the purpose of wasting time, arising out of a policy of obstruction. If the Deputy wants to waste time he ought at least to be frank about this. He ought to develop that point and say what he means. His main objection to the industry is that it is going to be undertaken by an Irish firm.
On a point of order. The Minister has just made the statement that the speeches from this side are for obstruction purposes.
Deputy Dillon stated so.
That observation is without any shadow of foundation.
If the Deputy's remarks had any meaning at all they had that meaning.
Is the Minister in order in saying that the speeches from this side are for the purposes of obstruction?
I am not concerned with what a Minister says except in so far as it is relevant to order.
I think the Minister should not have made that statement.
That is another matter.
The Minister, I am sure, remembers with astonishment that what he said on the Emergency Imposition of Duties Order No. 37, setting up a factory for oils and fats in Drogheda, that it was being set up entirely by a foreign firm and with foreign capital.
Not under this Order.
Under Order No. 37, but he assured us that it was a firm that had very extensive experience in the matter. The Minister knows very well that we are anxious that Irish industry would be established here on Irish capital, and that one of the difficulties that we feel with regard to the establishment of Irish industry on Irish capital is the policy pursued by the Government which is destroying the main source of the production of capital in this country, namely, the agricultural industry. The objection taken to the imposition of this duty is not either to the size of the duty or to the fact that the industry is being established by a group of Irishmen, but rather to the fact that the Minister plans to encourage the setting up of a very technical industry here, one which will impose a heavy duty upon the people, without taking any steps to inform the House or himself as to the technical experience that is going to be at the disposal of the people setting up the industry, or where that experience comes from.
The Minister speaks of the discussion on these Orders being obstructive. The Minister was told when the Orders were under discussion the other day, and he can be told again now, that discussion is taking place on them for the purpose of extracting information from him as to what he is doing under the Orders. Until these amendments were put down no information of any kind was to be obtained by means of question from the Minister. He pretends that he gave information to the Press but he gave no such information. We have to admit failure to a very large extent to extract information from the Minister in the discussion on these amendments, and the only thing that the Opposition can do is to drive the Minister by question to expose his attitude in this particular matter; to get him to change his attitude, to give the House more information, and to examine proposals intended to develop Irish industry more carefully in the future than apparently he has done so far as the Orders that are before the House at the moment are concerned.
The Minister has brought most of this discussion on his own head because if, at the beginning, he had given the explanations which have been reluctantly dragged from him it might have shortened the debate.
What explanation is the Deputy referring to?
The matter that is before the House now.
At what stage does the Deputy think the information could have been given?
At the beginning.
And it was, but the Deputy was not here.
It was not terribly attractive, and perhaps I was not paying attention. The Minister has been very economical in the use of his words here this evening, but I observed that he had to make some explanations three or four times.
I think I had to make them oftener in order to get some of the Deputies opposite to understand.
However, I think the Minister would have been very well advised if he had dealt with this matter at the beginning. It is a highly technical matter, but the Minister did not deal with it in a technical way. The first shock which the consumers of electric current got in this country was about 24 or 25 years ago. I do not know whether the Minister was born then or not.
That was not under this Order.
The introduction of the Osram lamp marked a very important improvement not only as regards durability but the light that it gave. In consequence of its introduction the consumption of electricity dropped to a marked extent. The Dublin Corporation had to increase its prices at that time to make up for the drop in consumption. Things have improved even since then. It is not a question of the price of the lamp. It is the quality and durability of the lamp which is of account. I had one lamp in use for about ten years, which is a very unusual thing. All consumers are concerned with is how long a lamp is going to last. The Minister will admit at once that it is rather difficult to have an examination of this kind and for a firm to stand the test. The question of price is an immaterial consideration if you get quality and durability.
