Vol. 134 No. 11
I move:—
That Dáil Éireann hereby approves of the Control of Imports (Quota No. 47) (Road Vehicles) Order, 1952.
This is a supplementary quota which brings in the parts of these vehicles. Quota Order No. 47 is the main Order which we have been discussing and the other is the Order which relates to the parts.
Are you sure of that? One deals with road vehicle bodies and the other with road vehicles. This refers to road vehicles.
This is the Order which effectively applies the quota restrictions to commercial motor vehicles.
I think you are making a mistake.
If that is the position, I do not understand.
Quota No. 7 is the one that prohibits the importation except under licence of vehicles designed for the carriage of goods.
No. 47?
It is No. 6, Quota No. 47. No. 10 is an amending Order dealing with bodies.
But the Minister has just told us that a mechanically-propelled vehicle for the purpose of Quota Order No. 47 does not cover an electrically-propelled vehicle.
That is right.
But the Order specifically says it does. If the Minister looks at paragraph 3 he will see that it specifically says that a mechanically-propelled vehicle is one that derives its motor power——
I think we are talking about two Orders.
I was taking the two Orders in what was in effect the wrong order; No. 47 is the main Order.
We should have done No. 47 first.
We should have done No. 47 first and No. 47 is the specific Order which prohibits the importation, except under licence, of mechanically-propelled vehicles. No. 10 is the subsidiary Order which permits the importation subject to quota of body shells for such vehicles.
Surely there is a mistake here. Has not the Minister told us that No. 10 relates exclusively to vehicles for the carriage of goods?
I admit I made a mistake. I was discussing No. 6 and No. 5. The two are related but No. 6 should probably have been taken first.
I am not arguing that point but I gather No. 47 relates to a different type of vehicle from that covered by No. 10.
No. May I explain? The effect of the two Orders is to bring in, subject to quota, both the complete vehicle and the shell of the vehicle.
I do not think that is so.
May I explain why we do not think that is so? On the assumption that the Minister's second thought is right and that No. 6 is the principal Order and should have come before No. 5, No. 6 includes electric motors but No. 5 does not.
No. 5 relates, I think, to completely assembled bodies for mechanically-propelled vehicles.
Quite, but they are entirely different because in No. 6 an electric motor can come into it and in No. 5 it cannot. Therefore, they are not complementary. They are different.
That is correct. Quota Order No. 47 applies to mechanically-propelled commercial vehicles no matter what type of engine they have.
Therefore the electrically-propelled vehicle is caught by No. 47.
If completely assembled.
But it applies only to commercial vehicles.
Of a commercial type, yes.
If it is caught by No. 47, equally a motor-lorry is caught by No. 47.
Yes, No. 47 relates to motor-lorries.
Then what is the necessity for No. 10?
No. 47 prohibits the importation of a complete motor-vehicle fully assembled. Quota Order No. 10 prohibits the importation of a body for that vehicle fully assembled.
Therefore one cannot bring in an electrically-propelled van but one can bring in a body for an electrically-propelled van.
No. We have the two Orders in order to prevent that.
But you have left it out.
Quota Order No. 10 prohibits the importation of a fully assembled body.
Not of an electric one. It says a motor-car body and a motor-car body does not include an electrically-propelled one.
It does not say so.
If the Minister would look at the Order he will see that the word "body" means a motor-car body.
Which is completely or substantially assembled.
We have now got the word "motor-car."
We should all take a drive in this car some time.
One is a vehicle and the other is only a body. It is not propelled at all.
Quite, but when you come to define the vehicle you differentiate between the internal combustion engine and the electric motor.
There is no differentiation.
There is in the definition. In Clause 3 you accept the situation that they are different things.
That is right.
In accepting that they are different things you must construe No. 10 with it.
No. So far as the customs officer at the port of importation is concerned, if he gets a completely assembled body he does not know whether it is to go on a petrol-driven or an electrically-driven vehicle and it is therefore subject to the Order.
Then I think the wrong description is used. Motor-car bodies is not the right one because a motor-car, I suggest, means an internal combustion engine.
That is a point I would not like to argue. It is a mechanically-propelled vehicle.
Then why not say so?
The Deputy is misled because No. 10 is an amending Order. It does not set out the full definition. It merely amends the existing quota Order by putting in after the word "motor-car" in that Order "mechanically-propelled vehicle which is designed primarily for use on the public road." We are here legislating by amending an earlier Order.
Two Orders.
I still do not see why, if the Minister wanted to achieve that, that the wording would not be "body means a body for a mechanically-propelled vehicle." That would cover it. Here the word motor-car is used and I suggest it is restrictive.
