(Public Business.) - Finance (Customs Duties) (No.2) Bill, 1932—Committee Stage.
The Seanad went into Committee.
Sections 1 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
SECTION 7—sub-section (1).
(1) In lieu of the duties now chargeable under Section 16 of the Finance Act, 1925 (No. 28 of 1925), as amended by subsequent enactments, a duty of customs shall be charged, levied, and paid at the rates mentioned in this sub-sections on every one of the articles mentioned in this sub-section imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 26th day of April, 1932, that is to say:—
(a) on all suits, overcoats, hats, and caps made wholly or mainly from woven tissues wholly or partly of wool or worsted and suitable for wear by men or boys, all proofed personal clothing and wearing apparel (except gloves) wholly or mainly made of leather or leather substitutes, and all component parts and accessories of any of the articles before-mentioned in this paragraph—an amount equal to sixty per cent. of the value of the article;
(b) on all shirts and collars not made of woven tissues which are wholly or partly of wool or worsted, all straw hats, all felt hats, all hats of any description (other than straw hats and felt hats) intended for wear by women or girls, and all component parts and accessories of any of the articles before-mentioned in this paragraph—an amount equal to twenty-two and one-half per cent. of the value of the article;
(c) on all gloves, guards, and protectors which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, are constructed, designed, and intended solely for use in sport, all bathing costumes, bathing caps, and bathing wraps, and all clothing which is suitable and intended for use when wading—an amount equal to fifteen per cent. of the value of the article;
(d) on all personal clothing and wearing apparel which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, has before importation been substantially worn or otherwise used outside Saorstát Eireann by a person other than the importer or members of his family or household—an amount equal to twentyfive per cent. of the value of the article;
(e) on all personal clothing and wearing apparel not mentioned in any of the foregoing paragraphs of this sub-section and all component parts and accessories of any such personal clothing or wearing apparel—an amount equal to forty-five per cent. of the value of the article.
I move recommendation No. 1.
Section 7, sub-section (1). After the word "girls" in the line 54 to insert the words:—
"on stockings or socks made of cotton or artificial silk or a mixture of cotton and artificial silk, intended for use by women or children, not exceeding in value one shilling and fourpence per pair;
on undershirts and undertrousers made of cotton or wool or a mixture of cotton and wool, intended for wear by men and boys, not exceeding in value one shilling and four-pence each;
on articles of underwear made from cotton, artificial silk or wool or a mixture of any of these, intended for wear by women or girls, not exceeding in value one shilling and one penny each;
on coats made wholly or partly of wool or worsted not exceeding 36 inches in length suitable for wear by girls."
I do not want to go into this at any great length, because I gave the general reasons on the Second Stage for the recommendations which I have put down. The Minister in his reply stated in effect that there was no use moving any recommendations which were inconsistent with the general policy of the Government, and that if they were adopted they would be inevitably rejected in the other House. He did not say that, but he implied it. That one would expect. I gave my view with regard to the general policy on the last occasion, but the recommendations I have put down are not recommendations calculated to attack the general policy of the Government. They accept the fact of the Bill and they try to make suggestions which would be in the nature of improvements if they were adopted. If Senators look at Section 7 they will find that it deals with clothing generally, and that instead of a general duty of 15 per cent. on personal clothing, which was previously imposed, the new Government have made distinctions and have placed 60 per cent. on certain classes. I am moving no recommendation there. I should like to say that, as far as boys' and most men's clothes are concerned, I agree that they can be obtained in this country with very little difficulty.
The Government single out certain articles which you will find in paragraph 3 which in effect are subject to the old rate. They provide a rate of 22½ per cent., with an Imperial preference of 15 per cent., which leaves them exactly as before. They make another distinction in paragraph 3 in which they provide a reduction on what was chargeable before, bringing the duty to 15 per cent. foreign and 10 per cent. as far as British goods are concerned. In paragraph (d) they deal with second-hand clothing, with which I am not concerned, and in (e) they deal with the residue, which includes everything not mentioned in all the other sections, imposing a tax of 45 per cent., which means 30 per cent. as far as British goods are concerned. That is double the previous duty in the case of goods imported from Britain and treble the previous duty in the case of goods imported from Germany, France or elsewhere. The last paragraph includes some of the very cheapest articles which are used almost entirely by the poorer classes. It includes amongst these a number of articles in which I am satisfied there is no prospect of manufacture at an early date, if at all, in the Free State. I could move that these be exempted from the duty and possibly make a good case, but I have not proposed that. I am proposing that they be included in paragraph (b), which will leave them subject to a duty of 22½ per cent., or 15 per cent. in the case of British goods.
The reason that I have chosen that course is because the higher priced articles are manufactured here, so that if you add 15 per cent. to the lower priced articles it will still leave a pretty considerable difference between them and the lower priced article which is available here. I propose that this reduced rate should apply to the cheap stockings and socks which are made of cotton or artificial silk. I have not included cashmere or wool, not because you can get the cheaper article in cashmere or wool here but you can get it somewhat nearer the same price in an Irish-made article. You cannot obtain here, as far as I have been able to ascertain, these very cheap articles made of cotton or artificial silk or a mixture of both, which, I think, are mostly worn by the poorer people.
They next deal with certain classes of men's underwear. I am proposing there again that the cheap articles which are not manufactured here, and which I am satisfied will not be manufactured here at an early date, should be made subject to the cheaper rate. My third class deals with the very cheapest ladies' underwear. The fourth class is rather different. It deals with worsted or woollen coats suitable for girls which are not manufactured here at all, or certainly not in any quantity. Possibly they may be at an early date. It is also possible, but I do not think probable, that stockings may be made here at a later date. If that be so, I might point out that the Government would have power to put on the requisite rate of duty to protect the trade if they saw a prospect of their being made here. My sole object is to insure that the tariffs will hit the very poor as lightly as possible. That is my main purpose in moving this recommendation.
I must oppose this recommendation. I think that it is against the principle and the policy contained in this Bill. If as Senator Douglas says these articles are not made here, a statement with which I do not agree, there is no chance of their ever being made here unless it is made worth while for somebody to make them. I have made inquiries, and as far as I could discover, the articles mentioned in at least two sections of the amendment are made here. Stockings made of cotton or artificial silk or a mixture of both are made here. They are made in Cork.
Cathaoirleach
I cannot understand what is meant by a price of 1/4 per pair. Is it 1/4 cost price to the producer? Is it 1/4 as sold to the distributing retailer or is it 1/4 retailed to the public?
The Bill deals at the end with the meaning of the word "value."
I think Senator Douglas's next recommendation to insert a new section before Section 19, will give the Minister if he cares to adopt it, such discretionary powers as will enable him to deal with any practical difficulties or any practical hardship on the public, with which this amendment purports to deal. These articles are made here. I am surprised that Senator Douglas should put such a statement as this in his recommendation. "Coats made wholly or partly of wool or worsted not exceeding 36 ins. in length." There are a number of coats of the very highest de luxe character which do not exceed 36 ins. in length. These would be exempt from duty under the recommendation merely because of the lineal measurement and the person who wanted to get the "swagger" article could get it free of duty if it was only 36 ins. in length, whereas the poorer person getting a less expensive article of 40 ins. in length would have to pay-duty on it. I think the recommendation should not be accepted.