A tariff of 75 per cent. is rather a frightening imposition. The Minister should have taken the House into his confidence from the very beginning with regard to that. He could have said that there would be an imposition of 15 or 25 per cent., or some lower percentage than what is being proposed, and that would be on the present catalogued price of lamps. I presume there is such a thing. An imposition of 75 per cent. gives one the suspicion at the moment that this industry will require more than the usual amount of protection. Assuming for a moment that the factory does not come up to the Minister's conception of what it should be, and that it is found necessary to add 15 or 20 per cent. to the current price of lamps, will the Minister be bound by the statement he made here this evening that he is going to compel them to sell at the present price? Does not everybody know that after the factory is established, when it is giving employment to 200 or 300 hands, if it is otherwise successful but, that by reason of the small area of supply, prices have to be increased by 50 per cent., the Minister is not going to close that factory?
Wait and see.
He can see.
He closed Gallaher's.
It is that sort of bargaining that has made the world what it is at the moment. It is utterly unfair to ask such a factory to go into competition with the ring and to expect it to turn out goods at the same price. Anybody who believes that it will be able to do that is no businessman or has no experience. Just contemplate for a moment the resources of this ring and the population which it has to supply in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Here we have one-fifteenth of that population. Perhaps the relative figure would be more like one-thirtieth. The firm here in Bray, started under the circumstances under which it has been started, is expected to be equal in efficiency with firms such as I have described. The Minister shakes his head.
I expect them to be able to sell lamps at the same price or at a lower price than the ring price.
Well, I do not and I think that that particular frame of mind when approaching a transaction of this sort is unbalanced, absolutely unbalanced. It is that sort of thing that keeps us here considering these matters for over an hour when they might have been disposed of much more quickly if the Minister had taken the House into his confidence and had given us the information which we require.
I suppose the Deputy merely spoke because Deputy Dillon's larynx was tired.
I would not have risen to speak in this debate at all were it not for the lecture that has been given us by Deputy Cosgrave. Many of us have experience of purchasing lamps, good and bad lamps. Some of us have a good deal of experience, and technical knowledge also, of this particular matter. We have, I am sure, much more experience than Deputy Dillon except that he sells them at a good price. In spite of the lecture which we had from Deputy Dillon, I would not have attempted to speak only for the attitude taken up by Deputy Cosgrave on this question. It is the same attitude which he has taken up on all matters connected with industries started in this country. It is by no means a special thing. Deputy Cosgrave would lead us to believe that the delay caused is due to the fact that Deputy Dillon asked the Minister for certain information and did not get it. Have we not had this ordeal of listening to the inferiority of the Irish worker on every occasion here on which it was proposed to impose a tariff to build up Irish industry? Have we not had the same exhibition on every occasion? We were not able to assemble motor cars. We were not able to do anything at all which would come up to the standard of the product of the foreigner.
Even though we have only one-thirtieth of the purchasing power of the people across the water, I do believe that Irish brains will be capable of turning out as good lamps as any combine. Let nobody be misled by statements such as we had from Deputy Dillon about goodwill between Irish firms and foreign firms. The Deputy suggests that if you tell the combine that you will only put on 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. they are going to be good fellows and will not undersell you. They will say: "You were jolly decent to us. You would not put on a high tariff and therefore we shall not undersell you." If business were usually conducted on these lines, we might be able to accept that, and I, perhaps, would be thoroughly in agreement with Deputy Dillon, but Deputy Dillon knows, like everybody else, that no combine in any country would accept that jolly-good-fellow, hail-fellow-well-met idea, and that they are going to smash any business they can. Every Deputy on the opposite side knows that the 15 per cent. tariff on boots was not a success from the Irish point of view. Outside firms were able to undersell our producers the whole time. This is not a matter, as Deputy Cosgrave would have us believe, of simply trying to get information. It is simply an attempt to waste the time of the House, but since it is only in comparatively recent times that Deputy Dillon could attempt to delay the work of the House or the country, we can afford to sit here until 12 o'clock.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 38; Níl, 22.
Tá.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Doherty, Joseph.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Victory, James.
