asked the Minister for Finance whether any licences for the import of flannelette free of duty have been issued since 1st January, 1936, and if so, how many licences; for what total quantity, and to how many licensees.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Licences for Flannelette Imports.
Ten licences for goods described as flannelette of a total value of £420 4s. 9d. have been issued to seven licensees since the 15th February, 1936. There are no records kept of the quantity licensed. Flannelette was not liable to Customs duty prior to the 15th February, 1936.
Arising out of the Minister's reply, how can he justify issuing licences for the importation of flannelette to a number of merchants during a period when he was refusing to issue similar licences to other merchants who had to trade in competition with the traders to whom licences were issued?
The Deputy's assumption is incorrect. Licences are being issued to boot and shoe manufacturers for small quantities of flannelette required in the manufacture of boots and shoes. The licencees referred to are boot and shoe manufacturers.
Is the Minister not aware that when he was issuing licences for the importation of shirting to saddlery manufacturers for the purposes of their trade, these shirtings were habitually sold by the importers to ordinary merchants in the country and that a situation arose in which you had two merchants in a town, one buying shirting through the ordinary channels and paying the duty upon it, and another buying it from the importers, who were allowed to bring it in duty-free under licence? Is he aware that his refusal to grant a licence to country retail shopkeepers has resulted in an increase in the price of flannelette of, approximately, 3d. per yard?
The answer to all the Deputy's questions, with the exception of the last, is in the negative. So far as the last question is concerned, I am aware that there has been an increase in the price because an import duty has now to be paid upon flannelette.
How does the Minister justify the levying of a revenue tariff of 3d. per yard on flannelette, which is almost exclusively used by the poorer sections of the community? Is he aware that no one amongst the wealthier classes of the community buys striped flannelette or uses it?
By far the greater part of the flannelette used by poorer persons can be imported without an import licence as it is not liable to duty at all.
Arising out of the Minister's reply to my supplementary questions, is he not aware that flannelettes of less than 4½ ounces are not one-fifth of the quantity used by the poorer sections of the community? At least 70 per cent. of the flannelette imported is over 4½ ounces, and, as a direct consequences of the putting of a tariff on this flannelette, these people are now paying a revenue duty of 3d. per yard on the clothes they have on their back. I ask the Minister how can he justify the levying of that amount on a class of material which is exclusively used by the poorer sections of the community?
To conclude, the position is that flannelette has had to be made liable to duty in advance of its production in the Saorstát because a situation existed in which the duty on textiles of various kinds was being evaded, and because they were being imported as flannelette after they had been subjected to a certain process. In order to make the duty on these textiles fully operative, a duty had to be placed on flannelette at a date earlier than we had intended. As I have already explained to the Deputy, it is anticipated that supplies of Saorstát manufactured flannelette will be available within a short period.
How many prosecutions have there been for these illegal importations?
They were not illegal importations. The goods were so put up that they could be described as flannelette, and they had to be passed by the Revenue Commissioners although it was intended that textiles of that description should have been subject to the duty.
Is it not true that the Revenue Commissioners have, under the Finance Act, ample power to refuse to pass any commodity as something which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, it is not truly described? I am aware that the backs of certain kinds of cloths can be dressed in order to give them the appearance of flannelette, but is it not perfectly possible for the Revenue Commissioners, within their powers, arbitrarily to differentiate between these types of cloths and those cloths which are genuinely described as flannelettes? Can the fact, that these cloths have been imported free of duty, be taken as any excuse or justification for imposing a revenue duty of 3d. per yard on flannelette which is used exclusively by the poorer section of the community?
The answer to all the Deputy's questions is in the negative.