Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 7 Dec 1950

Vol. 123 No. 12

Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Import Licences for Egg-box Shooks.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if he will state whether he had any consultations with affected interests, including the Minister for Agriculture, before deciding to grant duty-free import licences for egg-box shooks and, if not, why not; and, further, if he will state the number of workers likely to be deprived of their employment by his decision.

As the facts of the case were sufficiently clear, it was not necessary to hold consultations with affected interests. The Minister for Agriculture was, however, consulted. I am not prepared to accept the implication contained in the second part of the question that workers are likely to be deprived of their employment by the decision.

As the present Government put a tariff of 50 per cent. on the importation of these boxes in 1948 and encouraged many people to buy machinery and invest money in this business, do they think it is fair to withdraw the tariff without warning and without consulting the people concerned, and thereby putting hundreds of workers out of employment?

The tariff has not been withdrawn.

Is it not the same thing? Is it not a fact that the Minister for Industry and Commerce issued a circular stating that, at the request of the Minister for Agriculture, he is prepared to give duty-free licences for the importation of these egg-boxes and, in the circumstances, is it not inevitable that the firms which went into this business following the imposition of the protective duty in 1948 will have to cease production?

There is no question of firms ceasing production. Facilities are given in certain cases for the importation duty-free of egg-boxes.

Was there not a circular sent out saying that duty-free licences would be given on application in all cases where eggs were intended for export?

For export.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary meet the representatives of the firms concerned and hear what they have to say?

I did meet them.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary reply to the query that was sent to him? Is he not aware that these people are considering selling their machinery, and that 100 men will be disemployed in the Cork area alone?

Deputies must realise that the manufacture of egg boxes is only part of the work which timber merchants and sawmills engage in. It it is not the whole of the work. In almost every case it is by far the smallest part of the work. I do not know whether Deputies realise that, unless egg boxes are made available at the minimum price at which it is possible to get them, it will not be possible to continue the egg agreement. Last year the egg agreement was worth £5,500,000 to the egg producers of the country.

Will the Parliamentary Secretary say what will happen to the eggs next year if these people should get out of business and the manutured boxes cannot be imported? Will he give an assurance that, at the request of the Minister for Agriculture, he will not also give duty free licences for the importation of poultry boxes?

I do not think poultry boxes come into it at all.

Does he not realise that the people engaged in the production of these goods having had this evidence of bad faith on the part of the Government, the imposition of a duty in 1948 and the request to go into the business and then the withdrawal of the duty, do not know whether they are not likely to receive the same treatment in respect of the remainder of their business, the making of poultry boxes?

That is only part of the business of egg-box manufacturers, and in every case it is only a small part.

It is the whole business of the people in my constituency. Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that there are a lot of people engaged in this industry?

There are only a few.

It is an important few.

Top
Share