Níl.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Reilly, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Thrift, William Edward.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
I beg to move amendment No. 11, referring to the Emergency Imposition of Duties (No. 46) Order, 1934:
To delete in page 2, the reference to "The Emergency Imposition of Duties (No. 46) Order, 1934."
This Order imposes a duty of 5/- in the £ on all edible extracts, essences or juices (not including soups), prepared or derived wholly or mainly from animals (including birds, but excluding fish). We have been able to get no information on this subject from the Minister. I would be glad if he gives us some information at this stage.
The Deputy is, as usual, incorrect. This is the one subject on which I did give him information. The imports of these goods last year were valued at £150,000, and the duty is imposed as a preliminary to the manufacture of edible extracts in the country. The manufacture has not yet begun and licences for normal quantities are being issued.
The Minister gave us the importation figures in respect of these goods. The amount was £151,846 for 1933, and £76,000 for 1934. I do not know whether the Minister gave up those figures in error or whether he was asked for them.
I gave them, anyhow. As I indicated, the Deputy's statement was incorrect.
Can the Minister tell us the number of firms engaged in the manufacture of these articles and the number of persons employed?
None.
Will the Minister indicate what development he expects as a result of this duty?
The establishment of a factory for the production of edible extracts.
Has the Minister any plans, or has he discussed the matter with anybody?
The plans are being discussed with a number of firms.
So that this duty of 5/- in the £ on certain articles for which the Minister has given no information is simply a shot in the dark? He asks the House to accept the imposition of this duty, but gives the House no information as to the class of persons likely to develop the industry as a result of its imposition.
Is the Deputy pressing this amendment?
I am certainly pressing for the rejection of an Order introduced in this particular way, without any information being given to the House as to the circumstances in which the Order is introduced and the type of development that is expected to result from it.
We are going to get rid of our surplus cattle.
Would the Minister then say whether this Order is in any way connected with the setting up of the Roscrea factory?
No.
The Roscrea factory is simply for the purpose of taking the cattle and reducing them to meal?
Yes.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand."
The Committee divided: Tá, 40; Níl, 23.
Tá.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Doherty, Joseph.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Victory, James.
Níl.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Nally, Martin.
- O'Reilly, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Thrift, William Edward.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
I move amendment No. 12:—
To delete in page 2, the reference to "The Emergency Imposition of Duties (No. 48) Order, 1934."
The Imposition of Duty Order (No. 48) imposes a duty of nearly 40 per cent. on the value of the article on rope, cord, twine, thread made of cotton, flax, hemp, ramie, jute or coir, or any like material or a combination of any two or more of those materials, but excluding binder twine and plaited or cable-laid sash-cord, and also excluding any article which at importation forms part of another article. The Minister suggested that he had given information with regard to the import of edible fats, but I think if the Minister looks again he will find that the figures he quoted were in respect of rope.
Well, the Deputy has the information, anyhow.
I have the information, but the biggest blank in the lot is with regard to the edible fat position.
It was not edible fats— it was edible extracts.
Well, whatever the Minister makes them. The Minister told us on the Second Reading that there was a factory at Kildare for the production of cable, ropes and twines. He said it had been in production for some time and was increasing its production as it made progress. Would the Minister tell us the amount of employment given at Kildare and the amount of employment which he expects will be given in the country if it is his intention that this Order is going to be a prohibitive one—40 per cent? Will he say what is the position with regard to the issue of licences at the present time, and whether there is anything in the present situation which would mean a rise in the price of ropes or twines either now or later on?
