Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 4 Jul 1947

Vol. 107 No. 8

Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Order) Bill, 1947—Second and Subsequent Stages.

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. Deputies are aware that an Order imposing duties of this character requires to be confirmed by legislation within eight months. In January last, an Order was made imposing a customs duty on combs suitable for personal use or adornment. These combs are made by an injection moulding process from imported plastic powders and they are manufactured here on a considerable scale. The firms engaged in the business are, however, temporarily prevented from engaging in an export business. Owing to the operation of the non-discriminatory clause of the Washington Loan Agreement, the British Government has to exclude them from that country. Efforts to engage in an export trade with other countries have also been impeded by Government regulations. The import of these combs has increased considerably of late. It apparently is the practice of the trade to sell cheaply combs which are produced in a defective way by the moulding process. The importation of these slightly defective articles at low rates constitutes a form of unfair competition which is prejudicing the development of the industry here. The Government, therefore, decided to impose an ad valorem duty of 37½ per cent. or 25 per cent. preferential, which, of course, is the effective rate. That duty was imposed in consideration of the fact that the articles to be produced here are to be sold at prices which will not be in excess of the price of similar articles sold in Great Britain and it is intended to require that the same standard of efficiency in production will be maintained.

There are a number of people employed in the manufacture of these goods. It is not easy to give the precise figure because the firms making the goods make other goods as well, but one firm in the vicinity of Dublin employs 140 persons. Since the imposition of the duty, another concern has gone into the business, although I cannot give precise figures as to the employment afforded by that firm. It is located at Nenagh, County Tipperary. I think the industry is one which should be capable of efficient development here. Having regard to the abnormal circumstances which obtained in 1946 the duty was considered justifiable. In fact, imports of combs in 1946 were valued at £64,000 as compared with an imports value of something like £10,000 or £12,000 prewar. Even allowing for increased values since the war, it is obvious that abnormal importations were taking place which justified the Government in making this Order to prevent irreparable damage being done to the industry here.

The Minister's statement, if it is supposed to be a sample of the kind of statements we are to get here, must be regarded as unsatisfactory and when the Minister considers the matter from the point of view of the House, I think he will realise that. I would ask the Minister to review the general manner of the presentation of such matters to the House. We are asked to put a substantial tariff here on manufactured combs. There may be something to be said for that, but nothing that the Minister has said would indicate that there is. He tells us that £64,000 worth of combs were imported into the country last year, but he gave us no information at all as to the value of the production in this country. I could understand that it might be difficult to say exactly how many people are engaged in the manufacture of these goods but an attempt could surely be made to try to indicate what the wages factor in the total cost of combs manufactured here was. The Minister cannot expect, having regard to the high cost of living here and the enormous rise in customs duties which are really not all coming from tobacco, that we can, without very careful examination of these things in relation to the employment they give and the cost to the people generally, agree to impose a comparatively high tariff on imported articles. I should like the Minister to say what was the total value of the production of these articles here during the last three years and whether he can give any indication of the total amount of wages paid annually to workers employed in the manufacture of these goods. These are some of the questions that should normally be asked and an attempt should be made to answer them before we impose substantial tariffs of this particular kind.

May I ask the Minister what class of combs exactly are covered by the Order? Is the duty levied only on combs manufactured of plastic material or is it levied on any type of combs no matter what class of material is used in their manufacture?

On all classes of combs suitable for personal use or adornment.

It would not cover wool combs or industrial equipment.

The case that has been made is that this Order imposes a duty on imported plastic combs which are now extensively manufactured in Britain and elsewhere. It is put to me that there is still an affection for bone combs because the bone comb is a better article and that the effect of it is to impose a tariff on imported bone combs. I am assured by those who import them that they do not mind whether this tariff goes on bone combs or not and that they are prepared to pay the tariff on the imported bone comb. But the point is that those who prefer bone combs to plastic combs will have to pay more for their bone combs because it is not proposed to make these bone combs here. What we are really doing is this—if my information is correct and I think, from an investigation I have made, that it is—we are proposing that those in the future who prefer a bone comb will have to pay extra duty for it. There will be a duty on imported plastic combs, of course, but those who know the difference between bone and plastic combs tell me that if you want to get good value in a comb you should buy a bone comb and that if you want to buy a number of combs in the year you should buy a plastic comb because it does not last any length whereas the bone comb lasts a long time. I do not say that this goes to the roots of our whole economic fabric and I am not raising the matter in any profound way but I would like the Minister to say what is the purpose of imposing a tariff on bone combs when we do not make bone combs unless it be for one purpose only and that is to make the person who says: "A bone comb is better value, and in this matter of toilet I want to get the best value" pay more for a bone comb, when nobody is making bone combs in this country.

