Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 21 Apr 1936

Vol. 61 No. 8

Control of Imports (Quota) Orders—Motions of Approval.

I move:—

That Dáil Eireann hereby approves of Control of Imports (Quota No. 16) (Amendment) Order, 1935, made on the 25th day of October, 1935, by the Executive Council under the Control of Imports Act, 1934 (No. 12 of 1934).

Quota No. 16 Order, under the Control of Imports Act, applied to superphosphates, ground mineral phosphates and compound manures. It was found, some time after the Order was in operation, that a certain substance known as nitro chalk was not being manufactured in the Saorstát and was, at the same time, subject to the quota order. The purpose of this amending Order is to exclude nitro chalk from the scope of Quota No. 16 Order so that there will be no restriction on its importation. It is used for manurial purposes, but not to any great extent. As it is not being made here, there is no reason why we should restrict its importation.

One would have thought that, in addressing himself to a quota order dealing with superphosphates, the Minister would have dealt with a wider range of items than the particular item he has picked out. We have not got particulars as to the production of superphosphates for the year 1934. The information obtained in the census of production for that year has not yet been published, but we have the information for the years 1931 to 1933. We find that in this industry the average wages paid to the employees fell by 20 per cent. between 1931 and 1933. The average amount of wages paid, if we take the total amount of wages and divide it by the number of wage-earners as given us by the Minister, has fallen from 139 for the year 1931 to 130 for the year 1932 and to 111 for the year 1933. Production in the industry has substantially fallen between the year 1931 and the year 1933. In the year 1931, 134, 124 tons of material were produced, the value being £427,346. That production had fallen by 1933 to 93,491 tons, the value being £300,000. Here we had a fall of nearly one-third in production and of one-fifth in the average wages paid to the employees in an industry which is being helped in this quota fashion.

This quota order was not made at that time, and the Control of Imports Act had not even been passed then.

The Minister is dealing with this matter by quota now, but he did not tell us whether or not any change for the better has come to the industry. Production in the industry has substantially fallen and wages have substantially fallen. The Minister has evidence before him to show that, in the case of many items subject to quota, the quota-ing of these imports and the restriction by licence have raised the price to the consumer, apart from any tariffing arrangements in force. We have the curious spectacle that while a very big drive is being made on the part of the Ministry to bring about additional tillage, the quantity of beet-grown, if we take——

Surely this is entirely irrelevant on an Order the purpose of which is to exclude nitro chalk from the Control of Imports (No. 16) Quota Order.

The Minister is purporting to amend an Order which restricted by licence the imports of artificial manures for agricultural purposes. He is introducing this amendment because one item covered by the Order is not manufactured here. On the very few occasions we get an opportunity of discussing what has been done by quota—we get the opportunity only when there is an amendment to a quota order—I submit that we are entitled to ask why, with the experience he has had, the Minister does not go further and make additional amendments to the Order at present in operation?

The procedure in debate on an amending Bill is that the basic Act can be discussed only in so far as it is affected by the amending Bill. The same rule should obtain with regard to a quota order. This motion proposes to amend such an Order in one respect—by granting an exemption or withdrawing a prohibition. Obviously, the whole Order does not arise for discussion. Still less does the quota system, which may be discussed on the Minister's Vote, arise for discussion now.

I do not wish to have any elaborate discussion, but I do wish to point out that the quota order system has been shown, in many cases, to have increased the price of commodities. That affects farmers, who have a substantially reduced income. In many cases turnips and mangolds have been substituted by beet. Yet, there is an increase of about 160,000 acres in the amount of root and corn crops grown. One would, therefore, expect a large increase in the consumption of artificial manures. The only explanation is that farmers, owing to increase in cost as a result of the tariffs and quotas, are unable to buy these manures. We see an industry which is supposed to be helped by these quotas giving less employment and producing less. In these circumstances we expect the Minister to take us into his confidence and tell us what is happening. The Minister says that the quota order has been introduced since these circumstances existed. Will the Minister tell us in what way this quota order is improving the situation? Will he give us some particulars as to what proportion of the stuff that is being released from quota is imported, the extent to which it is subject to tariff and the amount derived by the revenue from the tariff? He might also state whether he has given us hope that this stuff will be manufactured in the country. In dealing with a very important matter like artificial manures, the Minister is treating the House in a slighting way when he does not give us more information with regard to this industry than he has given.

This Order is a formal Order of minor importance. Its sole purpose is to exclude from the scope of Control of Imports (No. 16) Order a substance known as nitro chalk. I should be entirely out of order if I were to attempt on this occasion to go into an elaborate explanation concerning the development of tillage, the use of fertilisers and the employment given in the fertiliser industry, as Deputy Mulcahy has asked me to do. As I have frequently pointed out to him, Deputy Mulcahy will continue to get himself into difficulties until he learns how to use properly the figures supplied to him. If he divides, as he has done in this case, the number of persons employed in an industry on a particular day into the amount of money paid in wages in that industry over a whole year, the answer he will get will prove nothing. I pointed that out to the Deputy before, but he has learned nothing. He pointed that same thing again, and he arrived at the conclusion that the average wage paid in the industry had decreased. He should not have arrived at any such conclusion. There is no relation between one figure and the other. By dividing one figure into the other, he proves that the moon is made of green cheese, and nothing else. Furthermore, the production of fertilisers in 1933 has nothing whatever to do with the acreage under crops in 1935. In addition the actual amount of fertilisers produced by Saorstát factories in 1933 proves nothing in relation to the consumption of fertilisers in 1933, because fertilisers were being imported in increasing quantities.

Surely not. The imports were being reduced. Surely the Minister knows that.

It is because fertilisers were being imported in increasing quantities that measures to restrict imports were adopted.

They were not.

We adopted the device of tariffs, and when that proved ineffective a system of control by quota. We can discuss at any time the Deputy wishes the advisability of quantitative regulation of imports by this means. The Estimate for the Department of Industry and Commerce will shortly be under discussion in the House, and I invite the Deputy to state his objections to this measure on that occasion, because I am anxious to find out what precisely is the attitude of the Party opposite, seeing that in their published programme they declare themselves in favour of quotas, tariffs, and similar restrictions.

The Minister has been irrelevant now.

It is remote from nitro chalk.

Does the Minister realise that instead of increasing there has been a decrease in imports from 31,863 tons in 1931 to 10,451 tons in 1933? Yet he has the neck to tell us that they were increasing.

We succeeded in getting imports decreased in 1933.

And now we get a quota of 17,000 tons.

The disappearance of nitro chalk from the scope of the quota order will make very little difference.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move:—

That Dáil Eireann hereby approves of Control of Imports (Quota No. 1) (Amendment No. 3) Order, 1935, made on the 20th day of December, 1935, by the Executive Council under the Control of Imports Act, 1934 (No. 12 of 1934).

This Order and Order No. 19 may be dealt with together. As Deputies are aware there are two quota Orders in operation under which the import of motor tyres are regulated. Within the scope of one Order there are classes and sizes of tyres manufactured in this country, and within the scope of the other Order are classes not manufactured in this country. The purpose of the amending Orders is to transfer some 30 sizes of tyres from the latter class, because they are now being manufactured here. Originally imports of all tyres were regulated under one quota Order. When, however, certain classes were made here an amending Order was made, excluding from the original quota Order the classes of tyres being made here, and a separate quota was instituted for these classes. As the number of classes has increased with the extension of manufacture in the country, it is necessary to transfer from one quota Order to the other these additional sizes. That is the purpose of these two Orders. They are necessary to facilitate administration, and to secure that licences issued for imports of the class of tyres not produced here are not used for the importation of tyres of the kind being produced here.

