Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 5 Dec 1972

Vol. 264 No. 5

Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Orders) Bill, 1972: Second Stage.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lalor): I move

"That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

An explanatory memorandum has been circulated for the information of Deputies.

The purpose of this Bill is to confirm nine orders made during 1971, under the Imposition of Duties Act, 1957, and the Finance Act, 1962. It is a statutory requirement that such orders must be confirmed not later than the end of the calendar year following that in which they are made, if they are not to cease to have statutory effect.

The first of these orders, No. 189, was made by the Government on the representations of the Minister for Finance. Deputies will be familiar with this type of order. The Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement provides that on 1st July each year duties against UK goods are to be reduced by 10 per cent. These reductions are effected by an annual order and the order now brought before the House for approval provided for the sixth tariff reduction of 10 per cent on these goods and for the sixth reduction of 10 per cent in the protective elements in revenue duties on certain United Kingdom goods. This order also provided for the elimination in one step of the protective element in other revenue duties on goods of United Kingdom origin. Examples of this are the duties on newspapers, periodicals and hydrocarbon oils. It will be recalled that special arrangements were made in respect of certain goods of Northern Ireland origin under which a somewhat accelerated rate of reduction of duties was provided for involving a preference in favour of these goods vis-à-vis UK goods. The order provides for the maintenance of this preference. In addition, the order provided for a reduction in the import duty on unassembled motor cycles as a concession to domestic motor cycle assemblers and for a number of changes in the customs tariff necessitated principally by amendments in the Brussels tariff nomenclature.

Representations were made to me by the Irish manufacturers that the protection afforded by the specific duty on sweets and toffee, at the time amounting to 6p per lb, Full; 4p per lb, Preferential, and 2p per lb, Special Preferential, UK and Northern Ireland, had been eroded due to increased prices. It seemed that the case was well founded—increasing imports posed a serious threat to the industry. Accordingly, Order No. 190 was made which provided for increases of 2p per lb in the specific rates of duty and for imposition of an alternative ad valorem duty of 40 per cent on sweets and toffee from all sources.

It will be recalled that Article I (5) of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement provided for a review by the Irish Government in the year commencing 1st July, 1970, to ascertain whether an appreciable rise in unemployment had occurred in any sector of industry or region, or was threatened as a result of the reduction of protection under the agreement. If the Government were satisfied that difficulties of this nature had occurred or were threatened, then the Irish and British Governments had to consider jointly whether the difficulties could be dealt with by altering the arrangements for the removal of protection up to 1975, or by extending the transitional period beyond that time. Article I (5) further provided that, if the Irish Government, following the consultations, concluded that the difficulties were so exceptional that they could not be dealt with in this way, they could then exclude a limited number of the goods concerned from the free trade arrangements. Consultations between the Governments were not concluded by 1st July, 1971 and the Governments agreed that pending the completion of the consultations, the tariff reductions due to take place on that date should not be made in respect of certain iron and steel products, certain agricultural machinery, certain domestic electrical appliances, aluminium hollowware, blankets, mobile homes, joinery and leather footwear and should be at a rate lower than 10 per cent in respect of furniture, ropes and cordage and brushes and brooms. Order No. 191 gave effect to this agreement between the Governments.

In the course of the changeover to the Brussels nomenclature from the form in use before 1963, some of the changes resulted in the loss of protection—inadvertently—for certain goods. This occurred, perhaps, because of changes in description or definition. Most of these have already been put right as they came to light. Order No. 192 provided for the imposition of customs duties on certain metal badges and footwear heels which had inadvertently incurred a loss of protection on the change-over to the Brussels nomenclature form of customs tariff.

Order No. 193 increased the minimum specific duty from £3 to £15 on tyres of non-UK origin and of minimum dimensions 7.00 inches x 16 inches. The order was made following representations from the Irish tyre manufacturing industry seeking increased protection of the truck tyre market from increasing imports of large tyres from State-trading and Far Eastern countries.

Order No. 194 was made by the Government on the recommendation of the Minister for Finance. The order provided for a considerable number of technical changes in the customs tariff necessitated by changes in the Brussels tariff nomenclature and for a number of other minor editorial changes in the tariff. The Customs Co-operation Council meets in Brussels periodically to review the classification of goods in the Brussels tariff nomenclature and to ascertain if technological advances in certain areas necessitate the reclassification of some goods in different headings of the Brussels tariff nomenclature. When the council recommends changes in classification, individual countries often find that new national sub-divisions must be raised in the tariff in order to maintain the existing rates of duty for the goods involved. An example of the type of operation involved in Order No. 194 is concerned with mixtures of chemicals and foodstuffs of the kind used in the preparation of human foodstuffs. These items were previously classified under tariff heading 38.19 as chemical products or preparations and were free of duty in the Irish tariff. The Council ruled that they should be reclassified at tariff heading 21.07 as food preparations. A new sub-heading had, therefore to be raised at tariff heading 21.07 of the Irish tariff to provide for the retention of the free rates of duty for these goods.

Order No. 195 implemented Ireland's participation in a scheme of tariff preferences in favour of developing countries following a resolution adopted unanimously by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development in regard to the grant of such preferences. The tariff preferences extended by Ireland consist of reductions of 33? per cent below the full rate in the customs duties on certain industrial products originating in developing countries. The reductions do not apply to certain sensitive products, mainly textiles and footwear.

