In regard to item 1 of the Schedule, I think I am right in saying that this applies to cotton sheetings?
Committee on Finance. - Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Orders) Bill, 1938—Committee and Final Stages.
Sections 1 and 2 put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Schedule as set out be the Schedule to the Bill."
Yes.
I think I am also right in saying that there is no loom in the country which will weave sheetings wider than 90 inches. There is a certain limited demand for sheetings of a greater width than 90 inches. There is that demand I think for widths up to 140 inches or possibly more. Those sheetings are always admitted under licence. I do not want to suggest that there is any difficulty about that. There is not; we can always get a licence to import them, but I would ask the Minister to consider whether this order could not be revised so as to permit those wide sheetings to come in free, without the necessity for applying for a licence. Deputy Dockrell mentioned the other day that he could get licences within a fortnight. He is more fortunate than we are; we usually find that it takes at least three weeks. I admit that a well organised business should place its orders in time, so that the three weeks' delay would not make any difference, but there are occasions when emergency arises, and it is very awkward if you cannot import. I would ask the Minister to consider whether it is possible to amend the order accordingly.
I should like very much to do that if it were practicable, but as the Deputy is no doubt aware there is no duty in operation here which has caused more difficulty than this one. Every attempt to make it water-tight proved unsuccessful. Various methods of getting round the duty were not merely discovered by individual importers, but were in fact announced in trade journals in other countries. "How to Evade the Free State Duty" was the heading to articles which appeared in certain trade journals. During the whole of last year, in conjunction with persons with expert knowledge of the business, a new series of definitions, exemptions and exceptions was prepared, which we hope will prove to be water-tight. If we found it necessary to exclude from the scope of the duty certain sheetings of a width not made here it would probably open some door which it was not intended to open. However, I will have the matter examined. It may be possible to deal with such sheetings by an amendment to the duty. If not, of course, the only alternative is to try and make the procedure for the granting of licences as formal and expeditious as possible. The general intention, however, and the instructions which were given to those who were dealing with the reformation of this duty were that it should apply only to the class of goods to which it was intended to apply, and that all the goods which were not being made here and on the import of which no restrictions were intended should be excluded, but it was not possible to do that. In the specific case of cotton blanketing, for example, there was no method which could be devised to exclude it from the duty, even though it is not made here, and we had to proceed to grant licences. The same may apply to the sheetings to which the Deputy refers, but I will have the matter examined.
Is it the intention of the Minister ultimately to get all linen, cotton and union woven piece goods manufactured in this country? I do not believe it is.
It is — that is, all classes which it is practicable to make here.
But in the meantime the Minister is levying on those products, under this Imposition of Duties Order, a duty of about 40 per cent., or 4d. a yard, whichever is the greater.
I do not think anybody is paying that.
What does the Minister imagine they are doing?
They are getting supplies from concerns here.
Of all the cotton and union piece goods they require? I cannot imagine that the Minister really believes that.
If they are not being supplied here they will have no difficulty in getting a licence to import them free of the duty.
I do not know whether or not the Minister is in constant touch with the trade. Would he tell me where I would get a licence to import? I am supplying the people of Ballaghaderreen and district with those commodities, and so far as I am concerned I am paying 40 per cent. duty on the bulk of the stuff I am selling. I am paying that duty because I cannot get the stuff anywhere else. The country people who come into my shop are being charged 1/- a yard for what I think ought to be sold for 9d. If the Minister can tell me any way in which I can get a licence to import that stuff, free of duty, and pass the benefit on to the consuming public in Ballaghaderreen, I will be very glad to do it, but I know of no means by which I can get it.