Is the Minister moving Orders No. 1 and No. 19?

I am explaining both at the same time.

I would like to deal with Quota Order No. 1, and to give the Minister notice that by the time he comes to Order No. 19, which, I presume, he will move later, I will deal with it. The Minister introduced a quota on tyres for the purpose of establishing the industry at Cork. He is amending Order No. 1 now because he says there has been a certain amount of progress in the development of production at Cork. The Minister was repeatedly asked when there was an opportunity for information on the development of the industry at Cork, to give some idea of the amount of employment being given there, the total amount of wages paid, and the relation between the total amount of production in Cork and the requirements of the country. He introduces an amending Order now, but gives no information on points repeatedly put to him and that this House should have when it is giving a monopoly to a firm in this country. I advise the Minister that by the time we come to Order No. 19—and, to some extent, the same applies to the quota order dealing with boots—it is nearly time he gave some information. He will have an opportunity of doing so on Order No. 19.

Whatever the position concerning boots, the Deputy will appreciate that there is a difficulty on my part in giving information concerning the activities of a single firm. I think I am debarred by Statute from giving information in a manner which would enable anybody to relate it to a particular firm. The estimated requirements for motor tyres are, I think, roughly 120,000 per year, and by far the greater part are now being produced here. The sizes that are not produced here are unusual sizes, and are not used in any great quantity. The Deputy can take it that the bulk of our requirements are being produced here.

Is it not a fact that any information the Deputy would get would be out of date almost by the time it was supplied, as a new industry only started so recently is obviously expanding very rapidly? I think the Minister has no power to demand information as to the wages paid, even if it were correct to give it to the House. Further, would it not be the case that by the time the information was collected and supplied production had so out-run the details supplied that it would be comparatively useless for any purpose?

Are we to understand that it would be useless for this House to know the reason why the Minister made a change of this kind in the Order? He tells us that he made the change because production has been entered upon 30 types of tyres. Does the Minister or Deputy Moore think that this House should not ask what was the reason, and also for facts with regard to production, quantity and value, and the amount of additional employment given at the time the Minister had the facts before him and decided to change the Order? Surely Deputy Moore does not want to treat us as children. Are we not to have information as to the total amount of employment given by any firm that is a monopolistic firm, and if the Minister proposes at some time, maybe in connection with cement, to put up proposals for a monopoly in the same way as regards tyres, surely that position is not seriously put to the House. Does he intend to come before the House when he is putting forward proposals in regard to the setting up of a cement factory, and is he going to tell us that because it is a monopolistic firm we are not going to get information as to the rate of wages or the total amount of employment?

Messrs. Dunlop have no legal monopoly at all. If the cement industry is established, it will be established in accordance with the Act that was specially passed by the Oireachtas, and, consequently, it is in an entirely different position to a firm like Messrs. Dunlop.

So the Minister asks us to believe that he would give us the information we request if this was a definite monopoly in law; but because it is simply a definite monopoly in fact, with no chance of becoming anything else but a monopoly, we are going to be refused the information we ask for?

My power of getting information in relation to these matters is obtained under Acts of the Oireachtas—legislation passed by this House—which provide that such information must not be revealed by me if the manner of its revelation will enable it to be identified with particular firms. It was the Oireachtas, at a time when another Government was in office, another Government of which the Deputy was a member, that passed that legislation and, until it is amended, I am bound by it.

When does the Minister propose to ask the Dáil to give him power to get information with regard to the total amount of employment given and the wages paid in connection with the manufacture of motor tyres in this country?

We heard a lot of talk from the occupants of the opposite benches in years gone by about bureaucracy. Here in these orders we have the very essence of bureaucracy. This House is supposed to be a deliberative Assembly; it is expected to consider and weigh carefully the facts of every matter before coming to a decision. Are we to be asked, without being given any information, to come to a decision which will enable the Minister to amend an Order, or expand it? The Minister asks the House to confirm this amending Order so as to enable him to extend the monopoly that is there. The House is asked to do that, and Deputies are left in complete ignorance as to the amount of employment that is given by this firm and the amount that is paid in wages, or what, if anything, this Order, either in its original form or as amended, is going to cost. That is just what the Minister's proposal amounts to. I suggest that if the representatives of the people are asked to come to decisions and are expected to consider matters put before them, before they come to any decision they are entitled to the necessary information, and if the Minister has not the power to get that information he ought to seek the power without delay.

The position so far as these orders are concerned is that an order is made by the Executive Council without any reference to the Dáil. Bringing it before the Dáil in this form is really a farce. You have taxation and customs duties imposed behind closed doors. These orders vitally affect the life of the country; they affect taxation considerably and they have an important bearing on the interests of the people as a whole, yet in regard to them the Dáil is practically helpless. When Deputies ask for information they are told that it cannot be given by the Minister. It is unfair that Deputies should be asked blindly to give their assent to any amendment brought before the House. Their assent should not be asked until they are given whatever information they consider they are entitled to get in order to arrive at a proper decision.

I appeal to the Minister —I do not think there is any need to— not to yield to Deputy Morrissey's suggestion. I hope he will not begin to bother manufacturers in this country with fussiness.

What about wages?

Deputy Morrissey has talked about bureaucracy. What would be a worse example of bureaucracy than that the Minister should send a not to the Dunlop Company asking them to put into terms of employment the effect of this Order—to put into terms of employment the effect of now producing 24 x 32 tyres where previously they were not producing tyres of these dimensions? How could any firm be expected to undertake to do that? Their costings would be a most extravagant and absurd business if duties of the kind were forced on them. Indeed, I rather doubt that they would be able to say precisely what their employment is even with regard to tyres generally as distinct from other rubber goods. To start off with a protest against bureaucracy and at the same time to invite the Minister to compel a manufacturer to give information of that kind is as absurd a thing as could be imagined. I hope there is no need to ask the Minister not to yield to that sort of proposal. To accept it would certainly make the whole idea of government unbearable.

My proposal——

The House is not in Committee, but as Deputy Moore has risen twice, I will allow Deputy Morrissey to speak again. In regard to any other quota order Deputies will be allowed to speak only once.

I suggest that this House is entitled to get information before it is asked to come to a decision, and whatever powers are required to put the House in possession of all the information required before it is asked to come to a decision ought to be given to the Minister, otherwise the House is only a farce. Deputies on the opposite benches are prepared blindly, without getting any information, to arrive at a decision. Some of us here are not.

The only thing the House is being asked to do is to approve of certain sizes of tyres being regulated under Quota Order No. 19 instead of under Quota Order No. 1. It makes no difference whatever as regards the powers possessed by the Minister.

How do we know?

The Deputy may take my word for it. If the Deputy troubles to read the documents sent to him and prepared at great trouble and inconvenience——

That would be a whole-time job.

The House is being asked to make the change for the purpose of convenience of administration. In the matter of conferring powers on the Minister for Industry and Commerce, nothing is being done. The same sizes of tyres will be controlled in respect of imports under Quota Order No. 19 instead of Quota Order No. 1. The whole business of the manufacture of tyres has been discussed here before. We think it was a considerable gain when the Dunlop Company agreed to establish a factory for the production of these goods. Motor tyres of excellent quality are being produced and they are being sold at prices lower than before the manufacture was undertaken here.

Can the Minister quote the prices?

The Deputy can get them from any motor trader. Considerable employment is being given and, from the point of view of the motor tyre user, from the point of view of the community as a whole and from the point of view of the workers employed in the factory, there has been a net gain. On that account it is an easy matter to recommend to the House any modification in the control of import arrangements that is going to facilitate further development in that industry.

Question agreed to.