First of all, I should point out to the Deputy that he got the information concerning edible extracts from the Minister for Agriculture on the 5th December. He got the information, or some of the information, which he desires concerning cordage, cables, ropes, twines and threads made subject to duty by this Order. Next, I should inform the Deputy that the duty imposed by this Order on cordage, cables, ropes and twines is not a new duty. It has been in operation for some time past. These goods are included in this Order merely for administrative convenience. The effect of the Order is to extend the duty which has been in operation upon those goods to cotton and linen thread. There is nobody yet manufacturing either of those threads in the country. A factory for the manufacture of cotton thread is being constructed at Westport, and a factory for the manufacture of linen thread is being constructed at Dublin. It is intended that each of those factories will produce the whole of the requirements of the country, but it is not yet possible to say what will be the total employment given in either of them, or what the total output will be. The employment, however, is quite considerable, and the firm in each case has the benefit of the association with them of competent external firms, of which no doubt the Deputy will be glad; it is a British firm in the case of the cotton thread and a Belfast firm in the case of the linen thread.
Is binder twine made in this Kildare factory which the Minister says has been in production for some time?
No. Binder twine is not subject to the duty.
Are there ropes made there?
Yes.
They are subject to this Order?
They have been subject to duty for some time past.
How long has this factory been in production?
12 months.
It is not 12 months ago since I knew it to be looking for a site in Dublin. Would the Minister tell us if this is a factory to which a trade loan has been given?
There is more than one factory engaged in the production of ropes and twines.
And they are all within a year's growth?
Oh, no. One of them has been established 100 years. I was not responsible for that one!
Not a long rope factory? The Minister, I am sure, knows that a complete rope factory must be able to spin a rope 300 yards long, and there was no such factory in this country a year ago.
The Deputy is misinformed.
The Deputy is not misinformed; he had good reason to know. The factory at Kildare was primarily established to do that job.
If I am not mistaken I think there are two in Kildare, so I do not know which the Deputy is referring to.
I do not know whether or not I should ask this question; the Minister will know whether or not he should give an answer. I do not want an answer if it is a matter which should not be made public. Have trade loans been given for those rope factories?
Not in all cases. There was a loan in one case that I can remember.
Well I am sure the Minister made the necessary investigations. I will not pursue my question any further.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 13:—
To delete in page 2, the reference to "The Emergency Imposition of Duties (No. 51) Order, 1934."
Attention has already been called to the fact that the machinery of the Emergency Imposition of Duty Order has been invoked in this particular instance to impose a Customs duty. By enshrining it in this Bill now, the Minister asks us to permanently create a situation that will, as it were, draw a line after the Government's action in respect of sugar during the last 12 months. They put on an additional Customs duty in February last and now we have this Excise duty under this Emergency Order. The present Government are taking an extra £735,000 out of the people's pockets for what both the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce have recently characterised as a very necessary article of food for the people. £735,000 a year is to be taken out of the people's pockets for their sugar as a result of the actions of the present Government during the last calender month. Without any review of that position, we are asked to make that permanent decision under the guise of an Emergency Imposition of Duties Order. I should like to hear what members of the Fianna Fáil Party have to say on the subject of taking an additional £735,000 yearly from the people's pockets. They have been very silent all day as regards the condition of local authorities, the condition of the people generally, and the prospects of industry.
We were very good boys all day.
You did what you were told.
I should like to protest against the imposition of this extra Excise duty on sugar. If there was any tariff originated by the late Government that was furiously opposed by the present supporters of the Government, it was the tariff on sugar. That tariff has now been increased beyond what anybody ever expected. This proposal is certainly putting an imposition on ordinary consumers, which they are ill able to afford at present. I should like to ask the Minister to consider how this imposition will affect certain industries which are struggling to compete with industries in other countries. For instance, what would be the effect on a large concern, that may be called a semi-Government concern, the condensed milk factory? I have no brief for the factory, and I do not know the position there, but as an ordinary member of the community, it strikes me that any extra duty on sugar must bear heavily on a factory which is endeavouring to create an export trade against tremendous world-wide competition. There must be other concerns, with which I am not acquainted, but with which other Deputies may be, which will be affected by this increase, especially at a time when the Government is endeavouring to create new industries. An imposition such as this must affect their policy. Deputy Mulcahy made the case for the ordinary consumer, which every one of us could and should make, that this increased tariff falls more heavily, perhaps, on the poorer sections of the community than any other imposition that could be conceived. The case for the poor people has been made a hundred times in this House by Deputies on these Benches and, in particular, by the Deputies who are now on the Government Benches. The effect on industry generally has not been dealt with. While I am opposed to the increase on these grounds, I have the opinion that this tariff is going to have a very ill effect on a great many industries that we are trying to develop, such as the condensed milk industry, which has to meet considerable competition.
