I move the Second Reading of this Bill, the purpose of which is to confirm the Orders set out and described in the Schedule.
Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Orders) (No. 2) Bill, 1939—Second Stage.
I wish to make a few remarks on this Bill. Although my remarks will be more or less confined to the duty on wall-paper, they will still have a certain bearing on some of the other duties, and I should like if the Minister could at this stage give us some expression of opinion as to how far circumstances have altered cases. The public are sometimes very much puzzled as to how it is that the Government are contending that they have put a number of people into gainful employment, when the unemployment figures are always rising. I should like to suggest that, in regard to this particular duty, for every person who has been put into gainful employment two or three have been put out owing to the circumstances under which this industry at present operates. Wall-paper is one of the constituent materials of the decorating trade. For every £5 or £6 spent on wallpaper, probably anything from £30 to £40 is spent on decoration. Decoration may be done in a number of ways. A number of high-class tradesmen may be employed to do a satisfactory work, which would probably cost a substantial sum of money and give a substantial amount of employment, and probably the most apparent material in that work is the wallpaper. It may also be argued that the work can be done very much cheaper. People are in the habit of using a distemper brush to distemper the wallpaper of a room, making a very satisfactory, transitory, cheap job. Most of the Deputies of this House will probably be looking for a meal to-morrow morning, but decoration is not like that; it does not require to be done at certain stages, and it can very easily be postponed. If people do not get what they want, they merely postpone the decoration and the employment until a more convenient season.
It is no use having a Minister for Supplies if there are no goods to distribute. If many of the goods required here were not subject to prohibitive tariffs, probably adequate supplies would be in the country. At a later stage, no matter what artifices the Minister for Supplies may use, they will not be able to procure articles from other sources of supply. I suggest that the Government will have to take their courage in their hands and come to an early decision on the question of wallpaper, or else they will probably have to do without supplies for the duration of the war.
The present position here is that the Irish manufacturers are behind in supplying requirements, and there is a prohibitive tariff on imported wall-paper. I will admit that this is an extreme case, but a piece of border, 36 over, costing 4/-, might have a duty of 36/- imposed on it. That is an extreme case, but it runs down from that to probably 100 per cent. and 200 per cent. In the existing circumstances, the Minister ought to be doubly careful that supplies are available, and that the public, who are the people to be satisfied ultimately, are getting a square deal.
It is rather difficult to make any suggestion as to what ought to be done, because the manufacturers apparently do not speak with one voice. Some of them have stated that they want the production of all the wallpaper that is used in this country in order to make an economic unit of the factory. That is one contention. In a recent interview the company said that if papers were to be supplied from stock, they would require twice the present equipment and machinery. On another occasion, and to a merchant who is chiefly interested in the cheaper end of the wallpaper, they said that they were losing money on the cheap end.
It is rather hard to reconcile all those statements as to what ought to be done, but here are some facts. This company is now over 300,000 pieces of paper behind in delivery. Remember, that is after the Government urged that super stocks ought to be held. Earlier this year I suggested that if stocks in certain cases were to be increased, our muzzles would have to be taken off. This company has unexecuted orders 12 months old. Is it fair that small traders throughout the country should have two increases put on them in connection with stuff that is 12 months on order?
The practice of manufacturing small lots of wallpaper has resulted in the following case, which is, admittedly, an extreme case, but still it can be proved. You could walk into a merchant's stock room and say: "I want eight pieces of paper of that particular pattern in your book." He would say: "I have not got them.""But," you reply, "you have 40 pieces of it in your rack?""Yes," he says, "but they consist of seven or eight different shades, and I cannot pick out eight pieces." Is that fair? A recent order given for 39 different patterns resulted in seven being delivered from stock by the manufacturer. The other 32 were out of stock.
The Minister will be perfectly aware that small deliveries at frequent intervals cost more money in carriage, bookkeeping, and in manufacture. I suggest that piecemeal delivery, delivery of parts of orders, has resulted in fantastic costs and a sullen, resentful public, and remember, that it is on the people the ultimate success of the venture will rest. There is a certain amount of courage required. There is a French proverb that you have to be cruel to be kind. Are the Government going to take their courage in their hands and say that circumstances alter cases, that there is a war on, that they cannot risk supplies disappearing altogether, and that some provision must be made to carry on this industry? I do not know how the stocks have been depleted, but I suggest that they are not half what they were a year ago. I am sure they would be four times greater if there had not been a prohibitive tariff. That is so much for the manufacturing end.
There is another section to be dealt with, the section which concerns the merchant and the decorator, or the consumer, because the decorator and the consumer are linked together. Some years ago the wallpaper trade had access to probably 12,000 different designs of wallpaper in any one year. I will not contend for a moment that those were sent out to the public. Various merchants made selections from particular manufacturers and they sent out books. Those books would contain anything from 500 to 600 pieces of paper. There was a number of merchants in Ireland and in England who sent wallpaper books into this country. If there was a fractious customer, there were the manufacturers' books which he could be shown, and perhaps if a particular colour matched a special delivery could be obtained from the manufacturer. Those all added together made a selection of about 12,000.