Order No. 196 was made by the Government on the recommendation of the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries. The order gave effect to the measures agreed with the EEC for imposition of new and amended duties on fish, rye grass seed, tomatoes and apples. The quantitive controls which we operate on imports of these commodities will be abolished following accession to the EEC and in order to allow for more gradual exposure of Irish producers to full EEC conditions it was agreed that special arrangements could be made to strengthen our duty protection.

The nature of the textile industry is such that it is more subject to ups and downs than most other industries. Recessionary trends which had continued to create problems for the industry on a world-wide scale throughout 1970 showed little signs of a recovery during the year 1971. This situation presented its own particular difficulties for the Irish textile industry, as customs duties were being phased out against British goods in accordance with the provisions of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. I became satisfied that, if we were to enter into another year of increased opportunities of access to our markets from British manufacturers, serious redundancy would occur in the Irish textile industry. Following consultations between the Irish and British Governments, the Irish Government decided to exclude certain outerwear from free trade under the provisions of article 1 (5) of the agreement—to which I have referred earlier—and to increase the duties on such outerwear of United Kingdom origin from 1st January, 1972, from the rates then in operation, ranging from 9.6 per cent to 16 per cent, to the levels which were in force in 1969-70. These rates ranged from 16 per cent to 24 per cent. Order No. 197 gave effect to the Government's decision.

I shall be glad to give any further information required in connection with the Bill.

Mr. Donegan

It gives me no great pleasure to advert to the fact that initially it was from these benches that attention was drawn to the provisions of article 19 and article 1 (5) of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. To such an extent have I quoted those two sections across this House that if betting were allowed and somebody asked me to produce both articles without referring to the agreement I might have an even money bet. Six months before July 1st, 1971, I elicited from the Minister for Industry and Commerce the fact that his Department, himself or the Government had no negotiations at that time in progress with Britain on the provisions of articles 1 (5) and 19. Article 1 (5) has been described by the Minister so there is no point in worrying the House about it but article 19, paragraph 68, should be quoted. It says:

Paragraph (1) of this Article allows, on the initiative of the country concerned, the temporary imposition of quantitative import restrictions where an increase in imports due to the removal of duties or quantitative restrictions causes an appreciable rise in unemployment in a particular sector of industry or region. Such restriction may be imposed unilaterally for eighteen months, and may be extended by agreement. Imports of the goods affected cannot be restricted to a level below that which obtained during any period of twelve months which ended within twelve months of the date on which the restrictions came into force.

I would not have expected the Minister to produce what is no more than, with a little bit of extra stuffing, the explanatory memorandum that was circulated with this Bill. I would have expected him to deal with the possible application of article 19 and the progress of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement in relation to our access to the Common Market on 1st February, in some cases, and 1st January in others. I would have thought that in the very serious situation for industry—the horticultural industry is also involved in this set of orders—the Minister would have availed of the opportunity to lead our industrialists, our workers, our organisations, with the Government or parliament on what was the best way that they could face up to this rapidly changing situation. Instead of that we have a recital of what has been done, done, let me say, at the behest of this party.

The last sentence of paragraph 3 of the explanatory memorandum reads:

It was agreed between the two Governments that pending the completion of the consultations, the tariff reductions due to take place on 1st July, 1971, should not be made in respect of certain iron and steel products, certain agricultural machinery, certain domestic electrical appliances, aluminium hollowware, blankets, mobile homes, joinery and leather footwear and should be at a rate lower than 10 per cent in respect of furniture, ropes and cordage and brushes and brooms.

What is important here is the fact that while our footwear industry, for instance, was languishing, while there were serious redundancies, while there are still question marks and there were question marks during the third and fourth years of the progress of the agreement, no consultations were opened up between our Government and the Government of Britain. The crucial date was 1st July, 1971, the date on which the year of review began. The provisions of the agreement said that after we had reached half-time in the football match there would be a year of review during which under article 1 (5) reviews could take place. So dilatory was the Minister and the Government that they reached the crucial date and still had not finalised their agreement with the British Government. Attention should have been drawn, even though there was not a year of review during the second, third and fourth years, to the State, for instance, of the footwear industry. I have quoted article 19 which shows that unilaterally there could have been, if the Government so wished, for a period of 18 months actions taken which could have given some of those industries that were in trouble the opportunity to take their own steps and get themselves into a viable position.

If Europe is upon us then with the freeing of trade we cannot live in an economic island even though we are an island geographically. There was every necessity for the things that are happening now, too late, to have happened three years ago. I wonder how many footwear workers are now redundant who would not have been redundant if the provisions of article 19 had been invoked and if the operations of Fóir Teoranta, the IDA and the various other organs of the State had been brought into play and had decided whether a saving operation could have been carried out or not.

I have said in this House before, and I repeat it, there is more joy about one petrol filling station opened by a Minister where only a few people will be employed than there is about saving 100 jobs in an old established industry. That is a political fact and the blame must be laid on the Government and the Minister. At one time half of the workers employed in the footwear industry worked in my constituency. I played football with many of them but now these middle-aged skilled men are redundant because during the operation of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement there was not constant negotiation.

As Fine Gael spokesman for Industry and Commerce, it has been my duty to go to Brussels, Vienna and Strasbourg. I have told the Government time and again that the continentals will bargain down to the last half-penny and they will take every advantage possible within the rules to get the best they can for their people. There is no point in our behaving like little gentlemen if they are going to behave in that manner.