I move:—

That Dáil Eireann hereby approves of Control of Imports (Quota No. 4) (Amendment No. 2) Order, 1936, made on the 28th day of January, 1936, by the Executive Council under the Control of Imports Act, 1934 (No. 12 of 1934).

This Order makes a technical change also and could, perhaps, be discussed in relation to Quota Order No. 29. The import of boots and shoes made wholly or mainly of rubber was subject to control under a previous quota order. The manufacture of these boots and shoes is now being undertaken here. We have found that for administrative convenience it is better to have two quota orders instead of one—one relating to boots and shoes made of rubber which have heels, and the other to boots and shoes of the unheeled variety. The quantities of each class which have been produced and the quantities which are required to meet the demand of consumers in the country vary, and on that account it is considered desirable both from the point of view of the importers, as well as from the point of view of the Department, that there should be separate Orders for the heeled boots and shoes, and the unheeled boots and shoes. The main purpose of this Amending Order is to exclude from the main quota order that those are covered by Quota Order No. 29, that is, heeled rubber shoes.

Again, Sir, this is a type of article that has been quoted since August or September, 1934, and it is an item in respect of which the Minister has never been able to give us any information in regard to the amount of employment given, the wages paid, the extent to which production, at the point at which the Minister now changes his Order, meets the requirements of the country or the comparative prices at which these goods are now being sold wholesale, compared with the import prices previously. Does the Minister not consider that he should give us that information on an occasion like this?

When the quota order was made originally, it was primarily for the purpose of restricting the importation of these rubber boots and shoes, which in 1934 came in in very large quantities, to the detriment of the leather boot and shoe industry here. At that time, the plans for their production in the country were in a very tentative stage, and we could not have said definitely when we hoped that these boots and shoes could be produced here. Since then their production has been undertaken and it is anticipated that the total production of this class of footwear during the present year will be equal or almost equal to the normal demands for them within the country. I cannot say to what extent employment is given in this particular form of production. The firm which is engaged in this production is also engaged in other lines of production, and it might be difficult, even if I had the information, to segregate employment upon these classes of boots and shoes and employment on the production of other goods. Neither have I got precise information as to the wages paid. I, however, noticed a paragraph in the newspapers some weeks ago to the effect that an agreement had been made between this firm and certain trade unions, which was described by representatives of the trade unions as a very satisfactory agreement, so I presume there is no complaint on the score of the wages paid by the company. The intention is, of course, that imports of these boots and shoes will cease entirely, and that the entire quantity necessary to meet the demand for consumers here will be produced here.

At a reasonable price here?

I think the Deputy will find that the prices which are being charged, certainly for shoes of the unheeled variety, are fully competitive, and are not in excess of the prices at which these shoes were formerly imported.

Can the Minister say if the company has to meet Japanese competition?

I do not know to what extent Japanese competition exists at the moment, but in the year 1934, when the quota order was first brought into operation, a very large quantity of these goods were imported from Japan. Deputies who examine the trade and shipping statistics for that year will note the very considerable quantity recorded as having been imported before the quota order came into operation.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move:—

That Dáil Eireann hereby approves of Control of Imports (Quota No. 19) (Amendment) Order, 1935, made on the 20th day of December, 1935, by the Executive Council under the Control of Imports Act, 1934 (No. 12 of 1934).

This is the Order to which I have referred already.

On Quota No. 19 the question was put to the House by Deputy Moore:

"How could any Minister dare to say to a manufacturer ‘I am going to issue an Order as a result of what you have said, but I want you to express it in terms of increased employment or change of employment in your industry'?"

I did not quite catch the Minister for Industry and Commerce when he was speaking, and I do not know whether he was less expansive on the subject than the Minister for Lands in the Seanad. Here are some quotations from the Minister for Lands in the Seanad with regard to this Order. He said:

"The Dunlop Factory in Cork came into full production of 15 of the specified sizes of outer covers on the 1st July, 1935."

A new Order was then made. Later he said:

"The Dunlop Company has now come into full production of 30 additional sizes which are still subject to Quota No. 1 Order, 1934."

That is, at a recent date they came into full production of 30 additional sizes. I think my question is an absolutely necessary question to put, and that if it were not necessary for our purposes here in considering this matter, it is a question that anybody interested in the development of the Cork industry would put. That is, what does it mean in increased employment and wages when the company has come into full production in respect of 30 additional types of covers? Is Deputy Moore serious in asking us to shut down our minds, even from the point of view of curiosity, to the question as to what this full production of certain types of tyres means in the matter of employment? We are asked by the Minister to believe that they are giving increased employment, yet it is charged against Deputies here when they seek to find out what the production of these 30 additional types means——

The company only started on the condition that they would get these Orders.

The company did not start on the condition that they would not be asked how much employment would be given. Surely they were asked what employment they would give in the country. Do I understand from the Minister that the company is working under some kind of an agreement with him that prevents his asking them what it does mean in the matter of employment and wages annually, when they have now got into full production of 30 additional types of tyres?

I know that the production of these tyres involves the employment of 600 or 700 people, but in so far as returns are made to me by the company, they are made because they are required to be made by law. These returns are made in such a manner that they cannot be published by me so as to reveal information relating to a particular firm. I think it is very undesirable that any suspicion should be created in the minds of individual manufacturers that the information furnished by them, when they are required to do so, would be made available in a manner which would permit particulars of their concern being identified by any person getting the information. That is one of the principles on which the legislation giving the Minister for Industry and Commerce power to require statistical returns is framed, that where there is only one firm engaged in an industry, or where the circumstances of the industry are such that any information published about it would lead to a knowledge of the circumstances of that one firm being made available, then the returns published must be in bulk and in such a way that that cannot happen.

In this particular case there are different circumstances, because we knew what the development of this industry was going to mean in the matter of employment before we encouraged it. We knew that the production of tyres of all kinds, motor and cycle, was going to mean employment for some 600 people. To attempt to segregate the employment into categories; to say what number of people are employed on motor tyres, what number are employed on inner tubes for motor tyres, the number employed on cycle tyres, and particularly what number are employed on particular sizes of motor tyres, would be completely impossible, nor is it necessary, I think, that that information should not be sought and I doubt very much if it is available.

Can the Minister tell us how many of the 600 contemplated persons are employed at the present time?

They are all employed so far as I know.

The Minister now tells us that when Dunlops were being established in Cork it was contemplated that they would be able to employ 600 persons, and that these 600 are now employed by the firm?

So I understand.

Motion put and agreed to.

I move:—

That Dáil Eireann hereby approves of Control of Imports (Quota No. 26) Order, 1936, made on the 28th day of January, 1936, by the Executive Council under the Control of Imports Act, 1934 (No. 12 of 1934).

Quota Orders Nos. 26, 27 and 28 relate to brushes. For the first time these Orders imposed a quota restriction upon the importation of various classes of brushes. Quota Order 26 relates to household and domestic brushes; Quota Order 27 to toilet brushes, and Quota Order 28 to brushes other than those covered by Quota Orders 26 and 27. The object of the Orders was to secure that the greatest possible percentage of the brushes required in the Saorstát would be produced here. For some time past we have endeavoured to restrict the importation of brushes by means of an ad valorem duty. We found that that was not completely effective. Although it did discourage the importation of brushes and resulted in a decline in imports and an expansion of the home production, nevertheless in the year 1935, 221,929 dozen brushes, valued at £40,000, were imported. It has been our experience during the past few years that where articles are individually of low value, as a number of these brushes are, ad valorem duties are not effective in limiting their importation. Consequently, it was decided to encourage an increase in the production of brushes here to an extent sufficient to wipe out that figure from our trade and shipping statistics by means of controlling imports under the Control of Imports Act.