What about the curly comb?

We can deal with that later, if necessary. At present we are concerned with bone combs.

I am not quite clear as to what Deputy Mulcahy has in mind in regard to the general manner of presentation of proposals for legislation of this kind. Normally attempts are made to group Bills of this kind so that they come to the Dáil as a series of measures implementing Government policy in regard to industrial development which leads to a general discussion. At the present time there are very few alterations in duty being made and, as the Deputy knows, the great majority of the duties which operated pre-war are suspended. I am anxious to give the House as much information as possible. It will be appreciated, however, that in a case of this kind it is difficult to give the precise details Deputy Mulcahy is seeking. These combs are made by firms which are engaged in other forms of production as well. Before the war none of these goods were made in this country. When imports ceased during the war a number of firms went into the business of manufacturing these combs, using, in the main, home-produced casing as the raw material. The casing comb was not a satisfactory product but it was the only type of comb that could be produced here during the war. With the conclusion of the war the firms which had entered the business installed plant and made arrangements to produce these combs by the injection moulding process using plastic powders of various kinds and thereby producing a product which is quite satisfactory and completely competitive in price with products of a similar kind produced elsewhere. It is true that some bone combs are used. They are very much dearer in price than the type of products now being made here.

Definitely.

These plastic combs are only a fraction of the cost of combs produced from bone. I know of no reason why combs from bone should not be produced here, but they are not. I think it would be impossible to segregate one from the other in a simple form which would permit of administration of this duty by customs officers. That is a problem we frequently come up against in the administration of customs duties. One must have a definition of the product which is so clear that the customs officers administering the duty cannot err in distinguishing the product from other products of a like kind. It would be possible to grant licences for the free importation of bone combs but I should think that the total quantity coming in is very, very small and that the operation of a licence provision would cause a great deal of administrative difficulty. I will, however, certainly look into that matter. I think the ideal solution would be to get these firms which are making plastic combs to undertake the manufacture of bone combs as well.

I could not tell Deputy Mulcahy, precisely, the wages paid in the manufacture of these goods or the number of people employed. In the first place that information would not be available through the ordinary census of industrial production because the firms engaged in the manufacture of these goods would not be asked to segregate their costs as between these articles and others manufactured by them. It will, however, I am sure, be appreciated by the Deputy that concerns making a range of articles are dependent for the success of their whole enterprise on the adequacy of their total sales and that the abandonment of this particular project might also jeopardise the economy of their concerns as a whole. It is fair, therefore, to assume that the employment given in these concerns as a whole in all their activities is bound up with the development of this particular activity by them.

I should like to remove any misapprehension as regards the payment of customs duties at the present time. I want to emphasise that very few protective duties of the ordinary kind are at present in operation. The rise in the total yield from customs duties is mainly attributable to tobacco which, I think, produces more than four-fifths of the total yield and, as to the balance, it is due to increased imports of petrol, wines, spirits and other commodities of that kind which are taxable for revenue purposes only. The total yield of income from other duties which are in operation at the present time is quite small. It is intended to maintain that position until a buyer's market has reappeared in respect of particular goods. As soon as it is obvious that adequate supplies are available to introduce the element of competition in trade we will have to consider the possible reaction of excessive importations upon the manufacturers of these goods here. That situation is beginning to appear in respect of some commodities, but only in respect of a few. It is, I think, to be expected that it will be a substantial period of time yet before any need will arise for a general reimposition of customs duties. In some cases it may be practicable to modify the scope of the duties without adverse effects. There are, however, a number of industries of this kind which were begun during the war because of the inability to obtain the goods during the war, and I think that those who entered them should be given every encouragement now to install the plant and manufacturing processes they require for the purpose of continuing in an efficient and economical way in the business into which they entered during the period of wartime scarcity.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed: To take the Committee and subsequent stages to-day.
SECTION 1.
Question proposed: "That Section I stand part of the Bill."