There are a number of objections to Senator Douglas's recommendations, including this one. In the first place this really means a reduction to 22½ per cent. in the duty on the various items. There is another principle involved—at least there is a suggestion of a differential rate. I think it will be easily understood by the House that it is very undesirable to have a differential rate in qualities of coats. It leads to evasions, it leads to false invoicing and generally it is almost impossible for the revenue authorities to deal with it. That is an objection but the main objection is that it is cutting across the policy that is rightly or wrongly being pursued by the present Executive, namely, a protective policy for such industries as we want to see here and for which there is a considerable market. It will be conceded that, unless protection is afforded, new industries will not be started, or further development of existing industries, to cater for certain requirements not already catered for in the country, will not be made. It is our intention to have these industries where they are in existence extended to cope with all the demands for such commodities as we use.
I explained my point of view last week as regards certain standards of living, certain conditions of labour and certain types of production that we do not want in this country. The question of values as against prices, the question of wages and conditions of labour-will undoubtedly be continually watched in this country. As I said then, if a Japanese firm is making hosiery and is sending it in here at 2/- per dozen pairs or 2d. per pair, we do not want Japanese hosiery under conditions like that. I have considered this recommendation of Senator Douglas and I have had all the Departments who are interested in this section of the work to go carefully into it. We are satisfied that we could not possibly accept this recommendation. I might say quite frankly that we are opposed to most of the recommendations which the Senator has on the paper to-day.
With regard to the Minister's reply as to the general policy, which I think he has made quite clear, until the duty takes effect and the articles can be made here, I recognise that to some extent it is inevitable in a tariff policy that purchasers should suffer in most cases. I am not going to try to explain that that can be avoided, but I am definitely of the opinion that some effort should be made to safeguard the poorer people who are not getting here or are not likely to get, as far as I can see, any substantial increase in wages and who simply will have to buy, because they must, the cheaper article. I do not want to argue this at length but there were one or two points raised with which I would like to deal. I was very much amused at the manner in which Senator Dowdall dealt with the distinction in the length of women's and girls' coats. My idea in providing for a length of 36 inches was to distinguish between women's and girls' coats. If the Senator will make inquiries he will find that coats up to 36 inches in length are recognised as girls' coats in the trade as distinct from women's coats. These smaller coats are not being made here whereas women's coats are being made here. I should like very much to know from Senator Dowdall whether he can buy stockings in Cork made of cotton or artificial silk at 16/- per dozen, because that is what he stated. Some of the articles referred to in this proposal of mine are being made here on doubt, but at considerably higher prices. I admitted that in moving my recommendation. I am not aware of its being made. I would be very glad if it were and I should like to know where it could be obtained.
I should like to make a remark with regard to Japanese wear. It is quite true that some extraordinarily cheap articles of poor quality have come in from Japan. I am not going to advocate the putting on of 200 per cent. on these articles. Even it were done it would not prevent them from coming in, because some people with low wages are foolish enough to buy the very cheapest article and they do not always know the distinction between that which is rubbish and that which is not. I have not attempted to deal with the way in which the Minister or the Government attempted to deal with them. I am trying to deal with what I know there is a considerable demand for here and for which there is no immediate likelihood of manufacture in this country. I say definitely that the Government which has adopted the policy which has been clearly stated by the Minister could easily ascertain when there is a likelihood of the cheaper article being made and they could easily give an undertaking that they will protect it if it is made. For that reason, I propose to ask the House to divide on this first recommendation.
I cannot answer Senator Douglas's question as to the exact price which is charged by the two firms in Cork, but I would be rather surprised if the articles in the first paragraph of Senator Douglas's recommendation are not made at the manufacturer's cost price of 1/4, or at least some of them. With regard to the coats not exceeding 36 inches suitable for wear by girls, probably there is a recognised trade article of that label. I have seen some ladies of my acquaintance wearing articles which would be called coats of sorts which are less than 36 inches and which were very costly indeed.
And I expect that they would like to be described as girls.
That I would not contradict, but I think there is a very great deal in the Minister's argument with regard to the probability of evasion once you fix the price. The late Minister for Industry and Commerce exempted from certain duties articles of a certain length or under a certain price and the result was that considerably more than two-thirds of the tweeds imported here came in duty free. Every Customs man knew that it was an evasion but he had something else to do besides holding an inquest as to the value or length or width of clothing. I think this would happen to the trade—fraudulent evasion—and it would be a penalty on the honest manufacturer on the other side who made a true declaration.
I think that in this issue I would be inclined to take Senator Douglas's opinion as to the way in which these goods are used and who makes them in this country, rather than Senator Dowdall's. The information we got from Senator Douglas is undoubtedly quite accurate. He knows what is made in this country. There is no question what the object of this recommendation is: He knows that a certain class of very poor people are going to be injured and will have to pay more for these things that are not made in this country. He asks the House to make a recommendation that these poor people—from now until such time as it is certain the Ministry can see that these goods can be supplied at these prices are made in the Free State and can be supplied to them—that these poor people get the goods which they absolutely need at the price at which they can get them now, because if this recommendation is not approved these poor people will have to pay these increased prices for these stockings and for other articles as mentioned. That is the whole recommendation, and it seems a thing we ought to pass. There is nobody here to speak for these poor people. The Government say it is essential that this recommendation should not be accepted because everybody must go on and prepare the way for these new manufactures that are to be carried on in the Free State. This is a temporary amendment to prevent the poorest class we have got paying more during the change. It would seem to commend itself to all people who know the difficulties of our poorer classes, and which are at the present moment extremely severe. As regards our duty here I cannot see how any ordinary Senator sitting here trying to relieve the poorest people we have from a disability, can let a tax be put on them temporarily which undoubtedly will injure them the whole time. They should let our recommendation go out that these poor people, during the change, should not have these articles increased in price on them. That is all it means, and I for one certainly think the Seanad ought to try to help these poor people. I cannot see how some of our Labour members and the people who are supposed to look after the interests of the poorer classes do not take us up. I have no doubt whatever that they, who know as well as we that these poor people are going to pay more for these things—how they can sit here and stand for this I cannot understand.
I do not think we ought to be judged before we are tried. At the Second Reading Stage of this Bill I expressed the opinion that I had a considerable amount of sympathy with the point put forward by Senator Douglas. I am still of that opinion. All that Senator Douglas puts forward with regard to these particular articles is this: that we are putting 60 per cent. tariff on articles that we do not produce. In other words that you are going to put an additional tax on the poor people. I think it is pretty well known that I do not require tariffs to make me do what I think right-minded people should do with regard to supporting native industry, but I say there are large numbers, a large percentage, of the industrial workers of this country who do not receive a sufficient wage to enable them to buy the higher priced articles. I said at the Second Reading Stage of this Bill that I was prepared to have inserted a suspensory clause dealing with this particular item giving the Minister power to put this levy on at any moment he thought it was expedient to do so. That is to say, he would withhold from the Bill the putting into operation of the 60 per cent. duty on this particular class of goods until the time had arrived when there was a reasonable chance of their being produced here, because no matter how we face this particular matter with regard to stockings and cheap underwear for men and women, everybody knows that that particular type of goods is not manufactured here. And the difference between the price paid for that particular article now and the price that has to be paid for Irish manufactured articles is so great that a number of these people cannot afford to pay. Personally I think that the people are penny wise and pound foolish. I have always believed all my life, and I have always endeavoured to encourage the people I came in contact with to believe, that we should endeavour to get the better priced Irish articles because in the long run they get better value, and I think it is good policy to educate them to do so. Unfortunately the position remains that factory girls and girls of that class buy a cheap pair of stockings practically every week and they get a week's wear out of them. I don't want to advertise anybody, but they could have bought Balbriggan stockings or other Irish stockings which women and girls wear. They could get from them four and five times the wear of these cheap shoddy articles but nevertheless they want to go out on Sundays dressed in a pair of skin-coloured stockings. If I might say so, there is nothing in the world more absurd than to see them trooping through mud with these cheap silk stockings, but the fact remains that it is customary for these people to use the cheap type of article. That being so, I think it is unfair to put an additional tax on and to make it 60 per cent. on these articles when they are not produced here. I can see the other side of the case, but on the whole I think the best policy to adopt would be to give the Minister power to impose this tariff on this particular type of goods at any moment he thinks there was a likelihood of their being produced here.