We have, however, fixed fairly liberal quotas for the various classes of brushes to operate during the first quota period, and it is only as production develops within the country that the further restriction of imports will be affected. In the case of household and domestic brushes, the quota fixed for the first quota period, which continues to the 30th June of the present year, was 122,000; for toilet brushes, covered by Quota Order No. 27,251,000; and for brushes covered by Quota Order No. 28, 181,000. We consider that, with the production of brushes available from the firms engaged in their production here, these quantities should be more than sufficient to secure that all reasonable requirements will be met. The development of the brush manufacturing industry here has beer proceeding slowly for some time. When the stimulation of the tariff was first given to the industry there was a reorganisation of the methods of manufacture in the factories. That reorganisation, involving as it did the greater use of mechanical methods in production, had for a time an effect upon employment. In fact, there was no increase in employment despite the not inconsiderable increase in total production; but as production continued to increase employment commenced to increase, and there has been a quite considerable increase in the amount of employment given in the industry in recent years. It is felt that when the £40,000 worth of brushes which were imported in 1935 are produced here, a further increase in employment will be effected. But at the moment it is not possible to give any precise estimate of the number of persons likely to be employed, because the brushes imported are of various classes and descriptions, and no one can say with any degree of certainty what classes of brushes constitute the bulk of the imports, and, consequently, what employment is involved in their production here. The opinion generally held, apparently, is that the quality and the prices of the brushes produced here are satisfactory. We have here a number of firms engaged in the production of brushes of various kinds. The industry is one that is suitable to the country, one which can be fostered here, and consequently there is no reason why we should not take this step in order to eliminate the importation of these articles which is taking place.

We are dealing here with an article that is bearing a tariff of 50 per cent. on import and a 33? preference, if that has not been wiped out by any action taken since the last import list was printed. Would the Minister say if this 33? per cent preference has been wiped out, and whether it is the 50 per cent. tariff that is now operating?

I think it is the 50 per cent. rate.

The Minister does not see any reason why, in addition to a 50 per cent. tariff, we should not put a belt of quotas and licences around this industry in order to keep it going.

I did not say in order to keep the industry going. I said in order to eliminate the importation of certain quantities of brushes that is still taking place.

The Minister did not tell us what percentage of the total consumption in the country these importations represent. At any rate, he proposes in respect of a commodity that is used in every house and office and for which there is a fairly substantial market here—in respect of industries which we had here before ever a tariff was put on, industries which were able to hold their own and to give good employment—to introduce a system of licences and quotas in addition to the 50 per cent. tariff already in operation. There can be no other reason for that except to keep up exorbitant prices. The Minister has told us that so many hundred thousand brushes are coming in, but he gave no indication to the House as to what are the conditions under which these brushes are coming in. Do we understand from him that they are coming in as unfair competition against brushes that are being manufactured here in this country, or that the conditions under which they are produced in the countries from which they are coming are such that they are able to compete unfairly against a tariff of 50 per cent. imposed in this country? I have not the figures by me at the moment, but my recollection is that these figures showed there was a falling off in the employment in the brush industry in this country. Surely with such a high tariff in respect of an old established industry that held itself against competition, an industry that improved considerably when it got a small tariff or a small amount of protection when the first tariffs were put on, we should have some detailed information as to what is wrong with that industry now. It is a fact that there have been substantial imports, that the average costs of the imported brushes are falling but the Minister has not directed his attention to that matter in his statement to the House nor has he directed his attention to the increasing numbers in which these brushes are being imported. I do not think that the House, without more complete information as to the industry and more complete information as to the type of industries against which that industry is competing from outside, should in face of a tariff of 50 per cent. on these brushes give the Minister quota powers of licensing so as to further increase the price of these commodities so that the public can only obtain them at an unnecessarily high price.

The Minister in his opening statement forestalled me in every word I had to say. He admitted that there was not much improvement in the matter of employment in the brush industry. I have had opportunities recently of speaking to the workers engaged in the trade. They tell me that their conditions have not been improved since the Minister gave practically a monopoly to the various people who control the industry here. The brush workers tell me that in the old days when they made brushes by hand they got a fair and reasonable wage and they were in employment. They say that the Minister before putting on these tariffs got no guarantee from the employers as to the question of increasing employment. The employers have been able to introduce into the industry very costly machinery made in other lands. The introduction of that machinery has deprived the hand brushmakers of the employment they had. What Deputy Mulcahy and I and others want to know is if the Minister is giving increased tariffs to any industry is it for the purpose of enabling the owners of that industry to buy costly machinery and so deprive the hand workers of their employment? The intention of tariffs at all times was, I take it, to improve employment here. If the Minister is giving special concessions to industrialists he surely ought to get from them some guarantee that the employees of these industrialists should be retained.

Surely the Minister knows that these concessions are not given to the employers for the purpose of reducing the production of hand-made goods, and thus replacing brush-makers by costly foreign-made machinery put up in these factories at the expense of the consumers. The consumers as a result of the tariffs imposed by the Minister have to pay high prices for the goods purchased. It is too bad that this should be used by the firms to enable them to purchase costly machinery to be brought in from outside countries. The brush industry is one of the victims of the present system of tariffs. I think the Minister should get guarantees from all those to whom he is giving protection, so that the result will not be a reduction of employment but an increase in employment. The introduction of this costly machinery, we know, decreases employment.

With regard to the point raised by Deputy Byrne, I can only say that so far as I am personally concerned, I am certainly in favour of the kind of production which is the most efficient. I think in the long run that it would be better——

Though it means decreasing employment?

No. In the long run it means increasing employment, better wages, a higher standard of living and much greater consumption of goods.

Does that apply to the brush industry?

It applies to everything. I am speaking generally. I do not profess to have technical knowledge of brush manufacture, or to know the most efficient method of securing greater production. But I am expressing a general principle when I say that efficiency in production eventually gives more employment and better wages.

Otherwise machinery.

I stated in my introductory speech when proposing this resolution that we have found that on ad valorem duty on articles which are individually of very low value is usually of no effect in restricting imports. Toothbrushes were imported here from Japan at 1/- a dozen, that is 1d. each. A 50 per cent ad valorem duty on these brushes was not going to stop their importation. The same principle applies in respect of other types of cheap brushes which are imported in large quantities; so that in articles of that class where an ad valorem duty is not effective it is necessary to resort to the device of a fixed or flat rate of duty of so much per article, or to have imports controlled under the Control of Manufactures Act. Where there is reason to believe that existing firms are not yet in a position to supply in full the requirements of the country, and where it is desirable to have the imports reduced for a period we find it is much better to deal with the problem by means of quota regulations than by a high duty. Because until production is increased to the point at which the requirements of the country can be met, imports will have to take place. It is desirable, therefore, that such imports should be permitted without any additional imposition on the people using these articles.

In this particular industry considerable progress has been made. There has been a substantial increase in the total value of production. No doubt the firms in the industry concentrated first upon the most obvious lines, those lines in the greatest demand and those articles easiest to manufacture. The classes of brushes which were made subject to control under this Order are in many cases of an unusual type. The Deputy will notice from the figures I gave him as to the quotas fixed for the first quota period that the greater quantity applies in respect of Class II, that is, toilet brushes and tooth and shaving brushes. In respect of these an ad valorem duty at a high rate would not be effective. In any case it is better to control imports quantitatively, and thus effect a gradual reduction in the volume of imports, than to try to do so by imposing a duty at a higher rate.