Dr. O'Donovan

Like thugs.

Mr. Donegan

No, I would not say that.

Dr. O'Donovan

They have behaved like thugs.

Mr. Donegan

It is implicit in their rules of business to use every opportunity to get the best bargain for their people and we cannot afford to act otherwise. I am afraid that during the first years of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement our Government were not determined enough to get the best bargain.

Even at this late stage we could have invoked article 19 in respect of some of our industries that are badly hit. For instance, with regard to certain domestic electrical appliances, tariff protection was removed on 1st July. This is a matter of concern for this House when one considers the difficulties faced by this industry and the hopes that it will be able to continue. At one time approximately 1,300 people were employed in this industry. The Government could have invoked article 19; they could have been discussing the matter 18 months prior to the date of review of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement in July, 1971, but they did not do this.

The two bibles a Minister for Industry and Commerce must always carry with him are a copy of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement and a copy of the Treaty of Accession to the EEC. When a factory opens the Minister will get credit from the political point of view, but unless he takes advantage of every benefit allowed to him in the EEC and in the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement he will be unable to balance the scales equitably and to advance Irish industry. I do not wish to mention individual factories that have fallen into difficulty but there is no doubt about what has happened here in the last two or three years and the alarming number of redundancies that have occurred. In the light of what has happened here in the last few years, one can only conclude that the measures taken by the Government are rather like closing the gate when the horse has bolted—we are left with an empty field and the horse galloping down the road.

I should like to deal with a sensitive area with regard to the Imposition of Duties (No. 196) (Miscellaneous Customs Duties) Order, 1971. We have had quantitative controls on fish, tomatoes, rye grass and other items. I thought the Minister might have mentioned the position with regard to rye grass when we enter the Common Market and the fact that we may get a subsidy on some rye grass of $10 per 100 kilos and on other grass seeds $20 per 100 kilos, so that the production of these grasses might be profitable and that duty might not be necessary. So far as the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement is concerned I do not think the duties indicated will prevent the almost complete wiping-out of the production of rye grass here.

These grasses are produced in poor farming areas. Without the subsidies I have mentioned in Common Market conditions it does not pay to produce them. It is the man in the poor farming area who produces these grasses and the fact that there will be better prospects for him in the Common Market is good. However, I wonder if this change from quantitative control to a duty could not have been postponed? If France or Belgium had been in the same position, would they have postponed taking this decision? For instance, Italy succeeded for eight years in not introducing VAT and one wonders if they would have acted as freely and quickly as we did?

This has been a bad year for tomato producers. Britain allowed in greater quantities of tomatoes from Common Market countries and this affected matters. There is a report which was commissioned by the EEC which the Minister should read. It was compiled about three or four years ago and was a report on the economy of the Channel Islands. When one thinks of this area one thinks of tomatoes. The report bluntly said, without exception, in the case of a small entity, such as they are, the application of Common Market provisions in relation to tomatoes and so forth would wreck their economy, totally and absolutely. The quantitative restriction we applied may, therefore, have been very necessary. I believe it was. That restriction was applied on the basis of allowing the Irish producer to dispose of his crop and, when the officials of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries had reason to believe that Irish tomatoes had reached the stage at which there would be either profiteering or too high a price charged if imports were not allowed, imports were allowed. This was an enlightened approach. The Irish producer was competing with other Irish producers during the period of high competition here and, when that period passed, we allowed in tomatoes from the Channel Islands and so forth. Those tomatoes were sold at the same price as the price on the home market or, perhaps, at a lower price. If there is an open market the whole year round and imports are admitted freely all the year round, that could right the death knell for our tomato producers. Where conditions in competing countries are identical with conditions here the situation is not highly competitive. It is true to say that 90 per cent of the tomato industry was built up in the very recent past with the help of generous grants but, because of that, the industry is pretty capital intensive. Building-up has been expensive and these people have, therefore, cause for worry so far as this particular order is concerned.

Where the fishing industry is concerned, we all know about the cod war. We know what the situation is. Huge trawlers can catch vast quantities of fish, quantities with which our fishermen could never compete. I had the pleasure of being shown through some Dutch trawlers in Dunmore East, trawlers from 300 to 500 tons capacity; the holds were full of huge quantities of the very best fish which could be back at the Hook of Holland in 36 hours. The whole thing was rather frightening. If one of these trawlers landed a catch in Howth our fishermen would be in serious trouble. The British do not fish very much in our waters with such huge vessels, but there is nothing to stop them doing so.

In talking about all these matters we are not talking about the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement by itself; we are talking about that agreement plus the EEC Agreement. The Minister did not bother to advert to this. The Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement has an operational period of ten years. The EEC Agreement is for five years.

Mr. Lalor

We are talking about 1971. We are not in the EEC yet.

Mr. Donegan

That is right. The order is in force and in a matter of weeks we will be in the EEC. My argument is that we have never been tough enough and never been clever enough, never even mean enough, in our efforts to get the very best we could for our industry and for our workers.

In relation to the Imposition of Duties (No. 197) (Outer Garments) Order, 1971, the Minister says in the explanatory memorandum:

The duties were increased in order to alleviate difficulties in the textile and clothing industry which had resulted in unemployment in some sectors.