I wish to vote for this recommendation although I recognise from what has been said in the debate that there is room for opinion both ways about this, but I am so much against the possibility, which I think is more than a possibility, the likelihood, that everybody in this country will shortly be paying more for certain kinds of things they want than people in other countries. I know quite well that one of the objects of putting on these duties is to increase employment. In so far as that is done it is all to the good. But in the course of that I fear that great numbers of people will suffer much greater damage in the aggregate than the advantages that will be brought about in the other way. The Senator who has just spoken advises that a lot of girls who buy a rather cheap, though perhaps not really a very meritorious, class of article, should buy Balbriggan hosiery. I dare say that is good advice, but people do want to buy what they like, and that is what I dislike about all this so much. It is curtailing the people's liberty and there is too much of that. Personally we shall all be paying more than is paid for everything anywhere else. I think it is a dreadful prospect. Therefore, although I admit that I am not really competent to decide a largely technical question between the two points of view, I wish to vote for the recommendation because it is in the general terms I am in favour of.
I do not want to add anything to what has been said. It must be remembered, when Senator Jameson is talking about the poor—and I have every belief that he is fully sincere in his interest in the poor-that we are trying to make these people less poor by the establishment of employment in this country. There is one way of doing that and that is to provide the employment that the manufacture of our own goods will give. I do not want to stress that, but it is implicit in our programme, and will be put into force while we are here. The other side of the programme is that no one is going to come here and to embark on industry with promises of tariffs, unless they feel sure that it is the set policy of the Executive Council to enforce tariffs. Otherwise you will not get any substantial development. In fact you will get no development at all in any industrial enterprise. What man would embark on an enterprise to cater for a limited market unless he got protection? That is the question to be considered.
The suggestion that Senator Farren made really arises on the next recommendation, in the name of Senator Douglas, that the Minister should get power. In matters like tariffs the Executive does not think it wise for any such power to be vested in a Minister. We feel that is a matter for the Oireachtas. If the power were left in the hands of a Minister he would be subject to all sorts of undesirable pressure, political pressure and trade pressure, asking him to move in one direction to-day and in another direction to-morrow. A tariff policy must be thought out in long-term work and when tariffs are imposed they must not be imposed on the basis that they are put on to-day and will be taken off to-morrow. We are satisfied that we would not get manufactures started unless on such terms, and for that reason we cannot accept the recommendation.
I do not want to debate with the Minister. Clearly we differ. The whole point is whether there should be an interregnum during which the people could buy lower priced articles. The only reason I refer to the matter is that Senator Farren said the rate was 60 per cent. whereas it is 45 per cent. I do not claim to be infallible in this matter. I made enquiries and on the experience of my staff I based the figures in the recommendation, which I think are correct. As Cork has been brought into the matter I do not want anything that I said to suggest any want of confidence in firms in Cork. We have done business with a number of firms in Cork long before the Free State was established, and always found them highly satisfactory. I am not going up for a Cork constituency! I have no interests outside this country. I am not interested in any proposal which would make matters difficult for Irish manufacturers. In the retail business in which I am interested the instructions to the buyers as long as I can remember were not only to give a preference to Irish manufactures but even to pay more where it was possible to approach the other price. That was done before tariffs were introduced. I mention that because my attitude is not that of an absolute Free Stater or in any way hostile. My whole interests are in manufacturers here, but I feel strongly that the wholesale policy of putting on tariffs in the hope that all these things will be manufactured here will defeat itself, and that the price is too high for the country to pay.
Question put.
The Committee divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 13.
Tá.
- Bagwell, John.
- Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
- Brown, K.C., Samuel L.
- Browne, Miss Kathleen.
- Costello, Mrs.
- Counihan, John C.
- Crosbie, George.
- Desart, The Countess of.
- Dillon, James.
- Douglas, James G.
- Farren, Thomas.
- Garahan, Hugh.
- Hickie, Major-General Sir William.
- Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew.
- Keane, Sir John.
- Kennedy, Cornelius.
- McGillicuddy of the Reeks, The
- MacLoughlin, John.
- Milroy, Seán.
- Moran, James.
- O'Connor, Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, M.F.
- Toal, Thomas.
- Vincent, A. R.
- Wilson, Richard.
Níl.
- Chléirigh, Cáitlín Bean Uí.
- Comyn, K.C., Michael.
- Connolly, Joseph.
- Dowdall, J.C.
- Linehan, Thomas.
- MacEllin, Seán E.
- Moore, Colonel.
- O'Doherty, Joseph.
- O'Neill, L.
- Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
- Quirke, William.
- Robinson, David L.
- Robinson, Séamus.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Douglas and Milroy; Níl: Senators O'Doherty and S. Robinson.
Recommendation declared carried.
Question—"That Section 7 stand part of the Bill"—put and agreed to.
Sections 8 and 9 agreed to.
SECTION 10.
Question proposed—"That Section 10 stand part of the Bill."
As this section deals with a tax on maize meal I want to refer to it. I made on the Second Reading a general protest against tariffs and the taxes which will hit farmers particularly. I consider this to be a most unjustifiable tax. Farmers may be able to do for a time without new agricultural machinery, and may not have to pay the extra prices which will certainly have to be paid on such things as spades and shovels, but they cannot do without maize meal. No farmer or cottier can do without maize meal. It is the most useful food used on farms. About the time that this tariff was put on there happened to be a fall in the price of maize, and that was seized on to show that prices would not be raised. That was simply dishonest. The price of maize will be raised now, but farmers will not be able to pay the extra price for this foodstuff. It is a tax on the raw material of the farmer. Every animal or bird from the smallest chicken to the fattening bullock is fed on maize. I wish particularly to protest against the tax which will be made on flaked maize because there is only one mill making it and the man who invented that did a great benefit to the farmer. Can anyone say for a moment that while we are waiting for these mills to spring up like mushrooms all over the country the farmer will not have to pay extra for that product? All that we can do here is to protest, and I wish to make this protest on behalf of the farmers. I wish especially on this Section 10 to protest.
I did not like to interfere while Senator Miss Browne was speaking, purely because it was Senator Miss Browne who was speaking. I think that the Senator will realise that she can do more than protest. Senator Douglas has just carried a recommendation which cuts right across the policy of the Executive Council. I did not like to intervene but I think, with all due respect to Senator Miss Browne, that she was entirely out of order, as she could have brought in a recommendation.
I am very sorry I did not bring in a recommendation to delete it.
I am not a farmer, but as it happens I do happen to know something about this. There is no increase in the price.
Because the price of maize is falling.
No, the fall in the price of meal is equal to the fall in the price of the cereal and I am advised, on the best of authority—and, with all due respect, just as reliable authority as Senator Miss Browne has—that in the County of Donegal the price of maize meal is lower than in the County of Derry. So that, on the question of maize meal, we are in a safer position than we are on the question of ordinary meal. There is no grievance whatever with the farmers and it is absurd to make it out to be a grievance.