I think the industry, which, as the Deputy reminded us, is an old-established one, is quite capable of developing so as to produce all those classes of goods in satisfactory quantities and at a price which will be equally satisfactory. In respect of certain classes of brushes which are produced here at the moment there has in fact been an export business—not a very large export business but some export trade which, at any rate, is an indication that the prices cannot be unduly exorbitant. The purpose of this Order is not, however, to protect unduly high prices or to enable higher prices to be charged, but to deal with a situation which cannot be dealt with satisfactorily in any other way, and at the same time to secure that this £40,000 worth of brushes now being imported can be produced here instead.

The Minister's remarks in regard to the comparative prices of the type of goods being dealt with in Quota Order No. 27 and Quota Order No. 26 are not in accordance with the facts. He suggests to us that the reason why there is a difficulty about toilet brushes,. tooth brushes and so on, is that they come in at very small prices. If there are goods coming in at small prices like that, why should they not be kept out completely instead of tinkering at them with quotas?

It is by means of the Control of Imports Act that we do keep them out completely.

Well, keep them out completely; but why extend the quota system, then, to other articles? If the Minister will look at his own figures and compare the average import price per dozen of the household and office brushes with the price of tooth and nail brushes he will find that the comparative prices are: for 1935, 4/- per dozen for the one and 3/8 per dozen for the other; for 1934, 5/- per dozen for the one and 4/1 per dozen for the other; and for 1933, 5/6 per dozen for the one and 4/5 per dozen for the other. There was not the great discrepancy between those two classes of brushes that the Minister would lead us to understand was there. I want to oppose this Order. It is utter nonsense on the part of the Minister, who says he stands for efficiency in industry, to want to bolster up by a quota licensing arrangement, without examination or explanation, a position that is already protected by a 50 per cent. tariff.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 52; Níl, 20.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corbett, Edmond.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Daly, Denis.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Dowdall, Thomas P.
  • Flinn, Hugo V.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Hayes, Seán.
  • Houlihan, Patrick.
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Lemass Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Ryan, Robert.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Ward, Francis C.

Níl

  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Bourke, Séamus.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Burke, James Michael.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Good, John.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Morrisroe, James.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Redmond, Bridget Mary.
  • Rowlette, Robert James.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.

I move:—

That Dáil Eireann hereby approves of Control of Imports (Quota No. 27) Order, 1936, made on the 28th day of January, 1936, by the Executive Council under the Control of Imports Act, 1934 (No. 12 of 1934).

I should like to ask the Minister what he means by saying that he stands for efficiency in industry at a time when he asks us to pass a quota order to give further assistance to an industry that is already 50 per cent. protected. It is an industry which fought its own battle without a tariff, an industry that increased in employment and output with a small tariff, and it is an industry which is being damaged under a 50 per cent. tariff, and damaged to such an extent that the Minister has to step further in. What is wrong with the efficiency of the brushmaking industry in this country that a 50 per cent. tariff cannot protect it against the rest of the world?

There is nothing wrong with its efficiency. So far as I know, it is quite efficient, but this industry, like a number of others, has to face competition which is not always fair competition.

The Minister has not told us what unfair competition exists.

In the brush trade in particular, the Japanese exporters have been making a very substantial effort to get into all European markets.

Can the Minister say how many Japanese brushes have been imported during the last three years?

I could not give the figures straight away, but the information will be published in the Trade and Shipping Statistics, 1935, when they are available. The efficiency of the industry will be promoted by the Order in so far as the market available for its products within the country will be enlarged, and thus permit of the utilisation of the most efficient methods of production.

When the Minister speaks of the efficiency of an industry, does he mean the efficiency of the industry in extracting money out of purchasers' pockets for the purpose of paying enormous dividends, or does he mean its efficiency in providing the people of the country with the articles they want at a just and fair price?

I mean the provision of goods which will be satisfactory in quality, variety and price.

At a 50 per cent. tariff.

Order approved?

No. I do not want to vote on it, but I should like——

To be recorded as dissenting?

The whole lot, Sir. There are three Orders here which seek to impose quota restrictions in respect of household commodities.

Question put and declared carried.

I move:—

That Dáil Eireann hereby approves of Control of Imports (Quota No. 28) Order, 1936, made on the 28th day of January, 1936, by the Executive Council under the Control of Imports Act, 1934 (No. 12 of 1934).

That refers to brushes also.

The same remarks apply to that.

Question put and declared carried.

I move:—

That Dáil Eireann hereby approves of Control of Imports (Quota No. 29) Order, 1936, made on the 28th day of January, 1936, by the Executive Council under the Control of Imports Act, 1934 (No. 12 of 1934).

I referred to this when dealing with Quota Order No. 4. This is a new Order imposing a quota restriction on heeled rubber shoes which have been taken out of the previous quota in respect of all classes of rubber shoes by the amendment of Quota Order No. 4.

The Minister told us in his previous remarks on this that the general purpose, or a large part of the purpose, of the quota order on rubber shoes—I take it that it particularly applies to heeled rubber shoes— was to force the people back on leather shoes.

The Minister said that the leather shoe industry was being injured by the numbers of rubber shoes that were being imported, and that he was imposing quotas in respect of rubber shoes to an extent—and, as I understood from his remarks, to a very great extent—in order to protect the leather boot and shoe industry. When this matter was being dealt with in the Seanad, Senator Douglas pointed out—

"As regards shoes substantially made of leather the tariff is 30 per cent. There the Minister is not right in saying that there has been no increase in price. Practically all the manufacturers have increased their prices this year, and traders have been notified that there will be further increases on present prices."

He was speaking in April, 1936. The prices of leather shoes have gone up and traders have been notified that there are going to be further increases, in spite of the fact that we read in the newspapers a few days ago of a boot manufacturing company in this country that was able to make 50 per cent. profit on its year's trading—to pay 25 per cent. dividend to some of its shareholders and to put. I think, 25 per cent. to reserve.

Now the Minister is asking us to quota rubber-heeled shoes so that people may be forced back more on the leather shoes which, we are told by a Senator who has considerable experience in this matter, have increased in price within the last year, and in respect of which warnings have been issued that increased prices are going to obtain, and when, during the last 12 months, at least one boot manufacturer in the country has made these astoundingly large profits. Who would go digging for gold in Wicklow if he can dig 50 per cent. profit out of the boot and shoe industry in this country in one year? I should like to hear the Minister making some kind of a case for driving people back more on leather boots and shoes, if that is the profit that is being made when they purchase leather boots and shoes.

It does appear to be extraordinary, considering the fact that the cost of living has gone up in this country, that wages have gone down and that the purchasing power is not what it was, that the Minister should take this opportunity to bolster up in this particular way what appears to be an industry that is already making undue profits out of the people. There is not any manner of doubt about the fact that the question of boots in this country is a very big item on the poor people. Take the case of school children. I know of some families where the parents are not able to provide boots for their children. I think the Minister ought to have an eye to that, and he ought to see that they have some alternative to leather boots, if leather boots manufactured in this country are too dear. He ought to see that, if protection is given—and certainly the boot and shoe industry in this country has got considerable protection up to the present—the article produced should be supplied at the right price. Instead of that, however, the Minister comes along, as Deputy Mulcahy pointed out, and says that one of the prime reasons that he wanted to introduce this matter was to drive the people from rubber goods to leather goods. The Minister certainly did give the House to understand that. I think that the Minister should justify those remarks in some way, and I should like to see in what way he will be able to justify what he appears to be desirous of putting into force.

I am quite certain that Deputy Mulcahy did not misunderstand what I said a few minutes ago. He is just indulging in the gentle art of misrepresentation. I am also quite certain that Deputy Brennan did not misunderstand what I said. He is simply the echo to Deputy Mulcahy. I stated that when a quota order was made in 1934 it was made because restrictions were being imposed on the importation of leather boots and shoes, and that, in order to make these restrictions effective, there had to be similar restrictions on boots and shoes of other materials. I am sure that anybody of any intelligence will understand that. Now, however, these rubber boots are being made here, and there is no restriction whatever on the quantities that can be made.

