Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 21 Feb 1951

Vol. 124 No. 3

Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Orders) Bill, 1951—Second and Subsequent Stages.

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Cosgrave)

I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The Orders which the Bill confirms relate to five commodities which are in common use. These commodities are drinking glasses, peas, collapsible metal containers for packing tooth paste and similar items, distilled water which is used for medicinal purposes in dissolving drugs such as penicillin, morphia and streptomycin. All the industries which the Bill is designed to protect provide substantial employment in areas outside Dublin.

The Order dealing with glasses refers to the re-establishment of a factory for the production of glass at Water ford. I am sure Deputies will welcome the re-establishment of the glass industry there. A new factory is at present in course of construction on another site, and it is expected that the new factory will be completed before the end of the year.

The duty on peas is in substitution for an earlier duty and is, in fact, a duty made by the Minister for Agriculture which is confirmed by this Order.

The manufacture of collapsible metal containers has been carried on for some considerable time at Nenagh. This industry was originally protected by a duty on tin containers and prior to the last war "squeeze-out" tubes were made largely of tin.

The duty in respect of distilled water applies to a new industry which was recently established. Distilled water is used in connection with a number of medicinal preparations. The industry, in this case, is in Roscrea, County Tipperary.

The duty on peas applies to peas grown anywhere, but in all the other cases the industries are located outside Dublin.

Mr. Childers

Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House the circumstances under which the Minister for Agriculture recommends the duty on peas—I understand that these are fresh peas—seeing that he has made a considerable contribution towards the partial ruin of the tomato industry? Can the Parliamentary Secretary inform us of the circumstances under which fresh peas are protected but tomatoes are not? What are the separate principles?

Mr. Kissane

I was going to ask the very same question. I was going to ask about the policy of the Government in discouraging the tomato industry in the Gaeltacht. Everybody knows that not merely did the Government discourage the building of glasshouses in the Gaeltacht for the purpose of growing tomatoes but that they brought about a position whereby tomatoes were dumped in this country and that there was insufficient or maybe no protection at all for the native industry.

The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that some of these industries are being established outside Dublin. That, in itself, is welcome. We all like to see the native industries spread over the country as much as possible. I remember that, when we were discussing the Industrial Development Authority which was set up by the Government some time ago, I referred to the advisability of starting industries in the Gaeltacht where the population is diminishing day by day. At that time the Minister for Industry and Commerce gave me and the House to understand that the Industrial Development Authority were fully aware of the necessity of starting industries in the Gaeltacht. One gathered from the way he spoke that he and his Department were sympathetic towards the idea. However, I am afraid very little progress has been made in that direction since then.

An Ceann Comhairle

That matter would not come under this Bill.

Mr. Kissane

I do not propose to follow that line.

Mr. Cogan

Will the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House what special considerations determined the establishment of this glass factory in Waterford? Are there some special advantages there? I understand that a preliminary move was made to have that factory established in Baltinglass. I do not know if the Parliamentary Secretary was aware of that. However, it is for that reason that I now ask if there were some special advantages to be had by locating the factory in Waterford.

Mr. Cosgrave

The questions asked by Deputies Childers and Kissane could more appropriately be addressed to the Minister for Agriculture. I do not think they are relevant to this Bill which confirms existing Orders.

I understand there is a duty on imported tomatoes. With regard to peas, the duty pre-war was at the rate of a halfpenny per pound. That duty was a revenue duty and it was imposed in 1935. It did not apply to peas of United Kingdom or Canadian origin. Since the war, and during it, the production of peas in this country was affected by imports and, in order to protect the farmers who grew peas and who found them a valuable cash crop, the Minister for Agriculture raised the duty from a halfpenny per pound to twopence per pound. The consumption of dried peas is estimated at about 3,000 tons per annum. In recent years the figures have varied somewhat. Production is roughly 50 per cent. of the demand. In 1950 there were roughly 1,000 acres and, in order to provide a market or to prevent farmers having to face competition from abroad, it was considered necessary to raise the duty. It is no longer a revenue duty, which the former duty was, but it is considered that the position arising from changed circumstances requires that the duty be raised from a halfpenny to twopence.

In the case of the establishment of the glass factory at Waterford, I should correct the impression that Deputy Cogan has that the Minister or the Department in some way establishes a factory in a particular locality. The decision to establish this factory was taken by the proprietors of the concern, and I assume that the reason Waterford was selected was the historical associations with Waterford glass, which would naturally commend the product, especially to purchasers from abroad. At present, most of the articles produced are sold in this country, but I understand that when the new factory comes into production it is proposed to extend the range of production—in fact that has been done—and to concentrate on higher grade glass, mainly for export. I have no knowledge of the proposal to establish a factory in County Wicklow, to which the Deputy refers, and which he says was originally intended.

Mr. Childers

May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary one question?

An Ceann Comhairle

Yes.

Mr. Childers

I think the Parliamentary Secretary must have misunderstood me. He said there was a duty on tomatoes. As far as I can gather from all the tomato growers' associations, there is no effective duty on tomatoes when it is most required. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary what conditions made the Minister, responsible for this duty on peas, protect the interests of the pea farmer, when the interests of the tomato grower, as admitted by all of them, are not effectively protected. What are the circumstances which prevent the effective protection of the tomato industry but which, apparently, are now going to result in effective protection of the pea industry? He has not answered me.

Mr. Cosgrave

I think, on the whole, the duty is effective.

Mr. Kissane

On tomatoes?

Mr. Cosgrave

The Deputy is aware that when supplies of imported tomatoes are not available, the home supply of tomatoes makes the price prohibitive. I understand that, in addition to the present duty, there is restriction on imports at a certain period of the year. In that way, a fair market is assured for home producers and at the same time the interest of the consumer is safeguarded.

Mr. Childers

The Parliamentary Secretary has been very honest. The public now know that tomato growers and pea growers, in his view, are equally protected.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining stages now.

Bill put through Committee and reported without amendment, received for final consideration and passed.

Bill certified a Money Bill within the meaning of Article 22 of the Constitution.

Ordered: That Seanad Eireann be notified accordingly.