I take it that this order covers flannelette. I can get a limited amount of flannelette from the Greenmount and Boyne Linen Company, but I know of no other source of supply in this country. I do not know whether the Greenmount and Boyne Linen Company are making dyed flannelettes. They are making a very limited range of striped flannelettes. In that commodity alone, the imports which you have got to have result in the people being required to pay 1/- a yard for what they ought to be buying for 9d. That means, as I have so often pointed out in this House before, that the country woman and the labourer's wife are going to pay on the three and a half yards of flannelette required to make an under garment or a nightdress, a tax on that article of 10½d., and if you are earning 24/- or even 30/- a week a tax of 10½d. on one garment — on the material required for making one garment — is a very formidable charge. I do not believe for a single moment that the cotton materials required for this country are ever going to be made here because it is obviously unthinkable, considering the immensely wide range of materials manufactured of cotton that are required, that they can ever be produced here. They can produce them in Great Britain because they have got a great international trade and an immense home market, and we get the advantage of that. They can produce them in America for similar reasons, and we get the advantage of that if we buy from American sources of supply. But you cannot get them here without raising the costs to an altogether unreasonable level.
In the case of union piece goods, their sale has practically stopped in this country because no one can afford to buy them. There used to be a limited amount of union piece goods sold here, but they are no longer being sold. I must say that I think a levy of 4d. a yard on the ordinary materials required constitutes an altogether unjustifiable tax on the people.
That is in so far as this tax hits the ordinary consumer. But there is another aspect of it. This Imposition of Duties Order covers the unwoven material normally used by shirt makers for the manufacture of semi-stiff fronts, cuffs and collars for shirts. It is true that, if they import this material to manufacture it into shirts, they can get back from the Revenue Commissioners a rebate on exports in theory, but in practice it is quite impossible. Nobody in this country can manufacture this unwoven material which is the material from which semi-stiff cuffs and collars are normally made, and nobody here wants to manufacture it. There is no danger whatever, if its import is permitted, of its being substituted for any other purpose than that of making semi-stiff collars, shirt fronts and cuffs, and yet the Department of Industry and Commerce steadfastly refuses to give shirt makers in this country a licence to import this material. In doing so they are gravely jeopardising the shirt-making industry. They are injuring it and preventing the shirt makers from getting their fair share of what used to be a valuable export market. The business in this type of shirt is now going to Derry and to the British manufacturers. Why the Minister will not give a licence to import that stuff I cannot imagine, but up to date he has refused to do so.
I have made repeated representations to the Department, not on behalf of one shirt-maker but on behalf of all shirt-makers, asking that that material should be made the subject of a general licence, and I have been refused. I do not know whether the Minister intends to change his mind or not, but so far as the public are concerned, it constitutes, in my opinion, a grave and an unjust tax on the poorer sections of the community. It will never yield any proportionate return in the shape of increased industry in this country, and is so far as it reacts on the shirt-makers it is jeopardising a valuable existing industry in the interests of an industry which, I believe, will never achieve any degree of prosperity. There is no use believing what we want to believe. No sane man in this country believes that the cotton textile industry in this country is ever going to develop into anything of real importance. The cost of developing it is going to be infinitely greater than any benefit that we can confer on it. We are set here right opposite the greatest cotton manufacturing country in the world by far. We are depending on that country to purchase all our agricultural produce and we have got to buy something from that country if we are to get paid for the things we sell them. Why on earth we do not buy from that country the commodities that they are best fitted to send us, and concentrate our industrial activities on those branches of industry in which they are not the primary leaders, God only knows. Why we should invite Athlone to go into competition with Manchester nobody knows. It is the very acme of insanity.
As certain as we are sitting here, no matter what tariff you put on the cotton industry, it is never going to develop in this country, and you can go on piling on costs until such time as the people find some other substitute and chuck buying the stuff altogether. Meanwhile, great inconvenience is being caused as well as great hardship on poor people, while a well-established industry that could get an increasing share of foreign trade, such as the shirt industry, is being embarrassed by the Government's refusal to allow them to get their raw materials, and all because there is some kind of a cotton textile plan in the Minister's mind. What the textile company in Athlone is producing at the present time I do not know. I believe it is devoting itself principally to materials for the manufacture of towels and intends to extend into other branches of trade, but it is absurd to suggest that it should go into competition with Manchester.