At a price?

I say that there is no restriction on the quantities that can be made here, and it is because they are being made here that the quota order is being applied now and that the quantities permitted to be imported are being reduced. In any event, however, as I explained before, if Deputies would take the trouble to listen and to try to understand what is said, no change is being effected except a purely administrative change. All classes of boots and shoes were subject to restriction since 1934, but, for purely administrative reasons, it is considered better to have two quota orders—one applying to rubber boots and shoes without heels, and one applying to rubber boots and shoes with heels, because the quantities of each class that it is desired to import differ; and the sole change that is being made in this new Order is to separate both classes for the purpose of control and to have different quotas for each class. As I say, it is purely for administrative purposes and it does not affect the position in respect of the control of imports in any way.

Question put and agreed to.

I move:—

That Dáil Eireann hereby approves of Control of Imports (Quota No. 30) Order, 1936, made on the 28th day of January, 1936, by the Executive Council under the Control of Imports Act, 1934 (No. 12 of 1934).

This Order applies the Control of Imports Act Regulations to hydraulic cement. The necessity for this Order arose out of the recent trade agreement concluded between this country and Great Britain, under which the Saorstát undertook to purchase at least one-third of its estimated requirements of cement, for the year 1936, from Great Britain. Imports were previously controlled under the Cement Act, but, as a result of the recent agreement, it was necessary to make this Order under the Control of Imports Act so that a condition could be applied as to the amount to be imported from Great Britain. The first quota period commences on the 30th March, 1936, and runs up to the 30th June, 1936, and the quota appointed for that period is 118,000 tons, of which 53,000 tons is to be consigned from that country. The total quantity of cement imported into the Saorstát last year was 335,000 tons, so that it is estimated that, in the year 1936, the Saorstát will purchase not less than 112,000 tons of British-manufactured cement.

Sir, I am against this Order. The Minister is now going to make the same mess of the cement position as he did of the coal position. This quota order is introduced because of the agreement made with Great Britain this year in respect of cement. The quota order in respect of coal was made last year because of the agreement made last year with the British in respect of coal. It has since been pointed out— based, I admit, on our experience of what has happened—that the quota need only have been applied to the few thousand tons of coal that were to come from places outside Great Britain, and that, as far as Great Britain was concerned, there is no necessity for licences in respect of the coal passing from Great Britain to this country. The case against restricting the quota of cement, or controlling by licence the amount of cement that is going to be bought from Great Britain by us here, is even stronger now than the case was in respect of coal. We have been told by those who boost the recent renewal and extension of the agreement between Great Britain and ourselves that, although they cannot tell us what increased quota of cattle into the British market we are going to have, our quota will in fact depend on the amount of coal, cement, and other things that we buy from Great Britain. If quotaing the coal imports from Great Britain to this country last year had never given rise to the substantially increased price of coal to the people, arising out of nothing else but the formation of the coal ring—if we had only that to guide us, the Minister should leave outside his present licensing proposals the cement that was going to be imported from Great Britain, and it should be possible for anybody who wanted to import cement from Great Britain to do so without having to come to the Minister for a licence and to argue that his family tradition in the matter of cement was to import so much and so much, and that whoever wanted to import cement from Great Britain should be allowed to import it without licence. In the case of coal, 5/- per ton had to be planked down, and the increased prices for coal were due almost entirely to the tax that has been taken off since. Now we have this matter of a licence.

Before this quota ever saw the light, when the rumours that were coming from the negotiations in London suggested that cement was going to be included, these very rumours, with only an increase of 7d. or 8d. per ton at the quay-side, brought about an increase in the price of cement for the people of this country of 6/- per ton. The very breath that licences and a quota system were to be introduced brought about an increase in the beginning of February of 6/- per ton in cement above the price in the beginning of November. I point out to the Minister that at least one person to my knowledge bought a ton of cement in the beginning of November and paid 38/- for it. He bought a ton of exactly the same cement on the 3rd February and paid 44/- for it, although the import price between these two dates had gone up only 7d. or 8d. per ton.

Is the Deputy certain that it was British cement?

I am certain it was cement.

Quite sure?

Quite certain it was cement, and quite certain that the quota and licensing suggestion alone and the ring going to be formed as a result of it——

Had nothing whatever to do with it.

The price went up 6/- per ton. I cannot get the Minister to face up to what was the reason for that increase, and the person who has the complaint cannot get the Controller of Prices to face up to it, with an increase of only 8d. per ton at the port. Just on the eve of the deal with an outside country that was likely to introduce the quota system, as happened in the matter of coal, the price went up. The Minister has made an arrangement with Great Britain that one-third of the cement imported is to come from Great Britain. The spirit of the agreement is that we are going to get an increased quota for agricultural produce into Great Britain based upon the amount of coal, cement, and other articles that we are going to take from them. Why should not the people of this country, if they want unrestricted quantities of British cement, be allowed to get them? If there is going to be no restriction on the amount of British cement that is to come to this country, what is the necessity for applying the licensing system, with all the experience that the Minister has of the licensing system, in raising prices to the people who buy the stuff?

I oppose this quota order because the British cement should be left outside it. If the Minister estimates that two-thirds of what we may expect to be our import of cement for the current 12 months is going to be a particular figure, then I could understand his putting a quota on cement other than British, and fixing a quota of that amount. But if the people in this country have a preference for British cement, and if the situation is that the number of additional cattle which we can send to the British market this year is going to depend in some way on the amount of cement we buy from Great Britain, what reason is there for interfering with the trade in cement between ourselves and Great Britain, and applying the quota and licensing system to it? As I say, the Minister has had his experience in connection with coal. The people here have paid an unnecessary increase in the price of coal by reason of the fact that the import of coal from Great Britain had to pass through a licensing system and the Minister knows it. That fact ought to have opened the Minister's eyes and a different arrangement ought to have been made with regard to cement. At any rate, I oppose the inclusion in this quota order of the cement that is going to be got from Great Britain. It has already caused an increase in the price here and is going to prevent freer trade in the purchase of British cement, which might give us freer trade in the export of cattle and other agricultural produce to Great Britain.

I should like to ask if the Minister can give us any idea of how long he considers it will be necessary for us to import cement. The Minister knows that every bag of cement that goes into a building in this country at present means 6d. into the pocket of the Government. There is a tax of 6d. on every 2 cwt. bag of cement. The Minister told us over two years ago that he hoped in a comparatively short time to have cement factories working here, producing whatever cement would be required in this country. So far as Deputies are aware, we are as near to that home-production of cement now as we were two years ago. This Order is one of the advantages that we were told about during the discussion on the coal-cattle pact-one of the great advantages that we were to get out of that good bargain made by the Minister and his colleagues. I do not pretend to know anything about the qualities of cement, although I have heard more than once that British cement is supposed to be superior to Continental cement. That may or may not be so. So far as I am concerned, I do not know. But I do know that if British cement were inferior, or if the British are producing a cement inferior to the cement usually imported from the Continent, under this Order we would be compelled to take one-third of our requirements from Great Britain and, so far as I know, pay any price that the British care to demand, so far as that one-third is concerned.

I should like the Minister to address himself to a few of the practical points and to give the House some information, if he has any information to give them, regarding the effects of this Order; what effects, if any, have followed since the Order was made in January and what effects are likely to be. He should let us know whether the Government are prepared to enter into agreements compelling the people of this country to purchase from Great Britain certain commodities, irrespective of the quality supplied or the price charged for these commodities. I wonder what would be the attitude of the Minister if he were in the position he was in, say, five years ago: if he were in Opposition, and any Government had the hardihood to bring before the House an Order such as this. Those of us who were in the House then and who have recollections of the Minister when in Opposition would feel inclined to say that it would be necessary to raise the front benches a bit higher to prevent the Minister from going over the top in his denunciation and condemnation of Orders such as this if they were brought before the House.