The Minister can say that again. I want to be quite specific about this. Article 19 was there all the time and, had we wished, we could unilaterally have restricted imports of British goods thereby giving our people a transitional period during which all the organs of State could have been mobilised to put the industry on a sound footing before the full blast of competition hit it. Certain steps could have been taken. I come back again to the admission that, in respect of agricultural machinery, domestic and electrical appliances, aluminium hollowware, mobile homes, joinery and leather footwear, we have not reduced the 10 per cent. We have not concluded our discussions with the British Government. That is precisely what the explanatory memorandum says.

With regard to developing countries, Order No. 195, I do not think anyone could quibble with that. I agree with what is being done here. Footwear and textiles have been excluded because we are giving a one-third advantage to these developing countries. In this we are behaving quite properly and, at the same time, we are giving our own sensitive areas a fair chance.

The Minister said in his introductory speech:

...whether the difficulties could be dealt with by altering the arrangements for the removal of protection up to 1975, or by extending the transitional period beyond that time. Article 1 (5) further provided that, if the Irish Government, following the consultations, concluded that the difficulties were so exceptional that they could not be dealt with in this way, they could then exclude a limited number of the goods concerned from the free trade arrangements.

The quantity was three to five as far as I remember. We could exclude 3 per cent from those arrangements under Article 1 (5).

There are other sensitive areas in Irish industry, but it would be wrong of me to mention them, because there is no point in giving out information to everybody about somebody who is in trouble. They are not covered by this Bill. What I suggested at the outset, should be the action of the Minister and his Department. We now have Fóir Teoranta set up, defined by those who run it, not as an institution for rescue operations to save jobs, not as an institution to which people go if they are "broke" financially, but as an institution which deals with a situation where there is a greater risk because of the impact of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement, or the Common Market, or for any other reason. The difference between the operations of Fóir Teoranta and the Industrial Credit Company is that Fóir Teoranta know there is a greater risk and insist on advice being taken from outside bodies and from technical people. Knowing that there is a greater risk, they charge a slightly higher interest rate and go in to save the concern and to save the jobs. That is a good thing. It was done in a more crude way by Taiscí Stáit.

There is a great need for more detailed operations by Fóir Teoranta in this regard. I will not specify the sensitive areas. The number of people in a county which was a designated area, and, therefore, has not got a high rate of employment, was 110. I was glad to be of help to a concern operating in the same field as myself, or near it. I did all I could, although it was not very much. I was very glad to see that action could be taken, and that jobs could be saved. I am sure the Minister will agree that this is an excellent thing. Without telling the Minister which, it is in one of the highly sensitive areas covered by the Bill, and it will have to battle on. I am an absolutely convinced European and I believe that the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement was a fact of life that had to be. We must utilise everything we have to preserve jobs in industry. In the years to come, in the five years ahead, the preservation of jobs in existing industries will be a more serious matter than the provision of new jobs.

Dr. O'Donovan

Hear, hear.

Mr. Donegan

Many jobs could be lost if the detail that is required, if the tough line that is required, and if the expertise that is required by the Minister and his Department, are not available. This would produce more redundancies than we could provide new jobs for. I adduce as proof of this the number of redundancies quoted in the Industrial Development Authority report as against the number of new jobs. There is no point in parading our troubles around the House, so I will not mention what the figures are. It proves conclusively that the preservation of jobs is of the utmost importance. This is the danger area. It is not the best way to gain votes. There is more joy over the opening of one small factory than in preserving ten times as many jobs in an existing industry. Very often these jobs are preserved by work by the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or by the Department, or by the Industrial Credit Company, or Fóir Teoranta, or Coras Tráchtála, or any of the other organs of the State. Dedicated people in these institutions perform work which never sees the light of day in this House and nobody can stand up and say: "Hurrah, I saved 100 jobs." This is the work which has to be done, even if some of it is behind the scenes.

In respect of the restored duties under the Imposition of Duties (No. 192) (Metal Badges and Footwear Heels) Order, 1971, this happened inadvertently as the Minister said. We lost protection as we changed over to the Brussels nomenclature form of customs classification. The customs code is so involved, and the difficulties related to it are so many, that this will happen many times. Every time it happens let us stick our heels firmly in the mud and refuse to lose anything we should not lose. Let us insist on keeping everything we have. If we have decided in general that the best policy is to go into Europe, and that the preparation for that was the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement, let us then decide as well that the job of even one man in one industry will be fought for with everything we have during the transitional period. If we do that we will be all right.

On the question of tyres under the Imposition of Duties (No. 193) (Pneumatic Tyres) Order, 1971, we all know that from the beginning of the negotiations there were troubles in tyre factories, notably in Cork. Certain beneficial arrangements were arrived at. I presume this is just correcting one or two of those, or an addition to them. We are delighted to see that they are looking after employment in that sphere.

The imposition of duties on sugar was necessary. I noticed in issues of the Financial Times last week articles on the position in relation to sugar. I did not study them in detail. It appears that this order is necessary and I hope the situation will be watched very closely. There is considerable employment in large factories producing confectionery, sweets and chocolates. We do not seem to have strikes in those factories, and there seems to be good employment in them. I hope that will continue to be the position.

This Bill includes a series of actions which had to be taken under certain orders as we enter Europe. This is probably the first of many of these orders. The numbers of orders and variations which will have to be made will be very considerable. The sections of the Department involved in this have a very serious duty to perform. Right through the transitional period they must see to it that the difficulties which arise do not result in decisions being made in Brussels or, non-decisions which is what we have here in relation to a certain list under one order, which will cause the loss of even one job. They must look at every detail and explore every avenue.

