I would ask the House to take No. 3 on the Order Paper, Finance (Customs Duties) (No. 4) Bill, 1932. (Certified Money Bill).
Agreed.
Finance (Customs Duties) (No. 4) Bill, 1932—Second Stage.
Cathaoirleach
Cathaoirleach
The question is: That the Finance (Customs Duties) (No. 4) Bill, 1932, be read a Second Time.
This Bill makes a number of alterations in some of the duties that have been in operation here. Perhaps, a brief explanation of the changes is what the House desires. Sections 1 and 2 relate to the First and Second Schedules. Section 3 imposes a duty upon lubricating grease. Lubricating greases are manufactured in the Saorstát in sufficient quantities to supply all the requirements of the Saorstát. These greases are of first-class quality, and this duty is imposed for the purpose of excluding certain brands of grease imported here, not because of any special advantage either in quality or in price, but because of connections already existing and successful advertising. Section 4 imposes a duty upon bread. A duty upon bread, of course, is a necessary corollary of a duty upon flour. The effect of the duty is to exclude all imported bread, with the exception that in certain districts in Donegal, where existing bakeries are not adequate to supply all the requirements of the county, bread is being imported at the moment under licence. That concession, however, is being gradually withdrawn. A number of new bakeries have been started there and the existing bakeries are increasing the number of their ovens. As they become capable of supplying the districts around them, the importation of bread into this district is being prohibited. In the other Border counties into which bread was imported there is no necessity for this concession because the existing bakeries are quite capable of supplying the demand and have been doing so since the operation of the duty. In fact, the operation of the duty in certain districts has meant a decrease in the price of bread.
Section 5 alters the duty on harness leather and harness. Some time ago, following a report from the Tariff Commission, a duty was imposed on harness leather and harness, but that duty was found not to be adequate, mainly owing to large importations of second-hand harness which was sent in here for auction. This harness could be invoiced at any price because the people were prepared to give any price for it. This duty is now increased. Despite that increase, there will be considerable importation still, but the additional duty will enable the harness makers here to secure a larger part of the trade.
Section 6 increases the duty on all shirts and collars and all component parts and accessories of shirts and and collars. The duty on these articles was 15 per cent. and had been in operation for a number of years, and it was not increased when all the other duties on wearing apparel were increased on the occasion of the Budget this year. Importation had practically ceased. In fact, there was only one outside firm which was able successfully to maintain a footing here under the duty. That firm has since opened a factory here and consequently the duty has been increased. The trade is now able to supply all the requirements of the home market and some of them are looking for outside markets. This section also alters the duty on embroidered handkerchiefs and the component parts and accessories of such handkerchiefs. The object of this duty is to give some help to Irish linen and to see that Irish linen hand-embroidered articles offered for sale will be Irish linen embroidered in Ireland. There has been a large quantity of such goods offered for sale, described as hand-embroidered Irish linen, where the hand embroidering was actually done in China, Japan, Madeira and other such countries where a very low standard of living prevails. The object of the duty is to keep that trade for Donegal. Under this section, the duty is also increased on underwear of silk. The value of the article in this case is very considerable in relation to the general level of prices and the existing rate of duty was not adequate to stop the importation of such articles here. This also affects the hand embroiderers in Donegal, where very excellent work is done.
Section 8 gives an exemption from cinematograph film duty in respect of films produced in the Saorstát, exported and subsequently reimported.
Sections 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 are the usual provisions contained in all Finance Acts.
By the First Schedule duties are imposed, under Reference No. 1, upon hand-knitting yarns. We had considerable difficulty in getting a definition which would include hand-knitting yarns and exclude other types of knitting yarns. This definition was agreed to by everybody, including the hosiery manufacturers. In certain cases, licences are being issued, but the purpose of the duty is to see that those that can be made here successfully will be made here.
Reference No. 2 deals with articles made of gold, silver, electro-plate, platinum, copper, brass, bronze, or gunmetal, which articles are liable to duty under this Act or any other enactment, and which are engraved. The intention is to secure that the engraving of these articles, which can be done here and done very successfully, will be done within the country. Reference No. 3 deals with date stamps and marking stamps made wholly or partly of rubber.