There are two classes of trade done in the wallpaper industry. One is the wallpaper pattern book end. Pieces of wallpapers are cut up and made into pattern books which are sent to various decorators. The decorator brings the pattern books around to his customer and a selection is made. There is another class of goods in which there are no patterns cut up; they are what they call the shop grades, and they are something like the cheaper varieties in the wallpaper pattern books. They are sold to the shops direct and, possibly, to small decorators or to people who hang the paper themselves.
When this company started here they felt that to ask them to produce 12,000 patterns was a joke. They said they would produce 500. That was roughly, 250 for the pattern book, and 250 for the shop grades. That, from a critical customer's point of view, was an entirely inadequate range. Be that as it may, the trouble has been that those 500—250 in each class—are not available. At any one time, one-third to one-half of those papers are out of stock. They are not in the merchants' stock-rooms. The consequence is that no order can be executed with any certainty by a decorator or no promise of delivery can be made to his customer without actually going to a stock-room of a supplier and taking that paper away.
I would like to suggest that that is a most unsatisfactory position. The merchants have paid for cutting up patterns. They have sent them out in good faith to the public, and the half of those patterns are never available. In the autumn of last year, when the new season's pattern books were being prepared, promises were made of correct delivery. The books were no sooner made up than the company entered into a dispute with the Minister's Department about certain licences. I will not go into which of them was correct but, anyway, that range disappeared. Later on, there was a difficulty about varnished goods, and the merchants were told to make their own arrangements for delivery, but, having sent out patterns supplied by one manufacturer it was very hard to replace them with those of another manufacturer.
I would like to suggest to the Minister that that position requires looking into. Irish industries ultimately depend on the goodwill of the Irish buying public and, if that is to be retained, the Irish public require a certain amount of fair play and consideration. I suggest that the public have got no consideration in this case. I pass to another aspect. How long are the Government going to carry concerns that they have financed? Probably, when Irish industries had to start the Government may or may not have been correct in underwriting those issues.
The Deputy is going outside the scope of this measure, on which discussion is confined to the actual Orders for which confirmation is sought. The question being raised by the Deputy now is one of very wide scope.
I am raising the question of the capital that is involved in these industries.
The question of the capitalisation of those industries does not arise.
Whether the duties should be confirmed is, I take it, under discussion at the present moment and the policy that the Government ought to pursue in connection with the wall-paper industry is a matter upon which I would like an expression of opinion from the Government.
I have no objection to the Deputy asking a question. He surely realises where this debate would lead if the policy regarding every factory or industry concerned in this measure were to be debated.
I think there are 18 different industries and, subject to your ruling, I wish to ask the Minister at what stage they will let go of the capital. A Chinn Chomhairle, I do not know to what extent you consider that is an unreasonable request.
No further than that.
No further than that? Very well. I will not proceed to enlarge on that.
It would be going outside the scope of this. This is really a formal matter dealing with these specific duties only.
On what occasion or under what head would you suggest that the capital involved in these companies and held by the Government would be a proper subject for debate?
Though that is not a question for the Ceann Comhairle, I can safely state that it would be relevant on the Estimate for the Minister's Department.
I see. Well, I suppose the Minister, between now and then, can consider how far he is carrying dud assets and when he is going to let them drop.
The Deputy has got a dozen words outside the scope of debate.
Very well. I know I have raised a very large subject, but it requires very earnest consideration by the Minister, and a great deal hangs on it.
I regret to have to confirm what has been expressed by Deputy Dockrell. On almost every occasion that I make a visit to my constituency I receive representations in connection with complaints of decorators, house-painters. They complain of a lack of variety of pattern. As far as they are themselves concerned they would not care if there were only one pattern, but they have to deal with a public which insists upon a certain variety, and whose wishes they have to meet in connection with any work that they undertake. There were complaints of faulty goods, of a difficult shade in certain papers which their customers resented, and there was the same sort of complaint as Deputy Dockrell has raised regarding duty charged on a certain measurement of paper. It appears that borders come in in one piece, and that they are then cut, and the duty is charged on the cut portion. In ordinary paper a piece has a depth of two feet, or two feet six inches. The border comes in in the same measurement, but it is cut, and if there is a depth of six inches in the border after it is cut it means that they have to pay five times the duty. They consider that that is unreasonable. Their real case amounts to this, that the general run of wallpaper that is selected would bear a percentage—I am speaking from recollection—of somewhere between 20 and 40 per cent. of the cost of the work; and if the customer is displeased either with the variety or number of the patterns produced the work may not be undertaken. In a case of that sort it means that while this duty is responsible for the keeping up of the factory making wallpaper, they are providing only one-fifth of the available employment that is given in connection with decoration generally.