The work is not just something that will be bandied across the House. In my opinion, 90 per cent of that work will be in the corridors of the Department of Industry and Commerce with Fóir Teoranta, Córas Tráchtála, the Industrial Credit Company and other institutions all coming in to take their part. Most of it, if there are things to be done, will arrive here as this Bill arrived today, confirming a series of orders made months or perhaps a year before. If you do that, you will do a good job; if you do not do it, the redundancies that will occur in the next five years as against the new jobs that will be provided will be greater and there will be less opportunity for our young people in a situation which was the only situation for them wherein they would have a chance of a job. It is in the hands of the Minister and his officials and the officials of the other State institutions and I wish them well.

Dr. O'Donovan

This is a very poor reflection of the kind of Emergency (Imposition of Duties) (Confirmation of Orders) Bills which we used to have in former times. In the main, it is concerned with minutiae, with little items that do not matter, with changes in nomenclature and that kind of thing, but the one important matter dealt with, the textile industry, is not the subject of an order at all, but we have in the Minister's speech the statement, that following consultations the Irish Government decided to exclude certain outerwear from the reduction in tariffs.

I asked the Minister for Finance, on 21st November last, a specific question about woollen woven fabrics and what did I find? I found that the tariff on these at the date of coming into operation of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement was, generally speaking, 24 per cent and it is now down to 8 per cent. Why did the Irish Government not insist that these tariffs would not be reduced in 1971? The success of the discussions related only to outer-wear—such success as there was—and the rates on outerwear, which were from 10 per cent to 16 per cent roughly, were put back to the point at which they were in 1970, 16 per cent to 24 per cent. The tariff at present on these woven woollen fabrics is 8 per cent, generally speaking, except in the case of more valuable fabrics where it is 15 per cent. It is 8 per cent or 2p per square yard as compared with 6p previously or 24 per cent. It is down to one-third, and in the case of the more valuable fabrics, is down from 40 per cent to 15 per cent, a proportion of eight to three or from 48p to 18p, again almost reduced to one-third. Why did the Government, in order to protect those industries which are in such grave difficulties at present, not take successful action? Why did they allow this matter to go so far? I know why they allowed it. It is because they were concerned with law and order inside the Fianna Fáil Party. Is that not why this happened? The Minister may laugh but it is a fact. What else did the Government talk about in 1970 and 1971 except law and order inside their own party?

Mr. Lalor

There is a saying about people in glass houses.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Minister is not talking down in the bogs of Laois-Offaly. He is talking in this House and the fact of the matter is that the Fianna Fáil Party were able to talk of nothing else but their own troubles. Is it not sticking out a mile?

Mr. Lalor

Just because the Deputy has an obsession does not mean that everybody else has an obsession.

Dr. O'Donovan

What obsession have I got?

Mr. Lalor

That there is a row going on here all the time.

Dr. O'Donovan

We all know what happened. Men who have been as long as I have been in this House all say that there was never a Dáil to compare with this for sensation, for crisis, and so on for continual this, that and the other. Will there be an election or will there not? Will we go around the mulberry bush or will we not? We are sick and tired of it, just as we are sick and tired of this Government, but the cat is out of the bag here today. Let me give the Minister an example and he will laugh on the other side of his face. He says:

...I became satisfied that, if we were to enter into another year of increased opportunities of access to our markets from British manufacturers, serious redundancies would occur in the Irish textile industry. Following consultations between the Irish and British Governments...

When? Is the Minister ashamed to admit when they took place? Of course he is because it was about a year too late, with the result that the most serious redundancies are occurring and have occurred to the extent of the complete closure of certain firms, and not Johnny-come-lately firms but old-established firms in this country, some of them over 100 years old. I am not going to name them for obvious reasons, but we all know them. Their names are household names in this country. These are going to have to close now, one after another.

I want to know why the agreement made with the British Government was confined to outerwear. Why were fabrics not included? If we go back to the other agreement, we find that consultations were not concluded by 1st July 1971, the date by which they should have been concluded. I asked questions about how they were going and I was put off with "Oh, they are being carried on" but the Government were too busy with their own internal troubles to look after the affairs of the country at all. The Minister said that the Government agreed that, pending the completion of the consultations, the tariff reductions due to take place on that date should not be made in respect of certain iron and steel products, certain agricultural machinery, certain domestic electrical appliances, aluminium hollowware, blankets, mobile homes, joinery and leather footwear and should be at a rate lower than 10 per cent in respect of furniture, ropes and cordage and brushes and brooms. Why was there this enormous across-the-board list of goods while textile fabrics were excluded? In other words, this was an exclusion of our woollen industry. Another inaccuracy that we were taught in history in the past was that Stafford destroyed the Irish woollen industry. I did some research on this and found that that was bumkum. One day it will be taught that Fianna Fáil destroyed the woollen industry. These firms that are now going out of existence were established long before Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael or Labour were heard of but now they are being destroyed systematically by Fianna Fáil.