Reference No. 4 deals with springs for mattresses. Heretofore, assembled springs for mattresses were subject to duty. Since that duty was imposed, however, a number of firms have installed machinery here for the manufacture of the component parts of these springs, and this Reference makes these parts subject to duty.
Reference No. 5 deals with spectacles, monocles and other eye glasses. A number of firms here grind lens for eye glasses, and the object of the duty is to ensure that that business may be given to them.
Reference No. 6 deals with cuff links, studs, hinge pins and ear-rings. All these things, which are sold in considerable quantity, are being manufactured here. A substantial increase in employment will result if the duty operates to exclude the importation of articles of that description.
Reference No. 7 deals with certain articles of silver and gold. The list was agreed to by manufacturers of certain articles, which articles are of a class made by hand. The only silver and gold goods not made here are those stamped by machine. Formerly, we had not only the whole home market here but a considerable outside trade as well. That outside trade was largely based on sentiment, perhaps, but it is capable of being regained.
Reference No. 8 deals with glue and size. At one time we had quite a respectable export trade in these, which has been lost in recent years. In fact, even the home market was lost. The principal of these firms undertook to re-start its factory if this duty were imposed and has, in fact, already done so. There is a licence provision here because there is one class of size which is used by painters, which is a patented article and cannot be made here. It was not possible to get a definition of that kind of size which would enable us to exclude it definitely. Consequently, we have had to operate a licence provision. It is quite easy for the Revenue Commissioners to distinguish that particular size from all other types of size, but it has not been possible to get a definition of it.
Reference No. 9 imposes a duty on fillers and flats for egg boxes imported separately. There are two firms in the Saorstát—a third is about to start —for the manufacture of these fillers and flats. They are equipped with the most up-to-date machinery and can produce them as efficiently as any firm in the world. They were being subjected to competition of a dumping kind. In other words, certain firms were selling these things in this country at considerably less than they were selling them in the country of origin. Consequently, the duty was imposed to rectify that position. Reference No. 10 imposes a duty on clay pipes. That duty was imposed as the result of a unanimous demand from all Parties in the Dáil. Reference No. 11 imposes a duty on picture frames and on pictures in frames. The necessity for that arose out of the fact that whereas picture frames, as such, were always dutiable it was possible to evade the duty by inserting a cheap print in the frame. The imposition of this duty rectifies that position. The exemptions from the duty apply to pictures imported temporarily for exhibition or to pictures which are imported for a public picture gallery. Reference No. 12 imposes a duty on coffin plates.
Reference No. 13 imposes a duty on sheet lead and lead piping. This is not a new duty. In the main Finance Act of the year a duty was imposed on various articles of lead. As a result of our experience of the operation of that duty it was decided to repeal the general duty and to impose this duty on sheet lead and lead piping alone. In the Finance Act we imposed some general duties, duties which apply to all articles of a certain description with specified exceptions. Our experience of the operation of these duties has been such that we have decided to repeal them all and to substitute for them specified lists of articles to which duty shall apply. We find that is preferable from the point of view not merely of those responsible for the administration of the duty, but of those engaged in the importation of the goods. The enactment of a specified list instead of a general duty will make it clear to everyone what is and what is not liable to pay the rate. Reference No. 14 is of the same description. There was a general duty on brass goods. That general duty has now been repealed. This duty will now apply to the specified lists of brass goods set out in the Schedule. The duty is unchanged, except in the case of church brasswork and component parts thereof, where it has been increased. Reference No. 15 is again of the same description. It imposes a duty on manufactured articles made wholly or mainly of tin, tinplate or tinned plate or a combination of any of them with the list of exemptions contained in the fifth column.