Every practical farmer must be wrong then.
Sections 10 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move that:—
2. New section. Before Section 19 to insert a new section as follows:—
"19—(1) Whenever the Executive Council is satisfied, on the report of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that any particular description of goods on which a customs duty is imposed by this Act should be exempted from duty or that the duty imposed should be reduced, the Executive Council may by order make such alteration in or exemption from the duties imposed by this Act as they think proper to specify in such order.
(2) An order made by the Executive Council under this section shall have effect immediately upon the making thereof and shall cease to have effect in or upon the happening of whichever of the following events first occurs, that is to say:—
(a) if a resolution approving such order, with or without modification, is not passed by Dáil Eireann within the next ten days on which Dáil Eireann sits after the day on which such order is made;
(b) if a Bill containing provisions to the same effect (with or without modification) as such order is not read a second time by Dáil Eireann within the next twenty days on which Dáil Eireann sits after the passing by Dáil Eireann of a resolution approving (with or without modification) such order;
(c) if the said provisions of the said Bill are rejected by Dáil Eireann during the passage of such Bill through the Oireachtas;
(d) the coming into operation of an Act of the Oireachtas containing provisions to the same effect (with or without modification) as such order;
(e) the expiration of a period of four months from the day on which such order is made."
This recommendation endeavours— though I think you will admit that it is rather difficult for a layman to draft these things—to give the Ministry, subject of course to the approval of the Dáil, the same power to modify or reduce as they have at present apparently got to put on new duties or to increase. To be quite frank, I would much prefer if the Ministry would repeal the Bill which gives them power without a Resolution of the Dáil, for at the present moment there is a Bill which was intended to deal with dumping. They have power under that Act to put on or increase duties. They have the same power as I propose under my recommendation. If within a certain period certain acts are not done by the Dáil, the Order which the Ministry can make, increasing or putting on new duties, will cease to have effect. I want to give them powers to modify in case they should after experience— and there may be a considerable time now to test the effects while the Dáil is not meeting—decide to make certain modifications.
The Minister has given us an indication that he cannot accept this recommendation because in principle he is opposed to it and he is opposed to the Ministry having power except through the Dáil. I do not quite understand his position. Apparently, the Ministry are not only in favour of, but willing to exercise, power subject to approval in the case of new duties or the increase of duties—both of which have been done —but that when a suggestion is made that it might be necessary to modify, they are opposed to it on principle. If you like to go over the history of the last few weeks, you will find that with very few exceptions they have found it necessary to modify and alter almost all of the tariffs put on by them under this anti-Dumping Act and that they did in effect so modify them before they came to the Dáil for approval. That was possible because this period elapsed. Once this becomes law, it does not seem to me that there will be any method by which they can, if they find any error has been made, modify or reduce these particular duties by law except by a Financial Resolution in the Dáil; and that cannot be done when the Dáil is not sitting. The Minister gave as an argument that unfair pressure might be brought by traders and others interested on the Ministry to take action. Apparently, there is no fear of pressure being used to put on or to increase duties but there is fear of pressure to take off or reduce them. If he said that there is a danger of unfair pressure to increase, I would have sympathy, but there are few men whom I would trust so much as I would trust the Minister to resist that, but of course, he will not always be there. The logical position is to accept this or some such recommendation or else to repeal the anti-Dumping Act. To be consistent you must have one or the other.
Senator Douglas has stated that he does not understand the position. That is a frank admission and it is a sentiment on his part with which I heartily concur. His point is this—that the Ministry, although they should have no power to increase taxes on any commodity, might have power, or might be given power to reduce taxes.
On a point of explanation, I should like to state that that is not what I said. I said they had power to increase.
Yes. The Dumping Bill is a Bill apart, introduced for a special purpose dealing with a special class of articles. So far as the general principle, expressed by Senator Douglas, is concerned, I think I have not misrepresented him. His argument is that, although it is unconstitutional and unwise to give to any Ministry the power of making or increasing a tax, there is no objection whatever to allowing him to reduce a tax.
Cathaoirleach
That is not what the Senator said.
To reduce a tax with the subsequent approval of Parliament.
I said either to give them power to modify or reduce as well as to increase or to repeal the Bill which gives them power to increase without a Resolution. I said that it should be one thing or the other.
Although the speech may or may not have been clear, the recommendation itself is clear, which is that "Whenever the Executive Council is satisfied, on the report of the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that any particular description of goods on which a customs duty is imposed by this Act should be exempted from duty or that the duty imposed should be reduced, the Executive Council may by order make such alteration in or exemption from the duties imposed by this Act as they think proper to specify in such order."
That is remarkably clear, and the argument by which it is supported is this, that although a Ministry should have no power to impose taxes, they might have power to reduce taxes.
Cathaoirleach
Senator Douglas has tried three times to emphasise his position that the Government have now the power to increase.
That is under the Dumping Act, which is a special kind of legislation.
Does the Senator know that each of the duties in this Bill was put on under the Dumping Act?
That is a special kind of legislation which I will deal with later in the course of my speech. But this is a matter which I want to emphasise —that the power to reduce taxes is subject to the same imperfections and to the same objections from a constitutional point of view as the power to impose taxes, because, the expenses of Government being the same, the reduction of one tax will inevitably mean the increase or maintenance of another tax. As regards the dumping tax, the Dumping Bill is an emergency measure to deal with a situation arising at the present time—an emergency in which we are placed at present. It deals with a certain class of goods and has nothing to do with general policy. Senator Douglas's recommendation deals with general policy, and seeks to give the Minister power to reduce taxes without the sanction of Parliament.
I said on the last occasion that I am unalterably opposed to giving any Minister or Ministry such a power, and I am glad that the present Ministry has refrained from accepting the proposal of Senator Douglas. It shows that they are a constitutional Ministry, and certainly this is the most remarkable example in which they could show that they are constitutional, not merely in form but in essence.
Whatever may be thought of the Minister's reasons I feel that what might arise under this recommendation is so objectionable that I would not like to be responsible for it and will vote against the recommendation.
I do not propose to reply in detail to Senator Comyn for obvious reasons, but I should like to point out to the House that this Bill, which obtained the full support of Senator Comyn's eloquence, contains a large number of duties almost all of which, if not all, were imposed by this Ministry of which he absolutely approves, by order under the anti-dumping legislation which he says is very special and which he would not approve of being done without the Dáil. Resolutions were brought in at a later date to the Dáil.
Now, the recommendation which I put down provides exactly the same words and the same provisions as are in the anti-Dumping Bill. It does not give general powers, but in respect of the duties which are in this Act, all of which were put on by this Ministry under the anti-Dumping Act, and my whole and only reason is that the method adopted by the Ministry—and it is consistent with their policy—is to put on the tariffs which they think best for the moment, and then when they find, as a result of representations and after inquiries have been made, that an error has been made—and I think it was the Minister for Industry and Commerce who stated frankly that some of the tariffs had led to errors— it is sent to the officials of their department and the matter is looked into, and when the Minister is satisfied that a mistake has been made, he is willing to alter it.
The only object of this recommendation to my mind is to continue that power, because I am satisfied that enough time has not elapsed to show the mistakes that have been made. I do not propose to press this to a division because there is not the slightest use giving a Ministry power which it is not willing to use and to which it objects. There is no use recommending powers to a Ministry to which they are opposed. It would be silly. In the circumstances therefore if the House will allow me I will withdraw the recommendation.
