For the second time within a quarter of an hour. I must reprove a Minister for breaking the undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges to the effect that, when a Minister read his speech, a copy of that speech would be circulated. The Standing Orders do not permit the reading of speeches, but we have always agreed it was a useful thing that an informed brief should be read by the Minister for the purpose of dealing with technical matters. However, it was made quite clear at the last meeting of the Committee on Procedure and Privileges recently, at which it was discussed, that while that was an excellent thing, it should be followed by the other assistance.
The quota legislation is somewhat technical and as the Minister will appreciate it is unusual in present circumstances to have a quota order at all. In so far as I was able to follow the Minister, however, the line of country in relation to this is that the existing much wider quota order has been repealed and a narrower type of order brought in, narrower in the sense that this refers only to countries outside the OECD. It is perhaps a little unfortunate that it was administratively done in that way if it were possible to do it otherwise, because the introduction of any additional quota order is bound to create the impression outside that we are not moving away from the era of quantitative restrictions.
I was glad to hear the Minister say we are, but the introduction of a quota order does create the other feeling, particularly when many outside, other than those in this particular trade, feel that the working of these orders is a matter that is so technical that they do not really understand exactly what is being done. As I understand the Minister's explanation, what is being done is to enlarge the area from which these goods will be brought in without quantitative restriction and only to restrict them in the case of certain foreign countries that are not members of OECD.
There is a great deal of uncertainty outside about the Government's general policy in relation to tariff reduction and I think it is fully analogous to quotas for many trades. The Government announced last year, in November I think it was, that there would be a cut of ten per cent in tariffs as from 1st January, 1963. That, of course, was ten per cent of the then existing tariff: when, for example, it was 60 per cent it meant ten per cent of 60 per cent, or a reduction of six per cent. That was made clear from the announcement made by the Minister on, I think, 13th November, 1962.
Later, the Minister made another announcement, but, unfortunately, I failed to find the exact statement issued from the Government Information Bureau. Another announcement was made by the Minister in which he said there would be a similar reduction of ten per cent on 1st January, 1963. I failed to find the exact reference, though I searched pretty well for it. My recollection, however, is pretty clear that the announcement made in relation to the tariff cut of ten per cent coming on 1st January last was that it was to be exactly similar to the ten per cent that came on 1st January, 1962.
In fact, therefore, it would mean that a tariff of 60 per cent on 31st December, 1961 would become a tariff of 48 per cent on 2nd January, 1963. My recollection is fairly clear that it was a straight-line ten per cent that was set out. Certainly, that was the understanding in industry at the time and I think it is currently understood by industry that that was the Government's intention in those notices. I was therefore very surprised indeed to find —and this is where the confusion has arisen—that the Minister, when replying to the debate on 5th November this year, indicated that the position was not a straight-line reduction of ten per cent but was a ten per cent diminishing basis; that, in the case I have mentioned of a 60 per cent tariff, it would become 54 per cent in 1963 and after 2nd January next, would become 48.6 per cent; in other words, that the reduction now would be ten per cent on 54 and not on the straight-line ten per cent on 60 per cent previously announced.
It is unfortunate that there is this misunderstanding as to what exactly is in train outside and the Minister can be assured that there is very great misunderstanding and very great doubt and vagueness as to which of the two statements was correct. I was in touch yesterday with a person at the hub of industrial policy and it was categorically his view that the straight-line method was what had been announced all along up to now and that the statement made by the Minister on 5th November was not in accordance with previous statements. I think it desirable that the Minister should take this opportunity to clarify the position beyond question so that we shall know exactly where we stand on 1st January.