Take the case of calico, of which we sell very great quantities in the West of Ireland. You can buy from Manchester a 4? cloth, a very substantial cloth that serves a multitude of purposes in the ordinary day-to-day life of our people. You cannot get that cloth at all from any Irish source of supply. Take sixpenny long cloth, of which thousands of yards are sold every day in the West of Ireland. That cloth is not being produced in this country at all. If the people are to buy the equivalent of it, it will cost them 8d. That may sound a trivial matter here, but it is not a trivial matter in the West of Ireland, where the people have not got too much money to throw about. It is impossible for any person in this House to go through the drapery trade in detail. The Minister ought to have done it. I do not believe he has, but anybody who is handling the drapery trade standing behind his counter, as I have stood behind my counter, must feel that he is acting as a tax-gatherer for the Government on every yard of stuff that he sells. It is becoming abundantly clear that the burden which is being placed on the poorer sections of the community is out of all proportion to any advantage that can possibly accrue by attempting to establish the cotton-weaving industry in this country.
I do not think that we should serve any useful purpose by discussing whether it is possible to establish a cotton-weaving industry in this country or not. Deputy Dillon says that it will never succeed. I say that there is no reason on earth why it should not succeed. It was only an accident which prevented the big development of cotton spinning and weaving which took place in the last century in Great Britain taking place in this country. Anybody familiar with economic history is aware of that. A mere chance prevented that development taking place here.
So far as flannelette is concerned, the 4d. duty does not apply to it. It applies only to cloths for dungarees, bed sheets, bed-ticking and to terry cloths.
What about the 40 per cent?
It applies to flannelette. Flannelette is being manufactured by the Boyne Company and will shortly be manufactured also at Athlone. Licences are being issued in respect of certain classes of towelling and cotton twills and sheetings, as Deputy Benson mentioned. There is no reason whatever why this industry should not prove to be one of the most successful in the country. It is one for which the country is particularly adapted. Undoubtedly, some inconvenience and, perhaps, difficulty will be occasioned at this period. This is the transition stage. We are changing over from dependency on imports to home manufactured goods and it is inevitable, no matter how carefully we try to adjust conditions to meet requirements, that some inconvenience will be caused, but that inconvenience will become substantially less in future as our manufacture increases in volume.
What about the stuff for the shirt-makers?
I am not in a position to discuss that.
Will the Minister look into it? I have been making representations to the Department about it for the past two years.
If the Deputy had mentioned it yesterday, I should have come here armed with all the relevant material.
I mentioned it twice before here.
I am not a walking encyclopædia.
I understood the Minister was Minister for Industry and Commerce. This is an important matter for the shirt-makers. I now pass to Order No. 328, which relates to enamelled hollow ware. My information is that a heavy duty has been placed upon all these commodities, which are of daily use, in order to protect what is described as a new Irish industry. We are told that the vitreous enamelled hollow ware being supplied from home sources is of Irish manufacture, the fact being that all hollow ware is brought into the country and the enamel applied to it here. It is not manufactured in this country at all. They bring in the blanks, spray the enamel on them and go through whatever process is customary in applying enamel to such vessels. Then, they sell these goods as Irish manufacture. That is all the manufacture there is about it. I am told that the prices charged by the enamellers in this country are out of all proportion to the prices at which this merchandise can be purchased from abroad. I put it to the Minister that some steps ought to be taken to investigate the terms under which these people are operating. Furthermore, I think it is in connection with this business I have heard it suggested that the producers of vitreous enamelware in Ireland are selling the stuff to the chain stores, like Woolworths, at prices that make it possible for these chain stores to offer the articles retailed as cheap as, or cheaper than, the wholesalers can buy them. If you give a virtual monopoly to one firm in the supply of articles of this kind, then, I think it becomes the duty of the Minister to see that this firm carries on its business on reasonable lines and gives everybody a chance to do business in a normal way. It is not fair that bona fide retailers up and down the country should be placed in a position in which they cannot get supplies of this enamelled hollow ware on competitive terms with the chain stores. A number of shops in the city and throughout the country deal in this merchandise and it is not reasonable that they should be forced into a position in which the article they have to price at 1/- is obtainable in Woolworths for 9d. My information is that it is not a question of Woolworths or the chain stores taking a narrow margin of profit and the private trader trying to get an exorbitant price. I understand that they are selling this stuff at a price lower than the factory is quoting the wholesalers.