All increases must be made by resolution to prevent forestalling; there is nothing about diminution.
I merely remarked that with regard to the argument I made a feeling of security on the part of manufacturers was my object. I do not want the discussion between Senator Douglas and Senator Comyn to go with the idea that there may not be emergencies where we have to exercise tariff precautions—anti-dumping precautions—for our own industry. We have adopted anti-dumping legislation and we have been responsible for putting on anti-dumping tariffs. In any such emergencies that may arise the Executive will exercise proper legislative authority.
As well as anti-dumping legislation they also adopted dumping legislation.
Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 19 agreed to and added to the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
SCHEDULE 2.
I move recommendations 3 and 4:
Second Schedule. Section 1. After the word "them" in line 50 to insert the words "of a value of six shillings and sixpence or over."
Second Schedule. Section 2. After the word "them" in line 5 to insert the words "and all boots, shoes, slippers, goloshes and sandals, of which the upper is wholly or mainly made of leather and skin or either of them, of a value not exceeding six shillings and fivepence."
I do not imagine that I am going to be much more successful as far as these recommendations are concerned than I was a while ago. No. 3 deals with the duty on boots and shoes. In regard to boots and shoes the anti-Dumping Bill was used to increase the tariff placed on boots and shoes. That would be quite consistent with the statement made by the Minister. I am not quite so sure that it would be consistent with the statement made by Senator Comyn. But after investigation the Ministry decided that they required certain modifications and that certain articles ought to be exempt. If you read this section you will find that certain articles are exempt. I think I understood that these articles were exempt because they were not made in Ireland, but in view of the debate on the previous recommendation one would think it would be inconsistent with the Government's policy because they want everything made here. They oppose the proposal to reduce the tariff on goods not made in Ireland. But in this case they have exempted children's shoes and I think quite rightly because they are not made here.
The Minister for Industry and Commerce said that he intended to exempt these shoes only until they are made here. The exact period was suggested in the previous recommendation and it was adopted by the Government in the case of boots and shoes, and quite properly. The only difference is that this recommendation asks to exempt certain boots and shoes not made in this country. I want to exempt the cheapest class of women's shoes, or rather to bring them down to 15 per cent., the figure that would apply for children's sizes from 7 to 11. I approve entirely of the action of the Ministry in voting their first order and exempting 7 to 11 and leaving them at 15 per cent. I want to include in that ladies' shoes at a price of 6/5. Senator Dowdall will, I think, be interested to know how I arrived at that price. I went to investigate the problem in one of the best houses in Cork, and I arrived at the price so as to leave a substantial margin between that and the lowest price I could get from them at the present time so that they would not in any way injure my case as the exemption is exactly the same as in the previous recommendation. I want to exempt shoes used by the poorer people, shoes not made here, and I want to leave it to the Government when they see that these goods are being made here to put the duty back upon them. Apparently there is a difference in principle in the mind of the Government between boots and shoes, and clothing. I hope they will consider this recommendation because making an exemption of boots and shoes in this case would not be inconsistent with their policy. I think the adoption of recommendations 3 and 4 would be necessary to achieve this policy.
I have to be guided entirely by technical advice received by the Department in this matter. We are satisfied that there is a difference between the two commodities mentioned, boots and shoes in this case and stockings in the other. It is felt that it would be unwise to accept this recommendation. There is another danger in this recommendation, namely, that it has nothing really to do with the principle of the section, and that is the danger of the fixing of invoice prices, which Senator Douglas will realise as clearly as anybody in the House, presents very grave danger and risks to the Revenue Authorities. It encourages the evasion of tariffs and the falsifying of invoices and the rest. We are reasonably satisfied that the boots and shoes of this type, other than children's boots and shoes that have been exempted by size and not by value, could be produced here. The question as to the possibility of having very cheap shoes of an inferior type dumped into the country is one I am prepared to adopt at the moment. Personally I feel they should not be allowed to come in under any conditions, and, I am sure, from a technical point of view, if the condition "all leather" will cover it also, that is a factor that has to be taken into account in connection with the boot and shoe import business. The construction of the Act is based entirely on leather. In how far some of the cardboard productions now seen in drapers' shops are worth purchasing at any price and how far they will be admitted is a matter for the authorities. But the technical advice we have is the assurance that we will get to the position when we will make as cheap boots as it is desirable to make and, therefore, we must resist this recommendation.
I think I could produce goods—not here, of course, at the moment—which would satisfy the Minister that it is perfectly possible to buy at the price I have mentioned some very useful and respectable articles, not made of cardboard but mainly of leather. The reason for including the words "mainly of leather" is that the words "mainly of leather" could easily satisfy the Revenue officers that they were to be included amongst the goods coming in at 15 per cent., because that was one of the modifications that the Minister thought fit to make. It adds to my case to allow cheap shoes in mainly of leather at 15 per cent., when cheap shoes not mainly of leather are not allowed in. I recognise, quite frankly, there is something in what the Minister says in regard to the difficulty of fixing of prices. If I could have found any other method than the proposed one I certainly would have proposed it, but I could see no other way in which the object I have in view could be achieved except by a fair minimum price. With regard to evasion, I do not agree that there is much danger. I think the Revenue Commissioners have never reached such efficient knowledge; they are quite competent, and if you could avoid it by making something worth 6/5 worth 8/- you might as well do it, because you will pay less duty, and it would be worth your while. But it is not worth your while, because we know in other trades evasions have been discovered. In the case of large distributing firms from the other side the Revenue Commissioners have to be satisfied that the price basis in the invoices produced is correct. There is no doubt that some very clever people have evaded duty, but I think the Revenue Commissioners have reached such a stage that their efficiency will be quite equal to any people who try evasion. This is a reasonable amendment, and I shall ask the House to divide upon Recommendation No. 3.
Question put—"That Recommendation No. 3 be made."
The Seanad divided: Tá, 25; Níl, 18.
Tá.
- Bigger, Sir Edward Coey.
- Brown, K.C., Samuel L.
- Browne, Miss Kathleen.
- Costello, Mrs.
- Counihan, John C.
- Crosbie, George.
- Desart, The Countess of.
- Dillon, James.
- Douglas, James G.
- Fanning, Michael.
- Garahan, Hugh.
- Granard, The Earl of.
- Hickie, Major-General Sir William.
- Jameson, Right Hon. Andrew.
- Keane, Sir John.
- Kennedy, Cornelius.
- McGillicuddy of the Reeks, The.
- Moran, James.
- O'Connor, Joseph.
- O'Hanlon, M.F.
- O'Rourke, Brian.
- Staines, Michael.
- Toal, Thomas.
- Vincent, A.R.
- Wilson, Richard.
Níl.
- Chléirigh, Caitlín Bean Uí.
- Comyn, K.C., Michael.
- Connolly, Joseph.
- Dowdall, J.C.
- Duffy, Michael.
- Farren, Thomas.
- Foran, Thomas.
- Linehan, Thomas.
- MacEllin, Seán E.
- MacKean, James.
- Moore, Colonel.
- O'Doherty, Joseph.
- O'Farrell, John T.
- O'Neill, L.
- Phaoraigh, Siobhán Bean an.
- Quirke, William.
- Robinson, David L.
- Robinson, Séamus.
Tellers:—Tá: Senators Douglas and Staines; Níl: Senators O'Doherty and S. Robinson.