There was also a complaint regarding certain patterns which the firm had been unable to obtain, and they requested the company to make inquiries amongst the agents or merchants as to whether any of the particular type were in stock. Eventually these were run to earth, but the company would not undertake to have them sent on. They simply gave the name of the firms which had them in stock, and by the time the decorator was able to get in touch with the two firms in question half the goods had been sold and the job was lost. What I am really concerned about in connection with this imposition of duties is a matter as to which I have handed in an amendment.
The Chair has been handed an amendment from the Deputy for the Committee Stage. It relates to reference No. 3.
Yes. It deals with sutures and ligatures. I do not know whether I should mention it now.
I would be glad if the Deputy would mention it now.
This particular Statutory Order is No. 187. It imposes a customs duty on "all sterilised surgical sutures or ligatures which are not of catgut, that is to say, cord made from the dried intestines of any animal or of metal wire, and are imported on or after the 24th day of May, 1939". This commodity is used in surgical operations. Special precautions have to be taken in connection with its selection and manufacture. Perhaps I would put the matter much more briefly before the House if I read an advertisement in connection with it without mentioning names: "——'s Ligatures and Sutures are made to satisfy the most exacting surgical standards. More than that, they are made to fully solve the problems which the use of sutures brings to any and all operative work. Three of the most vital problems and ——'s Laboratories' answers are illustrated here." Then, under the heading of Problem 1—Sterility—there is a picture given of an operator in front of a machine wearing a cap and a mask covering his nose and mouth, and the advertisement says: "——'s Ligatures and Sutures are sterilised by heat, and heat alone at a temperature well in excess of accepted standards. Handled only in aseptic rooms, flame-sealed tubes, their sterility is protected by every known ‘safeguard'." As to "Problem 2—Uniformity"—it says: "——'s Ligatures and Sutures are made from the intestines of young, range-fed lambs only, to assure uniformity at the very outset of processing. Their uniformity of strength, pliability and gauge is assured by a series of the most modern processes and controls." Then as to "Problem 3—Less Trauma"—it says: "——'s Sutures on Non-Traumatic Eyeless Needles reduce surgical trauma to a minimum, make possible more accurate approximation of sutured surface, answer an operative need of long standing."
My information is that surgeons will not use any of these products in connection with surgical operations, unless they are sure that they are absolutely perfect. It is a serious matter for surgeons, and it is probably more serious for the patient in the last resort. But the surgical profession do not take any risk in regard to the use of these matters. They are provided by firms which are a long time in existence. I have no brief for them, and I do not know where they are. At one time their manufacture was undertaken in Great Britain on a large scale. So much so that one London surgeon had a fee of something like two thousand guineas from his hospital each year in order to ensure that the quality, suitability, and freedom from any taint were guaranteed by the manufacturer.
I have made inquiries regarding the particular firm which is employed in their manufacture here, and I find that the name is given as, "International Sutures, Ltd., Dublin, Éire". It gives the name of a solicitor, and then the name of another Irish gentleman. It also gives the names of two bank managers, and says that they have 49 shares each in the company. Then it gives the name of a director, described as a chemist of British nationality. The capital, I understand, is £100.
We may undertake to help industry in every way that we can, and we are prepared to put up with certain drawbacks with regard to quality, supply, finish, or price. But my submission is that, in connection with a matter of this sort, no such risk should be undertaken. It is too serious. It ought not to be done without at least consultation with well-known Dublin practitioners in order to ascertain their views and opinions regarding the whole procedure of manufacture. If the purpose of this particular order is merely to collect duty, I think it is unfair to hospitals that that should be done. The average annual importations amount to something like £3,000. There is nothing for the promoters, or for the company, or for those employed, from such a small sum. There are certain activities from which this country could much better benefit, by having such work undertaken by others, than by starting small things such as this. It is possible, if a small mistake were made, that a patient might get some disease or might die. It might also mean a further operation after one had taken place. Generally, from what I have been told by any medical men to whom I spoke on the subject, they are not satisfied with this, and I do not think they will undertake to use it. On the Committee Stage I propose to move that this duty be omitted from the list of impositions.
In regard to Deputy Cosgrave's amendment, perhaps I had better put before the House one or two points before we come to the Committee Stage. I understand that Deputy Dockrell does not propose to put down an amendment as I undertook to look into the point he raised. In fact, I understand that a meeting has been arranged between the wall paper merchants on the one hand and the wall paper manufacturers on the other hand. I do not know whether decisions will be arrived at at the conference which will be satisfactory to both parties, but I appreciate the point which Deputy Dockrell has made, and I will endeavour to enforce, to some extent, that point of view on those who are engaged in manufacture and are protected by tariffs.
Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take the Committee Stage now.