Furthermore, I cannot say of this firm what I was able to say of Cement, Limited. I was glad to be able to say that the product of Cement, Limited, was good. I cannot say that for this firm. My information is that this stuff chips and gives really bad wear and is not comparable in quality with what was coming in from foreign sources before this tariff was imposed. I do not know what precautions the Minister takes to check up on the prices and qualities of the product of a firm like this, but my information is that this firm is not trying to live up to its obligation, that it is offering inferior stuff and charging unfair prices for it and that its practice, as between one firm and another to which it gives supplies, is not ethic inasmuch as it is differentiating unfairly between the various customers that go to it. Since it is now the only source to which dealers in this country can turn, it should be made to treat them on an equality and give all of them a fair "do." I do not know to what Order No. 142 applies.
It is merely institutes a licensing provision in respect of the duty upon non-rubber dolls. It does not change the duty.
The Minister will remember that, last year, I raised this question of dolls and pointed out that certain wholesalers who depend very much on the provision of sundries of that kind were gravely embarrassed by the circumstances I then outlined.
And I undertook that I would do this.
The Minister said that if there was no improvement in the situation steps would be taken to rectify it. The difficulty is that the nature of the trade of these merchants is such that if they are to get supplies in time to distribute them to retailers for Christmas they must send in their orders now. They are unlike any other trade in that respect. They cannot wait until autumn to bring forward their supplies and distribute them in the six or eight weeks preceding Christmas. They must lodge their order in the early spring. It is spring no longer. It is summer now. I should be glad to know, and I think they would be glad to know, from the Minister whether, if they apply for licences to import these goods, they will get them. What is the result of the Minister's inquiries into this business? Is he satisfied now that these dealers have a reasonable cause for complaint and that excessive profits were being asked for assembling these Continental dolls which had been coming in here heretofore? If he is satisfied that excessive profits were being charged will he now inform the wholesalers that they are free to place their orders for these cheap toys with the usual sources of supply in the knowledge that when their stuff comes forward they will get licences from the Department or from the Revenue Commissioners to import them free of duty?
So far as the vitreous enamel hollow-ware is concerned, the industry is carried on here in precisely the same manner as in other countries. It is not usual in any country for the firm which does the welding and enamelling also to produce the stampings. They are purchased from firms that specialise in that class of work — foundries that produce this material for sale unenamelled. So far as this company is concerned, they are quite willing to purchase these unenamelled parts from Irish foundries, and we have been making arrangements for some of these parts at least to be produced in due course by existing foundries here. Eventually, I hope that all these unenamelled parts, the raw materials of this company in Tralee, will be produced by other firms within this country. So far as the Tralee firm is concerned, their function is to get these parts, to weld them, enamel them and fire them, and they are doing that work very satisfactorily.
The Deputy asks if the Department takes steps to supervise the work done by firms of this kind in respect of both quality and price. We do. It is inevitable that if there are any serious grounds for complaints, the complaints will, in fact, reach the Department. In relation to this firm, we have had no complaints whatever. In fact, the general impression amongst traders appears to be one of satisfaction with the quality of the goods produced at Tralee, and I am surprised, therefore, that the Deputy should find fault with them, because nobody else made that complaint to the Department. Also, the arrangement as to price entered into with the company, which limits their prices in relation to the prices of similar goods sold ex-factory in Great Britain, has, so far as we have been able to discover, been consistently carried out by them. It was, however, clear from evidence submitted that many British firms were selling these goods here cheaper than they were selling them in Great Britain, apart from the dumping of occasional lots of "seconds," which is a problem in this industry as in the pottery and certain other industries, and on that account it was necessary to review the duty in order to ensure that the firm would be given a reasonable chance of success. It is, I think, going ahead satisfactorily and giving useful employment in County Kerry, and there appears to be no reason whatever why it should not be encouraged in every way to extend its activities.