Recommendation declared carried.
Cathaoirleach
It was agreed that Recommendation No. 4 should be governed by the same voting.
Recommendation No. 4 put and agreed to.
Second Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.
THIRD SCHEDULE.
Sections 3 & 4.
3. Seventy-five per cent. of the value of the article or the sum of thirty-seven pounds ten shillings, whichever is the greater, on the following articles, that is to say:—
Every motor car body imported as part of a complete car and so imported for sale by a trader in motor cars, where the value of the chassis of such motor car does not exceed the sum of one hundred and twenty pounds and such motor car is imported before the 7th day of August, 1932, and is, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, at importation a new motor car constructed, designed and intended for the carriage of persons otherwise than for reward.
4. Seventy-five per cent. of the value of the article on the following articles, that is to say—
All component parts and accessories of motor car bodies which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, constitute at importation an assembly or partial assembly of such parts or accessories.
This brings us to an entirely different subject. My object in putting down Recommendation No. 5. is that it is really an alternative to Recommendations Nos. 6 and 7. If you would allow me, I shall withdraw Recommendation No. 5 and simply move Recommendations Nos. 6 and 7 which hang together.
Recommendation No. 5, by leave, withdrawn.
I move Recommendations Nos. 6 and 7:
6. Third Schedule. Section 3. To delete in line 5 the words "the 7th day of August, 1932" and to substitute therefor the words "the appointed day."
7. Third Schedule. Section 3. To add at the end of the section the words, "The appointed day referred to in this section shall be fixed by Order made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce and shall not be earlier than the 7th day of October, 1932."
It will save time to discuss these two recommendations together. I do not think I need take up very much of the time of the House because the object of these two recommendations was made I think fairly clear in my speech on the Second Stage. Perhaps I should say that these recommendations by themselves without similar corresponding recommendations in the Finance Bill would not meet the case, but as we have to deal with the two Bills it is necessary to start at the one that is before us. At the present time by a special concession made by the Ministry complete cars including bodies are being admitted up to a certain quota which I think has been varied or extended. Up to a certain quota they are admitted until August 7th. They are allowed in at a rate of 33? British preference and 15 per cent. British preference on the chassis. Until August 7th smaller cars are allowed in with a duty of £37 10s., or 75 per cent. whichever was the greater and £60 in the case of the larger cars. There is a distinction made based on the prices of the cars. I take it without adverting to previous debates that the Ministry are satisfied that they will be able to check the prices in that case at any rate. I am perfectly certain they are able to do it because they have access to the books of the firms and are able to satisfy themselves fully as to the actual value and the prices of the cars imported.
The object of the duty on motor bodies was to get the bodies made here. As I stated on the Second Stage certain negotiations have taken place but up to the present the motor body builders have not produced any samples. I want the date August 7th extended until such date as the Minister is able to satisfy himself that the samples can be produced. I want to extend the date for two months or until such other date afterwards as the Minister shall consider advisable. This is, I think, a case in which there is no real objection to the Minister fixing the appointed day. The duty is fixed by the House, but the only person who can really judge as to what date the concession should end is the Minister. If it is allowed to end on August 7th I respectfully suggest to the Minister that he will not be in a position to bring any pressure to bear on the various coachbuilders. It is to his interest to see that they do take steps to make bodies if the public are to be able to obtain motor bodies made in this country. Failing that, if nobody makes them, the public will have to pay absurdly prohibitive prices. On the last occasion I made a carefully prepared statement in this House in regard to the position. The position is that the automobile distributors have asked for sample bodies of two of the most popular cars and so far, I understand, the bodies have not been produced. The Minister, if he will consider the matter, will see that there is something to be said for giving him or the Minister for Industry and Commerce some discretionary power as to the date to which the period of the concession should be extended. The object of the two recommendations is to delete August 7th, to fix an Appointed Day and to give the Minister power to fix that Appointed Day.
[The Leas-Chathaoirleach took the Chair.]
First of all, all the circumstances under which this concession was originally given have to be considered. A definite line of policy was taken on this question of coach body building. It has been an old sore in the economy of the country. Coach-builders have been agitating for a very considerable period, probably extending over five or six years, to get some concession in the way of protection that would enable coachbuilding to be maintained in this country, and it is no new policy, as a specific policy, for the present Executive to take up. Undoubtedly the trade was worse treated than any other trade in the country. The prolonged agony of the Tariff Commission extending over the period I have mentioned left the trade in a derelict condition, almost bankrupt. It left most of the traders ready for the Gazette, and practically reduced to the point where they would be unable to keep their factories going, and probably unable to meet any liabilities at all. Accordingly the tariff was imposed. It was discovered then by the motor trade distributors that they could not get bodies. Certain discussions took place between the trade concerned and the producers of the bodies, and undoubtedly there was not on either side a spirit of co-operation. There was not, on the other hand, by the coachbuilders a full realisation perhaps of their responsibility, but there is this to be said in defence of the coachbuilders that they had been through an exceedingly bad time, that they had been kept as I say in agony for a great number of years, and their financial resources were considerably reduced. In any event the Minister, who is now absent, considered the position, and he fixed a date from which this concession would have to be allowed. It is to be assumed that the motor traders accepted August 7th as the date that would enable them to face up to the position. In the meantime discussions went on between the two bodies. Every effort was made by the Department to get reasonable agreement between them. Differences of opinion arose as regards the number of bodies that were to be ordered. Differences of opinion arose as regards the samples that were to be submitted, and the co-operation by the motor traders. I must frankly admit that so far as I can see and so far as my investigations have shown, there was a rigid attitude of non-co-operation by motor traders. I have also to say that I am reasonably satisfied that some of the claims made by the motor traders in regard to what they expected were exaggerated. In other words they stated that the coachbuilders demanded orders for 100 bodies and so forth.
I put this all aside following the debate here last week, and I called the coachbuilders together, having first of all called the two main representative associations of motor traders and got their viewpoint. And I am satisfied that it would be a grave error indeed to interfere with the date fixed. I am also satisfied that we are going to get motor-car bodies built, and any interference at this stage would upset the arrangements that are in train at the moment, and would postpone again the possibilities of getting them down to work. I might go further here and state more. I do not think it would be advisable to do so. I am considering all aspects of the problem. I believe that if things are left to go on on the lines we are now following we shall have a realisation of the position by all parties. I am also satisfied that if Senator Douglas withdraws this recommendation of his, we will get the work going in time to justify the date that was originally fixed. It is true that the builders have not yet provided samples, but it is also true that sample bodies, skeletons or otherwise, have not been given—it is also true to say that no samples, blue prints or definite data have ever been given by the motor traders, that is to say, the distributors, to the body builders in any spirit of co-operation. They have great difficulties on both sides. We departmentally are trying to overcome these difficulties. I believe that we are doing it and we will do it and I am satisfied bodybuilding will be on the way very quickly. I am satisfied that if we interfere with the date we will cause disturbance to the arrangements now on foot and it would be most unwise to consider either modification of the date or to leave the modification of the date in the hands of the Minister for the reasons I have stated. Senator Douglas will readily appreciate the fact that I cannot state what I would like to at this moment, but I would appeal to him in the interest of the trade, and in the interest of harmony between coachbuilders and motor traders, that this recommendation be withdrawn.