There has not been a single word of explanation, not a single reason given, as to why the Government agreed to give the British a monopoly of one-third of our cement supplies. He gave no explanation as to why it was necessary or as to what we would get in exchange. There used to be a great deal of talk of the fiscal freedom of this country for years and years. It was a very much debated question. It was one of the questions upon which leaders in this country very often differed regarding, perhaps, the political settlement in this country. The one thing upon which most people in this country were clear was that what ever political settlement took place we should have full fiscal freedom. And we have got full fiscal freedom, but the present Government proposes to dispose of it completely and to allow it to be tied up by what some Deputies opposite would describe as our ancient enemy. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how long this Order is to continue, or whether he has any guarantee, or is in a position to give a guarantee as to the quality of the cement supplied under this monopoly, or whether there is any check on the price that may be charged?

The Minister should take advantage of this offer to tell us what is the position in regard to the long-promised cement factories, or when the people using cement are to be relieved of the 5/- per ton tax. The Minister has been silent over this whole question of cement for the last 12 months or two years. He was very anxious about it at one time. He brought in a Bill, rushed it through, apparently without sufficient consideration so great was his hurry. Then we had to get a second Bill and then we were promised three cement factories. That proposal is suspended and he does not tell us when the construction of the factory is to take place, not to talk at all about production. The Minister ought to take the House into his confidence and tell us when we are likely to get these factories and when our people are likely to be relieved of this 5/- per ton, not to mention the monopoly without any guarantee as regards quality or price.

I think the Minister owes some further explanation to this House as to the manner in which he proposes to administer these licences. Deputy Mulcahy, in my opinion, has made an unanswerable case. If we were to have licences issued for the importation of cement they ought to be issued, not in regard to British cement but in regard to other cement. I put a question to the Minister for Agriculture to-day as regards the export of cattle to Britain, and his answer was that it would depend upon our purchases from Britain. If that is so, would it not be an obvious thing for the Minister for Industry and Commerce to allow free purchase of British cement and to license purchase from countries outside to any greater extent than two-thirds? What does the Minister say to the licensees? Will he insist that importation includes one-third British and two-thirds foreign, or will he specify a certain number of importers that are to import this amount of British cement and let others go where they like? Was not the obvious thing to say to licensees outside Britain that it was to our advantage that the greater portion should be purchased in Britain as indicated by the Minister for Agriculture in regard to coal? I do not know whether the Minister for Industry and Commerce has an eye to that side of the business. Perhaps he has not.

There is also the great danger, as Deputy Morrissey pointed out, of our having to accept any quality of article offered. That would be obviated if our importers purchased more than one-third from Britain. Seeing the matter from any angle you like, the object ought to be to license people buying other than British cement. The Minister could then fairly arrive at a quota for the rest of the Order, and could say a certain amount was reserved for Great Britain. I want to know how is the Minister going to restrict that? Are they to be allowed to purchase more than one-third British? If that is not the idea, he is doing a definite injury to the export of cattle so far as the Minister for Agriculture is concerned. If he did it the other way he would be doing a good thing by allowing more to be purchased from Britain under the Order than from other countries outside.

There seems to be some confusion here. The Minister may not be aware of the possibility that it may be difficult to get cement from Great Britain even of the quantities bought there. This is the position at the moment. There is little cement coming in here at the moment because of the demand in Britain for British cement. If that were to continue the issue of additional licences would be absurd.

It would not alter the case at all.

I do not wish to enter into the general debate, but I would like to know if my information is correct upon that subject, and, if it is correct, what would be the reactions of it upon the general position?

I do not know what all the discussion has been about. There is no restriction upon the quantity of British cement that can be imported. There is a mimimum quantity that must be imported, but any quantity in addition to that can be imported. Any person who gets a licence to import cement into this country can import as much British cement as he likes. The restriction requires him to import a certain amount of British cement so that our agreement with Britain can be carried out. A person can get one order for British cement, and one for cement on which there is no restriction as to the source of importation. It is necessary to have that arrangement in order to keep the position under control and to ensure that we carry out our trade agreement and because the Control of Imports Act, which is the only machinery we can utilise for that purpose, so requires. The brilliant idea Deputy Mulcahy had for dealing with the matter was not so brilliant after all. In fact, we are doing what he suggests and, in any event, there would not be the slightest difference, in effect, between what he suggests and what is being done. Deputy Morrissey's suggestion that we must buy a certain quantity of British cement at any price they may care to charge is entire nonsense, as usual. If the British cement exporters should attempt to exploit the position by increasing unjustifiably the price charged for their cement on importation here——

Like the British mine owners.

Then there would be a situation in which we should have seriously to consider the termination of the whole agreement. In so far as the importation of coal is concerned, and the effect of the licensing arrangement on the price of coal, I shall merely comment on the fact that Deputy Mulcahy has once again changed his position. He has tried to make himself a national hero on the question of coal prices and I have never been able to nail him down to the ground on which he purports to stand.

The Minister does not take as much interest in the figures I give him as I do in the figures he gives me.

Originally the Deputy said that the increase in the price of coal was due to the coal-cattle pact. He got away from that and said that it was due to the licensing system. He came back to the Dáil then and said that it was entirely due to profiteering on the part of the coal importers.

Do not forget the tax of 5/-.

The Government removed that tax when the price of coal was increased. The Government is concerned with the interests of the people. They are much more concerned with protecting their interests than they are with making political party propaganda.

Delightful nonsense.

There has been an increase in the price of cement. The price of continental cement has increased by 6/-, but that has got nothing to do with the institution of this licensing system.

Why was that increase charged before it touched the ports?

I pointed out, when the Cement Act was under discussion, that this was the only free market for cement in Europe—the only country in which the various cement-producing countries were in competition, and that, in consequence of that, the price of cement was lower here than it was in any other country in Europe.

The Government put 5/- a ton on it.

It was being sold at an uneconomic price, and I warned the House then that that was not likely to continue. It has stopped. The Danish, Belgian and German producers have got together and decided to eliminate the competition which gave us cement at that very low price. That does not mean that the price of cement is unduly high. The price has gone up, but it has not been demonstrated that it has gone up unduly. The price which prevailed here was regarded as uneconomic. It was uneconomic, and it was lower than that at which cement could be produced.

The company producing at that price was making money.

We could buy Danish, British and Belgian cement in this country more cheaply than it could be bought in the country of production. In fact, a group in Great Britain got the bright idea, on one occasion, of exporting British cement from London to Dublin and re-exporting it to Liverpool. They found that it would pay them to do that because of the difference in price of British cement here and in England.

Like bacon here.

The control of imports regulations in respect to cement have nothing whatever to do with the question of price. Everybody who cares to do so can register himself as a cement importer, and, subject to the control of imports regulations, licences for the importation of cement are issued to those who apply for them. There is, of course, the condition, in order to carry out our trade agreement which we regard as beneficial, that one-third of the quantity of cement imported over the whole year must be of British origin. If, however, importers decide amongst themselves to import two-thirds of their cement from British sources, there is nothing in the control of import regulations to stop them. Deputy Morrissey is very interested in the idea of getting cement factories established here. Does he want cement factories established here?

What does the Minister think of the idea?

Does the Deputy want cement factories established here?

Will the Minister answer the question I put to him?

That silence is very significant. The Party opposite has no policy on that matter. They have not discussed it.