Is the Minister not going to give any explanation why the price of sugar should be increased?
The Minister set that out very early in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill.
On the Second Reading of what Bill?
This Bill.
The Minister does not think it worth his while to explain to the House, or to the country, why he is putting a duty of a halfpenny a lb. on sugar.
Three farthings. His record for the year is three farthings.
When a tariff of a halfpenny a lb. was put on sugar three years ago, which indirectly helped revenue here, and had the effect of reducing the subsidy given to the Carlow sugar factory, the Minister was one of the loudest critics against the imposition of that extra halfpenny, even though the total proceeds from the halfpenny were going to help agriculture, which the Minister and his colleagues shed so many crocodile tears over now. Three years ago the imposition was put on to do a good service. The Minister and his Party, when they came into office, showed consistency in their opposition, by taking the Customs duty off sugar and putting it on tea, saying that they were doing that because sugar was an article that was much more required by poorer people than tea. The duty on tea still remains, while the duty on sugar goes up, for no earthly reason that I can see, except to provide revenue. I wonder if the Minister has thought how this will affect various industries that are dependent on sugar. What about protected industries, such as jam making, condensed milk, to which Deputy Bennett referred, the curing of bacon and hams, as well as numerous other industries that I cannot enumerate? Apart from being an essential food, sugar finds its way to a great extent into every industry. It is an article that we produce ourselves. If there is one article that should not be unnecessarily taxed in this country, it is sugar, because we are coming to a production of 100 per cent. of our requirements. No country in the world has been able to produce beet sugar at a price that will compare economically with cane sugar. It has to be subsidised in every country. Now, when we are beginning to produce it on a large scale, we are going to have it taxed to provide revenue. Is there nothing else to tax but sugar? Hemmed in on all sides by prohibitive tariffs, when no more can be extracted from these tariffs, we start internal taxation, and there is not a word of explanation. The Minister's Department is now in receipt of about £3,000,000 more from Customs duties than his predecessor was in receipt of three years ago, when sugar was little more than half the price it is to-day. The Minister shed crocodile tears over the poor of this country when he was against the imposition of an additional halfpenny per pound.
Now the price of that sugar, in order to protect sugar production in this country, had to be raised, but on top of that the Minister is now putting on another ½d. or ¾d., and there is no explanation. He said that he gave his reasons for it on the Second Reading of the Bill. I am afraid the reasons the Minister gave are so flimsy that he is afraid to repeat them.
The Minister states that he made clear on the Second Reading of the Sugar Bill that a tax would be necessary. That is not so. In introducing the Sugar Bill the Minister will recollect that he stated that the price he was assuming to pay for beet was 35/- per ton and that, with the return of certain of the bye-products valued at 3/9, it was 38/9. Now, he is not paying 35/- per ton.
The Deputy has made a mistake. I said 35/- for beet, with 17½ per cent. sugar content.
That is right.
What is the sugar content upon which they are paying 30/-?
15 per cent.
15½ per cent.
The Minister said in the course of the Second Reading speech that it would not be necessary to put on more than ¾d. of a protective duty and, further, that ½d. only might be necessary and that ¾d. would not be required. He said "The extension of this factory will not cost the consumers that additional ½d. or ¾d. per lb." Now ¾d. has been added before the sugar is for sale. The sugar is not yet for sale.
It is being sold at present.
At the present moment?
Yes. It is just after being liberated.