I have no knowledge of the technique of this business but what I feel is happening is that we are getting right away from the modern, up-to-date, specialised, processed bodies. I understand that these bodies are stamped, with very expensive machinery, out of whole sheets of steel, and no bodymaker is going to put in here the machinery suitable for making these bodies in the most up-to-date economical manner. I would like to be enlightened on that point, and, in respect of that, what we are doing is backing up what we call the older fashion of handling bodies. No doubt certain mechanical processes will be employed, but it is certain that the full resources of engineering cannot here operate. I wish to protest against it, and in that lies a very strong indictment of the whole of this tariff policy. We are going to be thrown back. Because the resources of our builders and the volume of our trade do not justify the full up-to-date methods, we are thrown back on the second best. For the sake of this chimera of isolation, economic independence, the ordinary plain people have to take such bodies as the trade here can produce, and, you might say, as the Government think is good for them. In that lies the condemnation of the whole policy, and I wish at this stage, and at every other stage where I have an opportunity, to enter a most emphatic protest, and a protest which is not in my personal interest which the interest of most of the people in this country who are not allowed to spend their money in order to get the best value for it and who have to live in some way that the Government policy chooses to consider good for the State.
Senator Sir John Keane is obviously labouring under his lack of knowledge of the position. The fact is that all unassembled, stamped, component parts will be allowed in free, so there is no grievance whatever even if the entire trade went into all steel bodies stamped out.
Is a wholly stamped body to be regarded as an unassembled part, because if it is it is a very important item?
No, not at all. All portions of steel that are coming to be assembled are going to be looked upon as unassembled parts. It is, however, the position that the tendency in the trade is to go away from the all-stamped-out steel body, and 80 per cent. at least of the standard motor bodies are what are known as composite bodies, made out of part steel and part wood. Some members of the trade admitted that at least 80 per cent., and some contend that up to 90 per cent., are of the composite body that we are to make in this country. Probably even if the entire 100 per cent. of the trade goes to the all-steel stamped-out body to which Sir John Keane has referred, that will not prevent assembling of the parts to make the bodies here. The contention, therefore, that he makes is quite contrary to the fact, and I merely mention that to guide him as to what is the real position.
The Minister has made a suggestion to me that it would not be desirable to press this recommendation to a division and to send it on to the other House. I naturally would wish to accede to that request on his part. I am in just a difficulty, which he should appreciate as much as he expects me to appreciate his, that I cannot obviously press him for the information, and at the same time I am in this difficulty that he has assured us he believes these bodies will be made here. He knows that my whole fear is that the result of the policy may be that this country will be forced to one, or at the most two makes of car. This will be a monopoly and will throw a very large number of people out of employment in the distributing trade. If his information (I am not asking for that, because I know it is a difficulty) is that one or two classes will be made, I want it to be taken, in withdrawing this recommendation, that I am doing it at his request, and not because in any sense I wish to be taken as regarding that as in any sense a satisfactory solution. In fact, if one firm would make the bodies it would be a disaster for certain bodymakers here, and it might be a disaster both ways. I stated that last week and I am of that opinion now. In view of what the Minister said—and I am the last to embarrass him in any satisfactory arrangements that might be made by him, I am willing to withdraw, but I make it clear that I am not to be taken as approving that the making of bodies for one or two kinds of car to the exclusion of others is good policy for this country.
I am glad to receive the explanation the Minister has given. I meant to preface my remarks by saying I was not, naturally, acquainted with the details of motor body manufacture, and, so long as I was satisfied that we were going to get good motor bodies that are no dearer, well and good. The Minister must make allowance for the natural prejudices and suspicions that we have, that there is a catch in these duties. All along we were told things are going to be good and we will be quite happy, but there was a catch in it—either there was not the quality in it, or there was not the price. So I could not help feeling there was a catch in this.
Before I would even ask or allow Senator Douglas to permit himself to withdraw, I want to make my position perfectly clear and explicit on this. I think Senator Douglas will appreciate the fact that in anything I said here I was speaking in all good faith, and when I have made that statement I cannot—and I want him to appreciate that I cannot—guarantee that all the negotiations and arrangements that I am attempting to put through will reach a full and satisfactory conclusion. I am as nearly certain as possible that everything I have intimated will go through. I am as nearly certain as it is possible to be that everything I have intimated will come true. With regard to the other question, I might be more reassuring still. What I say does not apply purely to one firm. It applies to a number of firms who will be making a variety of bodies. That is all I can say at the moment. Senator Sir John Keane raised a question about prejudice against home-made work. That prejudice undoubtedly exists, and probably exists about motor bodies more than about anything else. There are difficulties in the way. All I can say is that we are not going to be confined to one, two or three body builders, or motor car distributors. I am satisfied that once we get going with a number of people in the business, that eventually any car and every car will be assembled here.
Might I suggest to the Minister that in view of his last statement he should seriously consider whether he could not accept my recommendation? If he takes power to have the appointed day the recommendation provides a day that would be earlier than 7th August. I recognise that my proposal that it "shall not be earlier than the 7th day of October, 1932" might seriously embarrass him. If the date is altered there is the precaution in the event of things proving different. I venture to think the recommendation would strengthen his hands. I am afraid that, if by any chance the negotiations fail, this Bill will be law, that the Dáil will not be there, and that the Minister will have no power whatever to make an alteration. In that period I am afraid that a number of people will be thrown out of employment. I am satisfied that neither the Minister nor anyone else wants that. If the date was altered and if the Minister had power to fix the appointed day it would strengthen the position and at any rate prevent accidents afterwards.
I am satisfied with all the background I have, and with all the knowledge I have, that the alteration proposed in recommendation No. 7 would really defeat the purpose, because this is a question of people waiting to see how long the other fellow is going to hang out. It would really not help. It would hinder. The psychology of the situation is that certain people are obviously waiting to see what might happen by a prolongation of the period and for that reason I could not accept the recommendation.
Even if the date was the same?
Remember the other date is definite and the position is that from that date no concession on the imports of cars will be made. Until that time they would be still in hope that the appointed day would be fixed by the Minister, and that something might intervene.
I appeal to the Minister to consider the position a little further from the point of view of taking power. There is nothing magic about 7th August any more than any other date, save that it was the one fixed in the Bill. The Minister has expressed certain doubts as to whether the coach-builders will be able to cater for the requirements of the trade on 7th August. I urge him to accept the recommendation suggested by Senator Douglas, leaving himself power to fix the appointed day, and merely putting it that the appointed day shall not be earlier than 7th August, which is the date mentioned in the Bill. He can, if he wishes, fix 7th August that the builders are unable to meet requirements, or only able to supply one or two types, thus throwing the rest of the motor trade into an impossible position? People have come to me already in a deplorable state of anxiety, men with families and with commitments who fear that they will lose their employment within the next couple of weeks. Only three weeks have to elapse between now and 7th August and not a single sample body has been turned out yet. Is it not optimistic on the part of the Minister, or on the part of anyone, who thinks that within that time we shall have not only one or two sample bodies but various samples? No one would suggest that the trade should be confined to one or two types of cars. The interest and the livelihood of all engaged in the trade have to be considered as well as the various types of cars that are in the country. I take it that the Government does not want to be unjust to any section of the community. I am afraid circumstances will compel them to sanction conditions which will be inequitable and which will involve injustice and serious hardship on a large section. I know people who expect, if the date is not extended, that they will certainly lose their positions. The deplorable aspect of the case is that the work which would be available to keep them employed will not in their opinion be done for a considerable time in this country. I appeal to the Minister not to turn down this recommendation, but to give himself time to use discretion, if he so desires, to extend the period if he thinks such a course necessary after 7th August.