This matter is so much more important than anything else in the list of various orders that I do not see any reason for referring to any other. Perhaps the provision in respect of heavy tyres might be accepted but that is a relatively small part of the market in tyres. I want to know from the Minister how the chairman of the IDA could be sent to appear on television 12 months ago to tell us that there would be 4,000 redundancies in industry here in the year 1971 when, as everybody knew, there were 3,500 certified redundancies in the first half of that year. This gentleman had the impertinence to do that but, of course, he withdrew that statement recently and said he had been wrong. He knew well at the time of making the statement that he was wrong. The full figures for the year 1971 showed that there were 8,000 redundancies and anybody at that date in November could have put the figure within 1,000 of that instead of pretending that there would be only 4,000 redundancies.

There were provisions in the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement for discussion half way through but why were these provisions not applied to the textile industry? When I refer to the textile industry I have not in mind goods that are ready for wear but I am referring to the actual fabrics. Why did the Irish Government not raise with the British Government the question of the tariffs on the industries that are now closing down rapidly? The Government did not fight that case because they had made up their minds to let the industry be sacrified. If the great amount of employment in this industry is eliminated the Government need not try to tell us that the people concerned will be retrained for other work. How can a man of more than 50 years of age be expected to learn a new job? We hear much of manpower policy but we know that even people of more than 40 years of age have the greatest difficulty in learning a new trade. Anybody of more than 50 who can be taught a new trade for business is an exceptional individual. One has only to watch any of these people in their endeavours to be retrained to know how impossible the task is. These workers who are of real value are being thrown on the scrap heap by reason of the negligence of the Government who, because of their own internal affairs, have no time to apply their minds to the business of the community, particularly to the preservation of industry. All the time they have been telling us that the IDA were spending so much more money, that this year they would spend £27 million whereas they spent only £8 million in 1968, what was happening was that presents were being made to huge foreign combines coming in here in which the employment element would be very small. The Minister may smile if he wishes.

Mr. Lalor

I am smiling at the Deputy saying that people who are older than 50 cannot be taught anything and that he then goes on to prove that to be so.

Dr. O'Donovan

How does the Minister expect me to prove it? Am I to bring these people in here and walk them around the House?

Mr. Lalor

I am fascinated by the Deputy proving the point himself.

Dr. O'Donovan

I was not 50 or anywhere near it when I became a politician but from his appearance I can tell that the Minister is close to 50 and he has not improved any.

Mr. Lalor

I have been learning for the past 15 minutes.

Dr. O'Donovan

I hope he has picked up some ideas during that time. However, I do not think he was applying his mind very much to what has been said. Perhaps he is thinking of a steak and a creamy pint.

Mr. Lalor

Not the pint. The Deputy is not very observant.

Dr. O'Donovan

I am as observant as the Minister.

Mr. Lalor

Perhaps 50 per cent as observant.

Dr. O'Donovan

When the Minister is replying I want him to tell us when these discussions that are referred to took place with the British Government. Did they take place in the year 1970? I know they did not. Will the Minister tell me now at what date did they occur?

Mr. Lalor

The Deputy is endeavouring to provoke a further argument.

Dr. O'Donovan

If the Minister tells me the month, I will accept that.

Mr. Lalor

I will reply to the question when it is proper for me to do so.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Minister will not even give me the year. Did these consultations commence in 1970?

Mr. Lalor

I am learning.

Dr. O'Donovan

Is the Minister learning to quantify his mind properly? If so that is no harm but he should learn to have his dates correct anyway. That is all I have to say on this miserable Bill.

Mr. Bruton

I have not very much to say on the Bill but I speak in so far as it affects agriculture. Am I correct in saying that the Bill was laid before the House some considerable time ago?

Mr. Lalor

In October, I think.

Mr. Bruton

Having checked with the farming organisations, so far as I can ascertain, the contents of the Bill are acceptable to them. I should like to draw attention to the question of the imposition of customs duties on ryegrass. I wonder why customs duty is not imposed on all forms of imported grass seeds. The grass seed industry in Ireland is being neglected to some extent. For instance, looking through the Third Programme for Economic Expansion I see no mention whatever of grass seeds so that there does not appear to be a coherent Government policy for the development of an authentic Irish grass seed industry. We rely to an undue extent on the importation of grass seed. I will be glad to have the Minister's comments on what I have said in this regard.

As far as I know we do not produce what is described as pedigree grass seed. We only produce a cruder type of grass seed which presumably is not selected to the same degree of refinement as pedigree grass seed. As far as I remember I put down a question to the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries about this but I cannot remember the reply he gave. I would like the Minister to give a breakdown of the type of grass seed imports which take place at the moment. I would like to know what amount of pedigree grass seed we import as distinct from the other types of grass seed we import. I would also like a comment from him in regard to the import saving in this regard.

As regards the other commodities to which this Bill refers—tomatoes, apples, fresh, chilled and frozen fish —I should like to know for how long the arrangements will continue. Will they be for the full transitional period at the rate here? Is it to be a declining rate through the transitional period, being phased out gradually, or is it to be suddenly ended at the end of the five years? If it is found that our industry, due to climatic or other reasons has not been able to adapt properly is there any provision whereby at the end of the transitional period it will be possible for us to reimpose this order and continue it for a further two or three years? Is it absolutely signed and sealed that it is phased out at the end of the five years? This is of interest to the trade. I am not, generally speaking, critical of the Bill. Number 8 in the explanatory memorandum is a provision which farming organisations are reasonably happy about.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lalor)

This is a confirmatory type of Bill and we have had much the same type of discussion on it as we have had over the past few years in connection with other Bills of this nature. I agree with Deputy Donegan when he said that the most Deputies can do in this regard is make a comment on the action of the Government under the orders made under the various heads during the past year.