The words "mechanically-propelled vehicle" appear in the original Order.
In connection with a mechanically-propelled bicycle or tricycle, we see queer little yokes going around these days—the kind of thing which I was always told as a youngster when I had to push with my other foot was a scooter—which appear to me to be mechanically-propelled scooters. Are they covered?
They are excluded from the Order.
But a scooter, therefore, is included.
I think the scooter has two wheels and would therefore come within the category of a bicycle.
It has no engine.
It is excluded.
If the Minister says "bicycle" excludes the Italian scooter we will take his word on that so long as one can scoot in comfort in the future. Would the Minister give me an explanation of Clause (e) on page 5 which deals with things which are excluded from the prohibition, as I understand it? In Clause 5 the prohibition on bringing in things without being part of the quota is not to affect any of the things that are mentioned in Clause 5. I do not quite understand why the Minister allows someone to bring in an expensive motor-car valued at more than £1,300 which is completely assembled while, if somebody wants to bring in a motor-car not completely assembled over that price, the Minister will not allow him to bring it in.
That is one of the provisions of the trade agreement with Great Britain; these quota restrictions will not apply to motor-vehicles costing more than £1,000.
The Minister has not understood my point. If he will look at paragraph 5 (e) (iii) he will see that one of the conditions that must be fulfilled before such a vehicle is brought in is that it must be completely assembled. If somebody wanted to bring in a motor-vehicle of that sort which is not completely assembled and wanted the assembly work done here——
There is nothing to stop them.
I think there is, because each of these ancillary subclauses is not excluded:—
"(ii) to be of value for the purpose of the Customs Acts of not less than £1,300, and
(iii) to be..."
The linking word between the clauses is "and" and not "or". If somebody arrives at the quays with a motor-car to the value of not less than £1,300 not completely assembled and wants to finish the assembly here, he cannot do so under paragraph 5 (e) (iii) of this Order. I do not know what it is that the Minister intends.
The purpose is to exclude vehicles of more than £1,300. We are doing that because it was part of the trade agreement.
That is entirely obvious in regard to the first two subclauses but there must be some reason for (iii). As it stands, (iii) prevents an incompletely assembled mechanically-propelled vehicle from being brought in.
It does not say so. It says that even if it is completely assembled it can be brought in.
It says that it must be completely assembled.
Sub-clause (iii) reads: "to be a completely assembled mechanically-propelled vehicle, and". The whole purpose of these Orders, as I understand it, is to assist assembly and yet we are saying here that the vehicle must be assembled before it comes in.
I should like to remind the House that in 1939, when the Minister was negotiating his agreement with Great Britain, he fought to prevent motor-cars over £1,000 in value from coming in and the British insisted on his consenting to admit cars over £1,000 in value if they were completely assembled. In 1948 the inter-Party Government changed that by raising the figure to £1,300. The British wanted completely assembled cars costing over £1,000 and they succeeded under the 1939 trade agreement. In 1948 the inter-Party Government succeeded in raising that minimum figure to £1,300. We were not concerned in 1939 or in 1948 with the man who brought in a partially-assembled car. Deputy Morrissey's anxiety in 1948 was to try to leave the loophole as narrow and as straight as possible and he succeeded in narrowing it to £1,300. If he could have persuaded the British Government to consent to narrowing it still further he would have done so.
The prohibition in this Order applies only to vehicles which are completely or substantially assembled. If they do not come within that description they do not come in anywhere.
No. Suppose I knocked my mudguards off?
There is a definition of what is "substantially assembled".
There must be a definition.
Paragraph 4 of the Order says that henceforth you may not bring in, except under licence, a completely or substantially-assembled vehicle.
"Or substantially".
The exception under paragraph 5 is that even if it is completely or substantially-assembled——
No. My difficulty is that the word "completely" is used in paragraph 5 (e) (iii) and that in paragraph 4 the words "completely or substantially" are used.
Exactly.
Why the differentiation between the two?
I am sure that if a mudguard or a headlamp is missing——
There is a mudguard missing from the Minister's Order.
There is a mudguard missing from the Minister's memory as to why that paragraph was inserted at all.
It is effective for the purpose for which it was designed and that is to grant exemption to British cars over £1,300 in value.
Does this Order include caravans?
It applies to commercial vehicles——
No, not this one.
——which are "designed and constructed solely or primarily——"
"——for the traction of vehicles or other articles," according to paragraph 3 (b).
A caravan does not move under its own power.
I have seen them move under their own power.