Reference No. 16 indicates a change of the same description. A duty was imposed on all articles of wood with certain exceptions. We have changed that to a specified list of wooden articles to which the duty will apply with one or two additions. The principal one deals with mouldings manufactured wholly of wood and planed or dressed wood. This represents one of the biggest attempts we have made so far to change the nature of an industry in the country. Heretofore, timber merchants imported timber in the planed and dressed state and then used it for whatever purpose it was required. In most other countries timber is imported in the raw state. It is just simply sawn, and the planing or dressing is done where the timber is to be used. By the imposition of this duty we are forcing the timber merchants of the Saorstát to instal the necessary machinery to do the planing and the dressing of the wood here.
We recognise, in connection with this duty, that some time will have to elapse before it can be made properly effective: that those importing timber will have to get some period in which to instal the necessary machinery and arrange for supplies of simple sawn timber. Consequently, there is a licensing provision at present in operation to allow normal quantities of planed and dressed timber into the country, consigned to sawmillers who have informed the Department of their intention to instal machinery to do the planing and dressing here in the future. The present licence is to operate until 31st December, but it may be extended beyond that date if the inquiries that are now being made reveal that there is in fact any substantial difficulty in getting supplies of timber before the spring when the ports of the main exporting countries are free from ice. If the supplies of timber cannot be obtained at this time of the year it is intended to arrange that the present concession to timber merchants will extend beyond the end of this month. We propose to give the timber merchants every reasonable facility so that there will be not only no interruption in supplies but that they will have ample time to make the necessary alterations in their works. These alterations may involve not merely the installation of planing machinery, but in some cases an extension of storing space. There are some other alterations in the wooden duty affected by the list but they are of no particular importance.
Reference No. 17 imposes a duty on the component parts of all wheeled vehicles intended to be drawn by animals. Under the Finance Act a duty was imposed on the assembled parts of cars, omnibuses and motor cars of all descriptions. This, however, imposes a duty on the unassembled parts of horse-drawn vehicles. Road springs are excluded from the duty. Reference No. 18 does the same for iron and steel parts for bodies of motor omnibuses, motor charabancs and commercial motor vehicles. All these iron and steel parts can be and have been manufactured here, with certain exceptions. There are no exceptions so far as the duty is concerned, but there is a licensing provision which has been operative in respect of one or two parts. It is impossible to get a complete list of these parts until we have had experience of the duty in operation. It may be found, in the course of the next six months or so, that some of those parts which are very small and of a peculiar nature will have to be imported. If so, we will propose an amendment in a subsequent Finance Act for the purpose of excluding them from duty, but at present they are being admitted under licence. A list will be prepared. This will be based on actual experience of the operation of the duty.
Reference No. 19 doubles the duty on monumental, architectural or building stone which has been worked. The necessity for that is two-fold. In the first place, it was definitely our intention to secure that the working of the stone would be done in this country. There are a large number of firms engaged in the business, as well as a very large number of highly competent workmen to do the work. The duty is designed to ensure that all worked stone will be excluded, so that the stone will have to be imported in the raw state and worked here. There is, however, one country which exercises a more or less effective monopoly of a certain kind of marble. When the duty on worked stone was first imposed the effect of it was largely nullified by an increase in the price of the raw stone consigned from that country to the Saorstát. Those engaged in supplying stone to this country met the duty imposed here by increasing the price of the raw stone, so that in fact the protection was to some extent nullified. We have met that by doubling the duty. The increase in the price will have a dual effect. It will induce people not to use that kind of stone, but native marble and other stone available here. For various reasons the marble quarries in the Saorstát have not been in production recently. The difficulties they had to contend with were of various kinds. We have been trying to solve them one by one, and I think we have now reached the stage when a number of our marble quarries will be in production in the near future: that not only will whatever marble that is required for church or building purposes in the Saorstát be Saorstát marble, but that it may be possible for us to regain some part of our export trade which we lost in recent years. Reference No. 20 deals with flock. Flock is a material made from waste cloth. It is used for stuffing mattresses. It is a minor industry which gives a fair amount of employment, not, however, of a highly remunerative kind.