Due to the diversity of the effect of the orders I find it rather difficult to reply as comprehensively as I would like in relation to the comments made. Deputy Donegan, particularly, was critical of my failure to act under article 19 of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement in relation to what might be described as sensitive industries. He referred particularly to the boot and shoe industry. In his comments on this he was covering ground he has covered in previous discussions.

Under the terms of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement there was the fullest discussion between representatives of my Department and the representatives of the opposite Department in Britain in an effort to do everything possible under the terms of that agreement to give as much protection as possible to sensitive industries and those which appeared to be affected by the implementation of that agreement. Many things are said about how more effective the Minister for Industry and Commerce might be in regard to the protection of sensitive industries. I am satisfied, on reflection, that the action I took during the course of the past year, whereby those various orders were prepared and implemented, was the proper action to have taken.

When one looks back over action taken over a period one is often tempted to say that things might have been better if the matter had been dealt with in a different way. I make specific reference to what Deputy Donegan said in relation to taking action under article 19 in connection with the protection of employees in sensitive industries. Almost invariably Deputy Donegan is very constructive in his observations when he deals with the Estimate for my Department and legislation of this nature but today he said there was more joy in the Department of Industry and Commerce and in the heart of the Government in a petrol pump opening than there is sorrow at the closure of a factory employing 100 people.

Mr. Donegan

I said "more joy at the opening of a petrol pump than in the saving of jobs." I did not use the word "sorrow" I used "joy" twice. There is more joy in seeing a petrol pump being opened than in seeing 100 jobs saved.

Mr. Lalor

In relation to Ministers opening petrol stations I am not saying that the Deputy said I spent a lot of my time at that type of function——

Dr. O'Donovan

Does the Minister not?

Mr. Lalor

I want to say specifically that it is most improper for a Minister to get himself involved in that type of operation. As Minister for Industry and Commerce I have refused to be involved in such operations and for whatever length of time I remain either as Minister for Industry and Commerce or in some other capacity I will not get myself so involved. I know this has nothing to do with this Bill but Ministers are invited to too many functions like this. I have had the pleasure of being invited to the opening of many factories and the remark is often made that we are not present to see the closure of a factory. That is fair comment. On the other hand, the Minister never gets credit for opening a factory but is always blamed for the closure of one. That also is fair comment.

To get back to the reference about the use or non-use of power which the Government had under section 19 to introduce protection, during 1971 when questions arose in connection with the boot and shoe industry, one of the noticeable factors was that production in that industry was such that all during that period we were exporting more than we were importing. It was a difficult problem to get accepted the terms of the qualification to invoke the article. Deputy Donegan says there was power for the Minister to decide to invoke section 19, but it had to be on the basis that the appreciable rise in unemployment in that particular sector of the industry was caused by a substantial decrease in internal demand for a domestic product arising from the effects of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. During 1971 I was conscious of the effects of the importation of footwear. The importations of shoes from the UK were not the real trouble. At that time exports of footwear were increasing. The imports of footwear were also increasing.

Mr. Donegan

Did the Minister ever read paragraph 69? It reads as follows:

Paragraph (2) of the Article enables advance action to be taken where an appreciable rise in unemployment is anticipated in a particular sector of industry or region due to the causes described in the preceding paragraph...

Mr. Lalor

The Deputy is referring to the EEC?

Mr. Donegan

I am referring to the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. Paragraph 69 provides for advance action, if you anticipate unemployment. Did the Minister do that? The Minister told me six months before that that he had not opened negotiations.

Mr. Lalor

We must clear this up. Under the terms of the negotiations there were to be talks between the representatives of the Irish Government and the representatives of the UK Government in the year ending 1st July, 1971. That meant that, as from 1st July, 1970, it was necessary for my Department to initiate discussions with the potentially-affected people in the Confederation of Irish Industry in order to decide what commodities were affected and where it would be necessary to negotiate with the British in order to have more control, or to identify positively in agreement between my Department and the various industries which industries would be most affected by the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement. In April, 1971, the first meetings took place between the officials of my Department and the British officials.

Mr. Donegan

Horror, horror.

Dr. O'Donovan

That was pretty late in the day.

Mr. Lalor

It was late in the year.

Mr. Donegan

What about the redundancies before that?

Mr. Lalor

Which redundancies?

Mr. Donegan

In the footwear industry.

Mr. Lalor

I have been speaking about the footwear industry and the implications for that industry. Deputy Donegan said that he is a confirmed European. Deputy O'Donovan also mentioned the woollen and worsted industry, where certain facts have to be faced. In a free trade situation we cannot endeavour to maintain the barriers and the closed-shop protection. We cannot develop and expand further industry in this country by endeavouring to maintain tariff walls around our country at the present time.

Dr. O'Donovan

Would the Minister tell us why?

Mr. Lalor

With the assistance of the IDA—much-maligned by Deputy O'Donovan—we must face the facts of the situation. We are a nation which must build up our industries so that they can export. This would lead to the type of economic development which the Fianna Fáil Party visualise. We must not put a barrier around ourselves.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Fianna Fáil Party have changed completely from what they were in the 1950s.