With regard to the point as to the sale of goods at lower prices to one firm than to another, that is not a matter in which the Department would ordinarily interfere, provided it was not clear that discrimination was being shown. I take it that no discrimination has been shown in this case, but the price varies and the discount increases according to the quantity of goods sold on one order, and a firm which orders a very large quantity of a particular class of goods — a pot or a pan—of one size and shape will be able to get that article supplied at a cheaper wholesale price than a firm which merely orders half a dozen or dozen. On that account firms which are able to place large orders get some advantage over their smaller competitors, but that is a condition of affairs that applies not alone to this industry but to practically every industry, and particularly to those industries where a large order for an article of uniform size and shape can be executed much more cheaply than an order for a small number of the same article of different sizes and shapes.
So far as dolls are concerned, the position is that we now have power to grant licences, and licences are in fact issued to firms on application, on production of the usual evidence required by the Department that the goods required cannot be supplied here. I do not want to go into the general question as to whether the complaint made as to price and quality of some of these toys was well-founded. You would require a judicial commission to get a decision on some of the things, and I do not purport to be a judicial commission in dealing with these matters. My prejudices may lie in one direction or another, but some of the complaints appear to be well-founded and some not, but so far as the trade is concerned, the position was eased by the introduction of the licensing provision, because the main difficulty was not in relation to the quality or price of the articles, but the ability of the firm to supply anything like the quantity required by traders. Now that the licensing provision is there, that difficulty has been overcome, apart from the fact that other firms are now engaged in the production of these articles in addition to the one firm which commenced and on whose behalf the duty was originally imposed. The Gaeltacht Department of the Department of Lands has been responsible for a development in West Mayo which promises to be quite useful and toys of excellent quality are being produced there. I hope the activities of that Department in that regard will be extended.
The Minister has referred to "seconds" in relation to certain commodities covered by these orders. "Seconds" is a trade term and has particular reference to Order No. 139, which is to be confirmed by this Bill. Recently there was an increase in the duty on imported china of 45/- per cwt. and this Bill confirms that increase. That increase has been got on the grounds that Continental china was coming into the country and making it impossible for the Arklow and Carrigaline factories to capture the trade. Does the Minister realise the amount of tax which this order represents on the day to day purchases of the people? I do not know if he is familiar with the ordinary white cup and saucer known to the trade as "sprigged china"? It is an ordinary, common white cup with a gold band around the outside and a gold shamrock in the bottom of the cup. Immense quantities of that stuff came into this country from Stoke, and I should say that seven-eights of what came in was what are known to the trade as "seconds". Now, Stoke-on-Trent "seconds" are, in fact, almost as good as the best the Irish factories produce. That is the plain fact, because anything with the slightest flaw in the glaze — a flaw which the ordinary person would not perceive at all — is rejected in Stoke as "second." The ordinary person looking at one of those cups or saucers would be quite unable to find any flaw at all, but the skilled potter, testing the glaze under his finger or by the reflected light, sees flaws in it which disqualify it from the accepted standard for first-quality china. We got all those at throw-away prices. They were sold to the public in rural Ireland at about 2d. a cup or 3d. a cup and saucer.