Reference No. 21 increases the duty imposed by the Finance Act on roof felting and similar substitutes. The necessity for the increase arose from the fact that dumping was being resorted to by importing firms, and that the firms engaged in the production of these things in the Saorstát had to meet that. The importing firms were selling the materials here at a price less than they were selling in their own country. Consequently, we decided to increase the duty. Reference No. 22 increases the duty on cordage, cables, etc., which was imposed under the Finance Act. It was designed to give assistance to an industry which had existed and flourished here but which had almost disappeared. The duty produced rapid results. There was quite a considerable development of that industry. That development has not yet been fully reached. Consequently, it was found possible to increase the duty. We contemplate the full requirements of the Saorstát being met by the existing firms. There are certain exceptions and these are provided for in the duty.
Reference Nos. 23 and 24 impose a duty on certain jute goods. As Senators are, I am sure, aware, there is in the Saorstát one jute mill which has an international trade. It is one of the most efficient mills in the world. There was another jute mill which had a considerable trade but not of the same character. That firm met with certain difficulties in the international market. In any event, it was quite capable of increasing its production considerably for the home market. We had the peculiar situation that by far the largest part of the produce of the principal firm in the industry was being exported while very large quantities of jute were being imported. In respect of the goods which this firm can produce, as soon as it can produce in the immediate future all that we require, then the imported goods will be subject to the duty specified. Reference No. 25 imposes a duty on heel-plates for boots and shoes. These are not being made in the Saorstát. Arrangements for the opening of factories to make them are under way. It was necessary, however, to impose a duty because it was felt that, as soon as an announcement of the intention to manufacture these things here was published in the newspapers, very large quantities would be imported; that the market would be flooded with them for two or three years to come, and that because of that the new industry to be set up would be considerably handicapped. Consequently, the duty was imposed. It is proposed to allow in the normal quantities of these things for the present to the firms that ordinarily imported them. That will be done under licence. There is consequently no hardship inflicted on any firm.
Part II imposes other duties which are not ad valorem, but are assessed in relation to measure. In the case of vinegar, there are a number of firms in the Saorstát manufacturing vinegar which were benefited to a large extent by the package tax and which increased production considerably, but it is felt that we should exclude vinegar altogether, particularly as the vinegar produced here, while no dearer, is substantially better in quality than some of the vinegar imported which is, in fact, deleterious to health. Reference No. 27 imposes a duty on custard powders. There are a number of firms engaged in the manufacture of that also. Reference No. 28 imposes a duty on filled Christmas stockings, snowballs, Easter eggs and similar articles. Reference No. 29 imposes a duty on sausage meal. That is a product of flour produced in bakeries and used for filling sausages. The employment given is quite considerable and the competence of the firms here to supply the market has been established. The firms were not in a position to supply the full requirements of the market at the time of the imposition of the duty, but they undertook immediately to increase their productive capacity to enable them to do so.
Reference No. 30 increases the duty on compositions made of plaster of paris in sheets or slabs. It was felt that we should definitely exclude the imported articles in consequence of the progress made in the production of these articles here. Reference No. 31 imposes a duty on sparking plugs. There is one firm in the Saorstát engaged in the manufacture of sparking plugs and, consequently, it was necessary for us to get some undertaking in respect of price before the duty was imposed. That undertaking was secured. Of course, all sparking plugs are sold at a fixed price of 5/- or 6/-. The variations in the price take place in the wholesale price only, and very substantial profits indeed are made. The price at which the plugs are sold is in or about 2/- each, varying according to the quantity ordered, but they are all sold at the same price of 5/- The product of this Drogheda factory, which is quite as good as many of the 6/- plugs that are being imported, and of the same description, is sold at 5/-, and, although the wholesale price is slightly higher than the wholesale price of the imported article, so far as the consumer is concerned there is no change. That wholesale price will be reduced according to a scale which has been agreed upon as the production of the factory increases. Reference No. 32 imposes a duty on empty sacks and bags made of jute. The purpose of this duty is twofold. There are a number of firms in the Saorstát engaged in the business of reconditioning sacks and bags. Unconditioned sacks and bags are being allowed in free to these firms who undertake the process of reconditioning, and the duty is also part of the general duty which has been imposed on jute goods.