Might I also point out that it cuts two ways? I know some distributing firms who have not given the notices which are inevitable, in the hope that if bodies are not available they will be able to carry on, and that the date will be extended. I am not going to press the recommendation to a division. There is no use in doing so. It is a matter of adjustment, and I beg the Minister seriously to consider taking power. I am not going to ask the House to send the recommendation to the Dáil. I am prepared to withdraw the recommendation, as I do not want to create embarrassment, but I feel that it is a serious matter in which the employment of a considerable number of people is in jeopardy.
We must assume that the Minister is a reasonable man, with knowledge and judgment in these affairs, and he assures us that the date in the Bill suits his purpose. He has given that assurance several times. Why are Senators pressing him and appealing to him? One would imagine the way they are appealing that they were dealing with a child in these affairs. With his experience and the advice of the able officials he has around him, if the Minister assures the House that the Bill as it stands is essential for his purpose, I think it is useless pressing him. I deprecate the trend of the discussion.
It is true that I expressed some doubt, but I had only one reason for doing so. Taking the ordinary approach to business, I do not hesitate to say that there is no reason for me to express any doubt. Senators, I think, know that I do not like making promises where I cannot deliver the goods. In this case I am not the sole individual responsible, but, as reasonably as anyone can believe in ordinary business transactions we will have bodies and body-making fully under way. The inclusion of the recommendation would really hamper us in the work we are trying to get done. Senators will understand it if I say that alteration of the Third Schedule, Section 3, by accepting the recommendation of Senator Douglas, is going to hamper negotiations and work I am trying to put through with regard to this particular question. They can take it that that is the case. I am satisfied the recommendation would prolong the negotiations further and cause hesitancy which would be injurious ultimately to the distributing trade.
Senator O'Farrell raised a question about distributors. We do not want to hurt distributors or anybody else, but one realises that in establishing or putting through a new tariff the transition period is going to be difficult, and that certain displacements might occur. In my opinion that is inevitable. There is no reason why displacements should take place in this trade. Bodies will be necessary for cars and cars will still be wanted. It may be that there will be displacements from one firm to another, but in my judgment distribution will go on. I am perfectly satisfied that bodies will be produced and that we will get on with the programme. My only reason for expressing any doubt was to make matters clear to Senator Douglas and other Senators. That is always subject to the position where you are depending on the co-operation of other people, and where matters are not left in your hands absolutely to guarantee. That is my reason for expressing a doubt, and in all the circumstances I ask Senator Douglas to withdraw the recommendation.
[The Cathaoirleach resumed the Chair.]
I have nothing further to say. I do not wish to press this to a division. I want to be protected in case the doubt should happen, and I think it is a pity that the Minister did not do as I suggested.
Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.
Recommendation 7, by leave, withdrawn.
THIRD SCHEDULE—SECTION 4.
Seventy-five per cent. of the value of the article on the following articles, that is to say—
All component parts and accessories of motor car bodies which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, constitute at importation an assembly or partial assembly of such part of accessories.
I move recommendation 8:—
Third Schedule, Section 4. To delete the section.
I do not know if the Minister has given this recommendation much consideration. I do not regard it as a satisfactory recommendation, but I think, in view of what the Minister has stated here, that some modification of the Third Schedule, Section 4, is desirable. If certain stamping is to come in in parts, two questions are involved. There is the complete making of motor bodies. I am satisfied that we are not likely to have the plant because the cost would be something about £8,000 to £10,000, with the possibility that that would be for one make of chassis which might be changed at the end of the year. In that case the money would be wasted, as it would take £2,000 or £3,000 to make the necessary adaptations. What is apparently referred to is the bringing in of certain stamped parts, the assembly by coachbuilders, and the completion of the body here.
The motor trade is not my trade, and although I am interested in one firm, I do not pretend to have technical knowledge of it. I have reason to believe that there may be considerable difficulty if the words "assembly or partial assembly" are insisted upon. I want to give the Revenue Commissioners or the Minister some kind of power where they are satisfied that it may be in the interests of the body builders that partial assembly should be allowed in to make it possible to get bodies built. My own feeling was, if the section was deleted, the existing duties would be sufficient and that the Revenue Commissioners would decide what is a body. Something is required to modify it, and if you make it too rigid it will defeat your object, which is to get the assembling of bodies here. If I withdraw my proposal, I would like the Minister to have it considered in some way before it goes to the Dáil, and I think that if he gives it consideration he will find that it will probably be too rigid. Perhaps if the words "which constitutes a substantial assembly" were substituted instead of the words "which constitutes an assembly or partial assembly" it might meet the case, but as it stands now I think it is a mistake.
The question of the interpretation of these customs regulations is becoming more and more involved. Every day questions must be arising such as—What is a body? When does it cease to be a body? When does it become a body? and so on; and all along the more one gets into the mess the worse it becomes. Is it to be left entirely to the Revenue Commissioners, or to some officials at their own sweet will, to fix it? I consider the whole thing generally disgusting and utterly nauseating, but still as the question is being examined, surely the Minister might agree that it is only fair that a trader should have an appeal from the purely arbitrary decision of an official as to the interpretation which may be given of a matter? Customs regulations can only be drawn in very general terms, and, as a matter of Customs policy, should not something on these lines be considered?
I think that in making these remarks Senator Douglas and Senator Sir John Keane have overlooked sub-section (5) of Section 14. If they will refer to that sub-section, they will see that if the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce are satisfied that any parts that are coming in are coming in for genuine assembly in coachbuilding work, these parts will be released free on licence. With that sub-section present in the Act, I do not see how it can be argued that this sub-section ought to be deleted. As a matter of fact, it would defeat the whole Act. It is amply covered, in my judgment and in the judgment of the Department. We went into this very carefully last night and this morning, and we are satisfied that it covers adequately the very position mentioned by Senator Sir John Keane and Senator Douglas.
I think probably that the best thing for me to do is to withdraw, though, frankly, I do not like the position in Section 14 (5). If the Revenue Commissioners had to be satisfied I would not object to it. This section, however, provides that the Minister for Finance can give a licence to certain persons to bring in bodies, which I do not regard as at all a satisfactory method. There are occasions in which the Revenue Commissioners, where they are satisfied that goods are required for the process of manufacture, can let them in. I do object to the arrangement here which has a sort of control effect by which they may give a licence to certain persons to bring in things that are partially assembled. I do not think that the position is really satisfactory and I think that it should be exactly the same for everybody, and that if a distributor should find it in his interest to assemble parts he should be in the same position as everybody else. I think the right thing for me to do is to withdraw. With reference to what was stated by Senator Sir John Keane, however, I should like to say that I have had a fair amount of experience of customs duties of various kinds in the last few years and I can assure him that of course there is an appeal from an official to the Revenue Commissioners. While I think that the Revenue Commissioners have sometimes made mistakes and perhaps have been over-ridden, I think I am stating the view of the vast majority of traders when I say that the Revenue Commissioners do endeavour to interpret the tariffs in a reasonable and sympathetic way and in the most careful possible way, and that traders need have no fear, if a mistake is made by an official, that they cannot refer the matter to the Revenue Commissioners, who will take it up. When it is settled, you can at any rate go to your member and try to get the matter raised in the Oireachtas. I doubt whether it would really be practicable but it would be better to have somebody to settle it.
Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.
Agreed: That the Third Schedule stand part of the Bill.
Agreed: That the Title stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported to the House.
Report Stage fixed for Wednesday, 20th July.