Now we are required to buy Arklow cups and saucers of the same type and, in my judgment, of the same quality but technically they are No. 1 quality merchandise from Arklow and we have to pay the same price that we would have paid for No. 1 quality from Stoke-on-Trent. Nobody, however bought No. 1 quality from Stoke-on-Trent formerly. I am not as familiar with the prices of these goods as I am with the prices of many other classes of goods, but I do not think I am over-stating the case when I say that what was available in a keen merchant's establishment at 3d. prior to the imposition of these duties now costs the average country person 6d. To levy a tax of approximately 70 per cent. on the cups and saucers that the people have to use in their own houses seems to me to impose a very heavy burden on them. I have no doubt that the Arklow factory is an enterprising and developing industry, but how much are we prepared to levy on the unfortunate people slaving on the land in order to maintain that industry in Arklow? Everybody in this House knows that many of my friends are actively engaged in the Arklow pottery factory, but the fact that my friends are engaged in that industry is no reason why I should hesitate to criticise that industry any less than any other industry when criticism is necessary. I do not think it reasonable to put an overwhelming tax on the people in order to produce this commodity in Arklow. I think the consumer has some right to consideration.
The Minister on a previous occasion waxed very eloquent because we dared to criticise some industry in which political supporters of this Party were engaged, and he issued a general warning that any supporters of ours who dared to approach him in future for assistance for an industry would have to give him some undertaking that that industry would not be criticised by the Fine Gael Party or he would give them no help. I do not think that is a sound parliamentary practice at all. I do not think that the personal relationships of anybody in this House should deter us from doing our duty or that we should refrain from criticism out of regard for those associated with any industry if we believe that it is uneconomic or that it cannot be maintained except by imposing a prohibitive burden on the people. It is our duty to expose these matters and we shall continue to do so whether or not it disgruntles the Minister.
I do think that there is a case for instituting an inquiry into the comparative prices of the common cup and saucer prior to the imposition of these duties and the price to-day. If the Minister makes that inquiry, I think the result would astonish him. My suggestion is that in order to develop an industry you must have the goodwill of the people behind it. It is quite possible by a patient examination of the special problems of an industry of this kind, to make it a success without imposing an undue burden on anybody because there are plenty of articles manufactured in the Arklow factory, in addition to the common cup and saucer. The Minister could exempt the cup and saucer from these duties and let Arklow have the market for other types of china. If a person wants to buy a flowered tea set or some other fancy article, let him pay the price for that, but you cannot ask our people who drink their tea out of a mug — and when I say a mug I do not mean the metal mug which bears a duty of 45/- per cwt. — to pay this tariff. I am referring to the mug out of which country people usually take their tea and to the common cup and saucer, usually coloured white with a golden shamrock on the bottom of it. Could we not exempt these articles from the duties and let those who want to buy the dearer articles or the fancy articles bear that duty?
The complaint I make against the Minister is that I do not think he ever bothers to investigate that side of the story when an application is made to him for the imposition of a tariff. He simply slaps on the tariff and hopes it will all come out in the washing. It does come out in the washing, but it creates an immense amount of inconvenience in rural Ireland. After all, the unfortunate people who buy the stuff are entitled to some consideration. I would, therefore, suggest to the Minister that he should look into the question of whether the common cup and saucer and the mug could not be exempted from this tariff. The balance of the china trade, whatever it is, could then be left to the Arklow factory to make whatever they can of it.
Would the Deputy accept the Japanese price as the standard?
As what standard?
As the standard to judge.
To judge what?
To judge the price of the Irish articles.
I do not think it expedient to-day to enter into a full discussion of the general tariff policy of the Government.
It has a very direct relation to the pottery situation.
I have been selling china myself for very many years and I do not think I ever bought any china from Japan.
There was a very big increase in the imports from Japan last year.
I do not want to be provocative at all. I do sincerely assure the Minister that, so far as the Japanese stuff is concerned, I am not interested in it. It consisted mainly, I think, of fancy sets of china and anybody who wants to buy that stuff can afford to pay the tariff. If they do not want to pay the tariff, let them do without it. I am talking of the common cup and saucer and the common mug, which came from Stoke-on-Trent. Deputy Moore would be familiar with these. I do not know whether the Minister is, because he is a Dublin man and has lived all his life in Dublin, but if you are visiting a country house you will see these mugs hanging over the top shelf of the dresser. They are regarded as a decoration and they are ordinarily used by the man of the house in taking his tea. These are the things people must have.