How long is it since you brought in a Bill to establish these factories?

That is three years' silence.

There will not be a ten years' silence about them.

You will not be there ten years.

Do the Party opposite want a cement factory established?

That depends on the sort of factory and the price at which it is able to sell the cement.

Deputy Cosgrave has awakened from his slumbers to cover up the retreat of his Party by throwing up a smoke-screen of irrelevant observations. Napoleon said that nobody could ever claim to be a good general until he had led a retreat. Deputy Cosgrave has more experience in leading retreats in this country than any other man.

There is a lot of difference between a retreat and a rout.

The Deputy should know.

The Minister knows more about routs than retreats.

Does the Party opposite want a cement factory established or do they not?

Does the Minister want it?

Is there one Deputy opposite who, on that subject, is prepared to reveal the dark secret of the Party's policy? We are going to have cement factories established. I explained already that the delay was due to causes entirely outside our control.

For instance?

The financial disturbance which followed a certain spectacular incident on the continent. That difficulty has been overcome, as the Deputy may, or may not, be glad to hear.

Did the Minister ever hear a schoolboy say "It was not me, sir"?

I heard Deputy Cosgrave say it.

Tell us about the cement factories.

They are coming.

Before very long.

Within a shorter period than ten years?

Certainly.

Within eight years?

Certainly.

Will the Minister say within four years?

It will take about 18 months to build them.

The Minister told us that about two years ago.

It will take about that time from the day the foundation stone is laid, and when the foundation stone is laid the Party opposite will have no difficulty in making up their mind as to their policy.

There should be a special issue of Dublin Opinion for that event.

Does the Deputy control the policy of Dublin Opinion? He seems to have more effect on the policy of Dublin Opinion than on the policy of his Party. This motion represents a formal change in the method of controlling the importation of cement, due entirely to the fact that it is necessary to provide for the fulfilment of our trade agreement with Great Britain, which requires us to import one-third of our total cement requirements from that country. There is no reason why there should be any further disturbance in the cement trade than is involved by that change. There is no restriction as regards country of origin in respect of the other two-thirds of our cement requirements. There is no limitation on the quantity of cement to be imported, nor is there any reason why the operation of the Control of Import Regulations should facilitate any movement on the part of cement exporters to get higher profits from cement. The increase in the price of cement to which Deputy Mulcahy has referred is a thing I deplore but which I cannot control. It merely means that we have been brought into line with all European countries and must buy cement from the cement cartel until we can produce it for ourselves.

On the question of price, will the Minister say if the Controller of Prices has investigated why cement went up by 6/- a ton?

As the Deputy is no doubt aware, the question of cement prices has been for some time under investigation by the Prices Commission in pursuance of inquiries into the price of building materials.

Did the Controller of prices give the reason why imports of non-British went up by 6/- a ton?

The price at which it has been sold increased by 6/- a ton.

Did the Controller of Prices give the reason why these imports went up by 6/- a ton?

The reason was that cement would be supplied only on that understanding. The three producing countries from which we were getting cement, Denmark, Germany and Belgium, increased prices by 6/- a ton and supplied importers only on condition that it was sold at the price fixed by them. That is the reason. That price may or may not be an economic price. The price which prevailed here previously was regarded by the cement manufacturers as entirely uneconomic. Whether the present price is unduly high or unduly low it is not possible to say. In any event we cannot control it. One thing we can do, and that is to arrange as speedily as possible to produce our own supplies.

The Minister has not told us how he intends to operate these factories. If an importer wants to import cement, will the Minister insist on one-third of the quantity being from Great Britain?

There are two quotas and consequently two licences which importers can apply for. In respect of one licence there will be a condition that the cement must be imported from Great Britain, and on the other licence there will be no such condition. The cement can be imported from Great Britain or any other country, as there will be no binding condition as to the country of origin. The question of arranging for the issue of licences, so as to involve the least possible dislocation in existing trading methods, has been discussed with the organisation of cement importers.

How will the Minister insist on one-third of the imports coming from Great Britain if he does not do so in a particular way? If a man wants to import 100 tons of cement is the Minister going to insist on one-third coming from Great Britain?

There is a total quota fixed until the end of June, and our estimate of the total amount that must be imported during that period is divided into two parts. All the cement may not be imported, but on the reasonable assumption that it will be, a specified quantity must come from Great Britain. Persons applying for licences can get them on one quota or the other. Ordinarily persons get licences for requirements under the general quota and also under the special quota, or vice versa, but in the case of cement it may not be necessary to insist on that all the time. In any event, we will take steps to see that the minimum quantity of British cement is imported. Probably it will not be necessary to take any special measures to that end. Quite possibly a proportion of the quantity of cement that will come under the general quota, without restriction as to country of origin, will come from Great Britain, and that our importation of cement will in fact exceed the figure fixed for the special quota. So long as we have at the end of the year carried out our undertaking, we will have fulfilled our part.

Is there any real danger, if importers A, B and C fill one quota, that importers D, E and F will have to take all British cement, at perhaps a greater price but of worse quality, if you are going to insist on one-third of the imports being taken from one country?

We got the cement importers together and endeavoured to arrange it in a manner to meet their wishes.

The Minister has not decided what he is going to do.

We are going to issue licences under each quota.

It does not seem satisfactory.

Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 54; Níl, 24.

  • Aiken, Frank.
  • Bartley, Gerald.
  • Beegan, Patrick.
  • Boland, Gerald.
  • Bourke, Daniel.
  • Brady, Seán.
  • Breathnach, Cormac.
  • Briscoe, Robert.
  • Concannon, Helena.
  • Cooney, Eamonn.
  • Corbett, Edmond.
  • Corish, Richard.
  • Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
  • Crowley, Timothy.
  • Daly, Denis.
  • Derrig, Thomas.
  • Doherty, Hugh.
  • Dowdall, Thomas P.
  • Everett, James.
  • Flynn, Stephen.
  • Fogarty, Andrew.
  • Gibbons, Seán.
  • Goulding, John.
  • Hales, Thomas.
  • Harris, Thomas.
  • Keely, Séamus P.
  • Kelly, James Patrick.
  • Kelly, Thomas.
  • Killilea, Mark.
  • Kilroy, Michael.
  • Lemass, Seán F.
  • Little, Patrick John.
  • Lynch, James B.
  • MacEntee, Seán.
  • Maguire, Conor Alexander.
  • Moore, Séamus.
  • Moylan, Seán.
  • Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
  • Norton, William.
  • O'Briain, Donnchadh.
  • O'Ceallaigh, Seán T.
  • O'Dowd, Patrick.
  • O'Grady, Seán.
  • O'Reilly, Matthew.
  • Pearse, Margaret Mary.
  • Rice, Edward.
  • Ryan, James.
  • Ryan, Martin.
  • Sheridan, Michael.
  • Smith, Patrick.
  • Traynor, Oscar.
  • Victory, James.
  • Walsh, Richard.
  • Ward, Francis C.

Níl

  • Bennett, George Cecil.
  • Bourke, Séamus.
  • Brennan, Michael.
  • Burke, James Michael.
  • Cosgrave, William T.
  • Costello, John Aloysius.
  • Davis, Michael.
  • Desmond, William.
  • Doyle, Peadar S.
  • Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
  • Fagan, Charles.
  • Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
  • Lynch, Finian.
  • MacEoin, Seán.
  • McGilligan, Patrick.
  • McMenamin, Daniel.
  • Morrisroe, James.
  • Morrissey, Daniel.
  • Mulcahy, Richard.
  • O'Leary, Daniel.
  • O'Neill, Eamonn.
  • O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
  • O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
  • Redmond, Bridget Mary.
Tellers:—Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Motion declared carried.
Top
Share