In the Second Schedule, certain other customs duties are enumerated. These do not impose any change. They are all duties which have been in operation under the Emergency Powers Act and which have been translated into this Act as permanent duties and subject to revision only by Act of the Oireachtas. There have been one or two minor changes, all reductions, which were determined upon in consequence of representation made by interested parties and as a result of various consultations which were undertaken. These reductions, however, are not of very great significance. In the Third Schedule, the changes which are made are, in the main, consequential on the other duties which have been imposed. Reference No. 3 brings subject to the package duty malt extract and cod liver oil. When the package duty was imposed on medicinal preparations, it was applied to malt extract and cod liver oil, and a number of firms established factories for the packing of these things here. After a time, however, somebody decided to appeal to the Revenue Commissioners on the ground that these articles were intended mainly for consumption by children. That was a ground on which the Revenue Commissioners were entitled to exempt articles from the package duty and the Revenue Commissioners, on consideration of the matter, decided that the articles were entitled to exemption on that ground and they consequently exempted them. The factories which were engaged in the packing of these goods closed down and we introduced the duty again specifically applying it to them and the factories restarted. Reference No. 4 exempts from the package duty certain medicinal preparations which are packed in gelatine capsules.
Reference No. 6 exempts cotton blankets from duty. When the duty was placed on blankets in 1925, the Revenue Commissioners decided that cotton blankets would not be chargeable with the duty. In the main Finance Act this year, the duty on blankets was increased and, in the Dáil, I gave an undertaking that the same interpretation would be placed on it and that cotton blankets would not be made liable to duty. Subsequently to the passage of the Act, the Revenue Commissioners decided that, if cotton blankets were not blankets, they were sheets, and, if they were not liable to duty as blankets, they were liable as sheets. The duty on sheets was the higher duty and, consequently, they were again brought subject to the blanket duty, which was lower, until this Act was introduced when, by a specific enactment, they were exempted from all duties.
Reference No. 6 makes a number of changes in the duty on linen goods. Following the change of Government, a report was presented from the Tariff Commission recommending the imposition of duties on various classes of linen piece goods and other linen manufactures. At the time, following a consultation with the linen manufacturers and others interested, we decided not to act on the recommendation of the Tariff Commission so far as linen piece goods were concerned, and they were not made subject to duty by the main Finance Act when consigned from any of the States of the Commonwealth. There was a duty of 20 per cent. imposed on non-Commonwealth piece goods but there was free entry for Commonwealth piece goods. We have now adopted the recommendation of the Tariff Commission with certain alterations and modifications, and the duty is being applied to linen piece goods no matter from where they are consigned.
Reference No. 13 varies the duty which was imposed on smoking pipes. The duty, as originally enacted, applied to smoking pipes and the component parts of smoking pipes. It was subsequently represented to us that the principal firm engaged in this industry had ceased carrying out the entire process of manufacture in respect of pipe heads for various reasons, and that it would take some time to get that end of the business going again. As a result of representations made and of very careful examination into the whole matter, it was decided to permit the importation of partly finished pipe heads, that is, pipe heads not polished, not stained or not bored in the stem to an extent greater than 3/16ths of an inch in diameter. The duty also applies only to pipes which are greater in value than 1/6. Pipes under 1/6 in value are exempt from duty, and the duty imposed by the main Act is repealed. The other alterations are, I think, consequential on various changes which have been made, and do not require any explanation here. They are difficult to understand in the form in which they are set out and, in that connection, I should like to say that a case has been made for the codification of the various duties which are in operation, so that persons engaged in the importing business will have an easily understandable list of what duties apply to particular articles and what articles are exempt from duty altogether. That task has been undertaken, but it will be some time before it can be done. In the meantime, the Stationery Office issues a booklet prepared by the Revenue Commissioners, which is available to anybody who wishes to purchase it and which gives all the information required without reference to any of these Acts. These are all the changes effected by the Bill.