On Section 1 I would like to put this point to the Minister. I think the sensible way of getting over the difficulty that would be caused by the imposition of a duty on imported bone combs would be to go to the manufacturers of the combs here and to say: "Look here, we want to protect you from unfair competition from outside. The nation is standing a tariff to your industry, but if it is going to do that it will expect you to make some substantial contribution towards supplying our needs.

This tariff is on the assumption that you are going to continue the manufacture of bone combs".

I think these firms should endeavour to produce the full range of products.

Until such time as they do that, the Minister would not find it difficult to arrange that anybody— and the obligation is on the importer—who wants to import genuine bone combs or get a licence to do so, would have to prove that they were bone combs and, having examined both, I do not think there should be any difficulty in ascertaining the difference. However, I will leave the point to the Minister.

I will look into it.

In the meantime, the firms making the plastic combs might make bone combs as well and start as soon as they wish.

It does not inspire confidence when we are told here that either the draftsman's office or the Civil Service Department dealing with this cannot describe the difference between a bone comb and a plastic comb.

That is not quite the difficulty. The difficulty arises generally from the Revenue Commissioners, indicating the problems they might experience in their administration in effectively distinguishing them.

There are two difficulties—one in describing the article and another in identifying the article. It does not inspire confidence if we are told that the article cannot be described and also that we cannot depend on the customs officials to identify the articles and distinguish them. To have it admitted officially that the users of a particular class of article have to pay 25 per cent. more, because administrative convenience or ability cannot provide a solution of these difficulties, is not very convincing. There ought to be a different type of presentation. I do not want to do away with the machinery of the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act, but I do say that, at the earliest possible moment, a statement should be made which will give all the relevant facts. If part of the reason for imposing a duty is that it is desired to develop the industry or give people an opportunity to get in machinery for laying the foundations of an industry, that should be stated frankly and fully. There ought to be a formula for the presentation of these matters to the House, under which information would be given in a systematic way.

Has there been consultation between the Minister and the Irish manufacturers in this connection? I cannot claim to have any technical knowledge in the matter, but it seems to me that the manufacture of bone combs would be somewhat different from that of plastics.

Certainly.

You might have a company which might not be interested in plastics but would be interested in the other type of product. You might have a separate company altogether. We should welcome this Bill as an encouragement of the bone product, if necessary. As an agricultural country, we ought to be rich in bones and there ought to be no reason why the manufacture of articles out of bone, in addition to combs, should not be undertaken by some firm here. I do not expect that such a manufacturer would seek to deprive us politicians of our living by using up the various bones of contention. It would be desirable to develop not only the manufacture of combs but of other articles.

With reference to Deputy Cogan's point, there is no restriction on anybody entering into this business and any firm engaged in any cognate industry would be free to go into the manufacture of combs of any kind—not merely the firms at present engaged in manufacturing combs.

Ordinarily, I would agree with Deputy Mulcahy that it is desirable to give certain items of specific information concerning firms which are benefiting by proposals for protective duties. Sometimes, there may be difficulty, on account of the reluctance there is to disclose the affairs of an individual firm or where the activity concerned is only part of a wider range in which a number of firms engage. The difficulty of enforcing customs duties arises from the fact—to which, perhaps, Deputy Mulcahy did not fully advert—that the test of the difference between one product and another is often not practicable without damaging the article in some way. I came across that difficulty quite recently in relation to textiles. The Revenue Commissioners said the only possible way of distinguishing one particular textile from another was to tear it or to treat it with acid or in some such way as that, and clearly that was not practicable. The difference must be so clear that it can be distinguished by the customs authorities without subjecting the article to tests of that kind.

It is very hard when you find that people have to pay rather substantial sums in view of the varying cost of these articles.

I hope the Minister will have the point I made examined.

Question put and agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment, received for final consideration, and passed.

This is a Money Bill within the meaning of Article 22 of the Constitution. Seanad Éireann will be notified accordingly.

Top
Share