Assuming that is so, the total requirements which it was anticipated would have been provided by the factories are not being provided. It is unlikely that much more than 50,000 tons will be provided out of the 80,000 tons anticipated, and, if that be so, what is the need for the additional protection duty imposed?
I have only one thing to say and that is, that the attitude which the Opposition Party has taken up in this matter is consistent. They have fought tooth and nail against the extension and development of any industry in this country from the moment they went into opposition. I quite clearly indicated, when the Sugar Bill was before the Dáil, that, in certain circumstances, it might be necessary to put an additional duty of ¾d. per lb. on sugar, and these circumstances have arisen. The fact of the matter is that, even with the additional increase on sugar now, the total revenue to be derived from tea and sugar in this year will be almost £200,000 less than our predecessors derived from sugar alone in the financial year which ended on the 31st March, 1932. In addition to that, we have the four factories working turning out 80,000 tons of our sugar requirements.
The position is that in every Budget the Minister introduced since he came into office he largely increased taxation upon the people, as well as collaring moneys that were properly due to be paid in another way, and in the year ending 31st December, 1934, he will have put his hand deeply into the pockets of the ordinary people and taken out as an increased price for sugar an additional £735,000. It is no wonder that he tried to remain silent.
Ask Deputy McGilligan. He got the figures in reply to a question the other day.
The Minister is taking that additional money out of the pockets of the people for sugar, or, at any rate, plans to take it annually. When the Minister touches the question of sugar, he thinks of Napoleon and he would be Napoleonic in all his actions. At Dun Laoghaire the other night it was Caesar was talking.
Let us hear about sugar.
When he comes within ten miles of a sugar factory then Napoleon is the part that has to be played, and if Napoleon was digging his hands into the people's pockets he would take nothing less than £735,000 per year. The Minister suggests a denial of that. If it is not so, I should like to hear the Minister on the subject.
If the statement made by the Minister is correct, and I am not doubting it, that the revenue from sugar in the current year will be £200,000 or £300,000 less——
£200,000. I did not say £300,000.
It is good enough for my argument that it will be less than the total revenue from sugar alone in 1931-32. Is that the Minister's statement?
That is right.
Then I want the relative prices of tea and sugar. What are the wholesale and retail prices in the current year, and what were they in 1931-32? Are they not far higher, due to the policy of the Ministry?
The Minister has made a little explanatory statement at the end of the debate. He made play with the fact that the revenue derived from tea and sugar is some £200,000 less than the duty on sugar alone two years ago. Everybody knows that the policy of the Minister has practically been to wipe out the import of sugar into this country. That policy might be quite correct, but it does away with his revenue. He is not going to get away by drawing that red herring across the track and trying to persuade the people that they are saving £200,000 when everybody knows that sugar alone is costing them ½d. or ¾d. per lb. more than at that particular time.
And the farmers are getting the benefit of the increased price.
And the State has to provide one million for building factories. The Minister cannot get away with it like that. Any talk about a reduction in revenue, when the consumers have to pay more for the article protected, is not going to cut across the fact that the people are being imposed upon and are bearing a greater burden than they should be asked to bear.
If the Minister's second observation was as reliable as his first, that we have opposed the extension of industry in this country, it is just in keeping with his observations on any subject. We have done more for industry in a few years than the Ministry would do in a lifetime. There is no originality, conception, generosity or anything else about the proposals. There is one thing they cannot get away from, that they are taxing the unfortunate people of the country beyond their resources.
We are not.
I should like to challenge the Minister on this, that he is arranging to take £735,000 more for sugar out of the people's pockets annually as a result of his proposal this year.
No.
He is.
Question—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the Bill"— put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 42; Níl, 19.
Tá.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Moylan, Seán.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O'Doherty, Joseph.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Victory, James.
Níl.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Dolan, James Nicholas.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.
The Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
The Title of the Bill agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Report Stage fixed for Tuesday, 18th December, 1934.