I do not think it would be possible to see a more futile exhibition of Parliamentary procedure than that we have just listened to. I agree that, from the Minister's point of view, it is admirable. He is a sincere and avowed protectionist, and he comes along with a multiplicity of articles, almost from a needle to an anchor, about which very few of us in this House know anything. He tells us that these are being manufactured here or can be manufactured here or will be manufactured here and that, if they cannot, a licence can be given to get over the difficulty. Naturally, we have to take it lying down. How can we do otherwise? We have that system in contrast to the scientific system of the Tariff Commission, which realised the difficulties and dangers involved in a policy of this kind and which tackled its job systematically, if, perhaps, slowly, and did the work in the only way in which it can be properly done.
The House will realise the utter impossibility of discussing this question piecemeal. How can you discuss general policy in terms of vinegar or Christmas stockings? Yet that is the way in which we are asked to do it. We are not competent and I would ask the Minister to give us some justification for his policy. He says it has been successful. What figures have we to show that it is a success? What examination has there ever been made of the resultant effect of this type of policy. We know that unemployment is rife, and we have nothing to set against it in the form of those placed in employment by this policy. We know that these things may be made but I am afraid that we also know to our cost that there is no money to buy them. What is the good of making these things, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, exhausting the purchasing power of the country? You have only to look round the world to see the utter futility of this tariff policy in countries, big and small. We, of course, have to grin and bear it, but I would ask the Minister to have regard to the plain people in this country—the people of leisure, I may say, who have just as much right to exist as the people who work. They contribute to the taxes and to culture and they add to the amenities of life. The position of these people is growing, every day, more intolerable.
Under this tariff policy, life is becoming more and more drab and people are becoming more and more sour and discontented. Nowadays, any person with a fixed income who wants to enjoy life—and such a person has a right to enjoy life—has to think carefully before he can even buy anything. To give my own humble experience—I do not generally approve of people who recount their own humble experiences—I wanted to buy some small pieces of marble to repair some marble mantelpieces that had suffered in the Civil War. I said to my secretary: "I warn you that there will be a three months' job over this but I am in no hurry and I am prepared for a three months' job," and I think it has taken fully that time. I have been in correspondence with the Revenue Commissioners and they asked what evidence I was prepared to give them that my house was under construction. I said that I was prepared to give my own assurance or any other evidence they might want. Finally, after a long time, they said: "Very well; we will have the architect's certificate that the house is under construction and your assurance that the articles will be used for the purpose for which they are intended and we will require evidence that they have been so used," and, mind you, I could have carried all these articles in my hands. The whole thing is quite absurd. I know you cannot make exceptions, but that is what happens.
Under this tariff policy which the Government is now putting into practice, all the little things of life that matter so much are swallowed up in these big, pedantic principles and life is made more and more drab. I will give the Seanad another illustration. A lady in Cornwall wrote to me—I expect she read something about what was going on here—pointing out that she was sending a photograph of my grandchild to a daughter of mine and the authorities here wanted several shillings to be paid on it. There you have the whole philosophy of the thing summed up. The conditions are such that if a man wants to purchase a heliotrope suit he cannot do so; but he can purchase a suit of real good Irish tweed and he will get better value. No doubt the Irish-made suit would be better, but if a man desires a heliotrope suit why should he not have it? It is these little things that make life worth living and it is really intolerable that a citizen of this country should be put in the position of not being allowed to have a heliotrope suit if he wanted to have one. God forbid that I ever should be attired in a heliotrope suit; but I contend that if I wanted one I should be allowed to have one. Why should the people be ground down to a drab existence? These things are invariably worse in smaller countries where the standard of living is lower, where the standard of culture is lower, where the public taste is lower and where the power of production is less developed.
The Minister smiles. So well he can smile. He has all the cards in his hand. He is helping, I submit, to make life in this country more drab, to discourage people of independent means from enjoying life in this country. This sort of thing will ultimately prevent people who want to enjoy life from living here. If that is the object of the Government, they are certainly going the right way about it. Anyone who wants to live a decent, free life will not remain in, or come to this country, because of all those little pin-pricks which tend to make life so miserable. I maintain that there has been no case whatever made by the Minister. He argued that we have been buying so many million pounds worth of material from abroad, and that we can make all those articles at home and absorb the unemployed in the various processes of manufacture. That is the old story, but it does not hold water. The articles which may be made at home cannot be sold. In addition to the poor people not getting anything out of it, the rich people will be getting more and more annoyed and discontented.