Mr. Lalor

We fought the last election on the basis that we are the party of reality. Obviously Deputy O'Donovan is reaching the stage of representing the party of cloud-cuckoo land.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Fianna Fáil Party do not know whether they are on their heads or their heels.

Mr. Lalor

Under a former Taoiseach we generated industrial development in the country. This development was protected. It needed to be protected.

Dr. O'Donovan

It still needs protection.

Mr. Lalor

Certain sections may still need protection. Deputy Donegan accepted the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement as being a useful preparatory ground for our entry into Europe.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Labour Party never accepted that, and the Minister knows it.

Mr. Lalor

If the Labour Party wants to stay in the mid-1950s they can stay there. The electorate will keep them back as well.

Dr. O'Donovan

The Minister is not answering the real criticism.

Mr. Lalor

If I could find out what it was, I would.

Dr. O'Donovan

It is that this Government did not preserve the tariffs in the way they should have.

Mr. Lalor

We preserve tariffs in the best possible way by trying to develop our export trade with other countries. We cannot build tariff barriers around our country and expect to be able to export our commodities into other countries without having to meet corresponding tariff barriers against us. If Deputy O'Donovan believes we could maintain that sort of situation I must reiterate what I have said already.

Dr. O'Donovan

The tariff barrier was maintained against us by the Germans.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister should be allowed to reply to the Second Reading.

Dr. O'Donovan

May I ask another question at the end?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister must not be interrupted. We will have other Stages.

Mr. Lalor

We will have further Stages.

Mr. Donegan

We can ask questions then.

Mr. Lalor

Deputy Donegan commented that we did not act in a harsh enough manner in connection with the terms. He felt that we stuck too rigidly to the letter of the law in so far as the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement was concerned.

Mr. Donegan

An té nach bhfuil láidir ní foláin dó bheith glic.

Mr. Lalor

One of the orders to which Deputy Donegan referred was No. 197. He said no order was made at all. That order had the effect of protecting the woollen and worsted industry to quite an extent.

I think I had better go into this in detail. Deputy O'Donovan said these orders were all technical things of no great importance, with the exception of Order No. 197. Deputy Donegan described Order 193 in respect of tyres as a correcting order. There were a number of correcting orders and the order I have referred to was made arising from the importation of larger sized tyres which seriously affected the Dunlop industry in Cork.

Dr. Donegan

I was in favour of it.

Mr. Lalor

Deputy O'Donovan said it was unimportant because we had not been making many of those tyres. It was extremely important because the importation of that type of tyre was having a serious effect on Dunlops. The increase in the specific duty from £3 to £15 can be regarded as a huge increase but it was necessary to protect the industry.

Dr. O'Donovan

Are the Government still levying 7½ per cent on the manufacture of tyres? If it has not gone, it ought to be.

Mr. Lalor

That would be an excise duty. I have not got the information.

Dr. O'Donovan

It is being protested against each year by Dunlops.

Mr. Lalor

Deputy O'Donovan on the one hand says we should maintain duties and on the other that we should abolish them.

Dr. O'Donovan

I am talking about excise duty.

Mr. Lalor

Some excise duties are protective and are used for that purpose. Deputies Donegan and Bruton referred to Order No. 196 which was made on behalf of the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries. It was made to operate quantitative controls on imports of fish—fresh, chilled and frozen—and ryegrass seed throughout the year; on imports of tomatoes from mid-April to the end of November; and on imports of apples except from the UK from 7th July to the following February. These quantitative controls will be abolished following accession to the EEC and because the duty protection on such products was either non-existent or inadequate, it was agreed during the EEC negotiations that special arrangements could be made to strengthen our duty protection and thus allow for a more gradual exposure of Irish producers to full EEC conditions.

Mr. Donegan

That is what the Minister should have done four years ago for the footwear industry.

Mr. Lalor

I am dealing with matters concerning agriculture and I may not have a very clear mind on it. Deputy Bruton wanted to know whether we can maintain duties of some kind in this respect. Certainly in relation to tomatoes and apples it has been agreed with the EEC that some form of compensatory charges can be operated during the transition period. It would be relative to the difference between our prices and those of the Community. It would give better protection in one way than duties.

Mr. Donegan

So long as the goods did not come from within the Community. A system of premiums and levies operates on grain at the moment.

Mr. Lalor

Deputy Donegan wanted to know if ryegrass will qualify for production subsidy. Under the EEC system it will, and tomatoes and apples will be dealt with by the system I have outlined.

Mr. Donegan

I think I said earlier it would be 10 dollars per 200 kilos. It is 10 dollars per 100 kilos which is very considerable.

Mr. Lalor

The fishing industry will benefit from an organised marketing system. I have endeavoured to answer most of the points made——

Mr. Donegan

Is the Minister asking for the remaining Stages now?

Mr. Lalor

I should like to get them now.

Mr. Donegan

I have no objection. I can ask any remaining questions on Committee Stage.

Dr. O'Donovan

I have no objection to the remaining Stages being taken now. Would the Minister answer the specific point I raised, the date of the consultations between the Irish and British Governments in regard to the textile industry? I want the month.

Mr. Lalor

The Deputy asked earlier for the year and I replied to that.

Dr. O'Donovan

I may not have been here.

Mr. Lalor

It was in April, 1971.

Mr. Donegan

Did it relate to footwear as well?

Mr. Lalor

To the whole field.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.