Is the Deputy aware that these articles from Stoke are being replaced very rapidly by imports from Japan?
Let me assure Deputy Moore that I am a hardware merchant dealing in these commodities. Many a china mug I have sold to people and many a china mug I have taken tea out of. I know what I am talking about. I do not want to make any short reply to the Deputy. All I ask is that the Minister would look into the matter, have an investigation and, if he discovers the bulk of the stuff came from Stoke-on-Trent, he could exempt it from duty. This cheaper type of china coming from Stoke-on-Trent could be exempted from the duty and the tariff could still operate on sets coming from Japan. If the Minister will look into the matter, he will find that Japan did not supply any considerable quantity of the stuff to which I refer. If he even gave a preference to the Stoke-on-Trent stuff and leave the tariff on the Japanese stuff it would meet the situation.
Both Arklow and Carrigaline are mass-production factories, and they could not be worked economically unless they had a big output. They have installed these Dressler ovens, which must work continuously, so that the important lines for them are the lines for which there is a continuous steady trade. The important lines for them, therefore, are the cheap lines of goods. The whole difficulty is to secure for these firms an output of these cheap lines such as would make their whole operations economic. Arklow certainly is not, and Carrigaline is only to some extent engaged in the production of high-class fancy goods, but if we take away the most important of the bread-and-butter lines of pottery from these concerns, probably we will make the whole thing impossible to carry on. That is why the whole duty is designed to secure to them lines in which there is a steady demand all the year round, where there is a volume in the output, and which are the important lines to maintain for these concerns if they are to be successfully operated.
I am not trying to make false difficulties, but the Minister knows, and many of his colleagues know, that the dresser is the centre of the country kitchen, and there are two articles which adorn the dresser — one is the jug and the other is the mug. People buy these, and they are to the country kitchen what pictures or articles of bric-a-brac are to the suburban home. If the price of these things rises too high, the people simply stop using them; they become luxuries, and they cease to buy them. The Minister is pursuing a chimera if he thinks he can maintain a market for these commodities at the same time as there is a substantial rise in the price of them.
I do not say that the price has been substantially raised. I will say that we have in this country two potteries as well equipped as any in the world. From the point of view of the efficiency of the equipment, I say that there is no pottery in the world able to beat them. If they get the output there is no reason why they cannot get down the price to that at which the same articles can be produced elsewhere.
I am putting the dilemma from my own knowledge. Let the Minister call the hardware and china merchants in and ask them the questions I am raising. Let him get an official of the Department to see the china merchants and put the question to them whether the raising of the price of articles like the common jug, mug, and cup and saucer will not operate substantially to reduce the consumption of these articles. If he is satisfied from his inquiry that that is true, is it not clear that we are getting into a vicious circle? We are saying that Arklow and Carrigaline cannot get on if they do not get the volume, but we are allowing the prices to rise to a point which is going to destroy the whole demand. It does not matter to Stoke whether we buy from them or not, but it may mean the destruction of factories such as Arklow and Carrigaline if you dry up the bulk of the demand. Would it not be much better to examine the whole question and see if you can get a bulk demand in the form of teapots or other articles of everyday use instead of just hoping that if you put sufficient tariff on you will drive the available trade into Arklow and Carrigaline? You are in serious danger of drying up the demand altogether, and then you will hurt people and fail in your purpose of making Arklow and Carrigaline a success. I can assure the Minister that these matters are worthy of investigation.
Question put and agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
When is it proposed to take the Report Stage?
If there is no objection, it is proposed to complete the Bill now. The Bill must be through before the 6th August and, in order to give the Seanad time to consider it, I am anxious to get it through if possible.
We have no objection to accommodating the Minister.
Bill received for final consideration and passed.
The Ceann Comhairle certifies that this is a Money Bill within the meaning of Article 22 of the Constitution.