The whole policy now being adopted by the Government is a dangerous one. At any rate, they have taken the step and we are going deeper and deeper into the mire. I cannot really understand why the Government are so satisfied with that policy. The Minister tells us that everything is going on beautifully; everything in the garden is lovely. He endeavours to maintain that position without the slightest shred of evidence. In my opinion, there ought to be some form of public inquiry into the effect of these tariffs. The matter should be thoroughly examined in order to see what has been the effect in the way of employment and what value has been obtained. I submit that it is quite easy to see what are the drawbacks; it is very easy to observe the annoyances, the delays, the irregularities and the general condition of irritability resulting from the imposition of these tariffs.
I was glad to hear the Minister mentioning that he is going to issue some sort of a codification or schedule of the multiplicity of tariffs. That is long overdue. Just imagine a correspondence lasting over three months in respect of a piece of marble! What would happen in the case of articles that might be very urgently required, and upon the receipt of which a good deal of employment would depend? A codification of all these tariffs is long overdue. As soon as we get it we will be in a better position to see where we are. We will not have to go through a regular maze of inquiries and interrogations and all the rest of it to find out the exact position.
I must certainly pay a tribute to the officials, whose patience, forbearance and courtesy are beyond all praise. The blame rests entirely with the Government. The people generally have certainly been patient and long suffering; all sorts of annoyances have been thrust upon them.
I should like the Minister to tell us something about the licensing system. I look upon that as a thoroughly dangerous principle. The Minister for Posts and Telegraphs admitted in this House that he was in favour of the publication of licences. I regard this power as the most dangerous thing that could be put into the hands of any Government. It is really giving them unlimited authority to pick and choose between individual firms. It could well happen that the powerful combines would get the licences while the struggling people would be refused them. There are very grave dangers involved in this licensing system; preferential treatment and other things must inevitably follow, and it will be very difficult to avoid chaos.
It is up to the Minister to give us some clear undertaking in reference to the licensing system. We certainly will be glad to know what he intends to do. Senators can visualise the position of people in business here who discover suddenly that their competitors have got licences. If those firms choose to cut up rough the resulting unemployment will become so serious that no Government could face it. That would be a very undesirable thing and the Government should be very careful. I would like to emphasise that where individual firms get licences, those licences should be published. I think the House should insist upon that and make it a concrete and definite demand.
I could not help admiring considerably the statement made by the Minister. I have a strong suspicion that he is the only person here who really knows what exactly is in the Bill. I spent two long evenings examining this measure and I did my best to understand what exactly was meant by its various sections. I do not pretend to have fully succeeded. I do not regard this measure from the same point of view as Senator Sir John Keane. I look at it more from the point of view of absorbing the unemployed in the country. While I do not suppose that the Government could very well have avoided it, I do feel that a Bill of this kind is just about as bewildering as it could be to the average trader who desires to find out the immediate effect of it. It is quite true there are various publications relating to the tariffs that have been imposed, but I think the Minister will agree that it is almost impossible for a person to keep up-to-date in these matters. There is nothing more aggravating than to have one publication which purports to specify certain things and then shortly afterwards to be furnished with a Bill, some provisions of which will come into effect on one date and other provisions which will come into effect on another date, after the Bill has been signed by His Excellency the Governor-General.
I think in the main this Bill is definitely an improvement on the various duties that have come into force during the past six or eight months. It is, of course, largely an amending Bill. There are some new duties imposed, but in the main it is an amending Bill. There are some of us who favour a certain amount of protection and there are others who favour a wider form of protection. Those of us who favour a certain amount believe that the Government should make inquiries first and then put on a tariff. The Government's belief is that it is more desirable first to put on the tariff and then learn by experience and by representations put forward by traders what is the correct duty and what exemptions should be made. This Bill is almost entirely a Bill based on the experience of the last six months. I should like to join with Senator Sir John Keane in his desire for the beatification of the Revenue Commissioners and the various officials. I have had a fair amount of experience of the effect of these tariffs and numbers of traders have come to me in the belief, apparently, that every Senator knows what is or what is not dutiable. I am quite certain that the officials in the Revenue Department have done their very best and the officials in the Minister's Department have also done their best to meet the existing difficulties. I am quite sure the Minister also has done his best, but he is subject to that very doubtful policy of first putting on a tariff and then endeavouring to justify it afterwards. I think it is very probable that the Minister is well aware of the chaos and the difficulties resulting from the Government's policy in respect of tariffs. I am sure he thoroughly realises the annoyance and trouble caused to traders in finding out what is dutiable and what articles are exempt from duty.
The Minister somewhat innocently went into an explanation of the history of the duty on cotton blankets. Perhaps he will forgive me if I supplement his statement by something that occurred when he was at Ottawa. I moved an amendment here and I drew attention to a statement of the Minister in which he assured the Dáil that cotton blankets were not to be dutiable. I pointed out that they were now held to be dutiable and the suggestion was made that cotton blankets and rugs should be exempted. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance ridiculed that, pointed out that there were plenty of substitutes and said quite definitely that cotton blankets were dutiable. I am in a position to congratulate the Government. What we wanted to do here four months ago is now justified and is regarded as quite reasonable and correct. The particular continental blanket used by the poor in large quantities is something like a rug and I can quite conceive the Revenue Commissioners, conscientiously carrying out their duties, having difficulties in that respect. However, that matter can be raised on the Committee Stage.
I am particularly pleased to know that some effort is being made to codify the Acts of this year. I am not at all certain that, until we have had three or four Bills setting the position right as a result of further experience, any codification will be very helpful to the public. Of course, a codification of the measures relating to tariffs will be extremely helpful to the House. At the moment, it is decidedly difficult to know exactly what is dutiable and what is not dutiable. I should like to make a further suggestion to the Minister. I will urge him seriously to consider using the Tariff Commission or some other body of officials for the purpose of holding a public inquiry into all the duties now in force for the purpose, not of recommending whether they should be continued or not—I recognise that is a matter of Government policy—but of hearing the various representations, particularly on the part of manufacturers, with a view to getting rid of the licensing system or minimising the total number of cases in respect of which licences may have been issued.
Personally, I am satisfied that a perfectly bona fide effort is being made in regard to licences. I feel it is the intention of the Government to be perfectly fair to every firm, where the conditions are the same; but I know that a great many people outside are whispering that licences will be unfairly given. It would be well for the Minister to make clear what I know to be a fact, that if a licence is given to one firm, any other firm working under the same conditions will also be entitled to a licence. That should be made perfectly clear. If it is made clear beyond doubt, then there will not be much room for criticism. It should, however, be made clear that if one trader gets a licence another trader working under similar conditions will also be entitled to one. That is a matter that could be clarified. I have previously in this House supported the provision for licences, but only because I did not see how you could adopt a policy of putting on a tariff to discover by experience what the details should be unless you provided some system of licensing.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to a provision in one of these Schedules—I think the second one. The provision is rather different from the licensing provision. Under this provision, the Minister for Finance may, by order, remove the duty in connection, I think, with clocks, watches and musical instruments, where he finds that certain portions of it prove to be inexpedient. While I would be totally opposed to giving the Minister power to put on duties otherwise than by Acts of this nature, I think that in many cases where the licensing system is at present in operation it would be far more expedient to have a provision by which the Minister for Finance could remove duties from those portions of articles which are not manufactured here and in respect of which the reason for protection does not exist. There should be some such provision by which the Minister for Finance could remove these duties until the next Finance Bill comes along, which probably will not be very long. That, I think, would be better than the issue of licences and it would remove some of the genuine suspicion that exists.
Furthermore, it is troublesome to get licences and there are difficulties with regard to them. Some licences are given for a specified time. Others are given only for a specific consignment. If the licence is for a specific consignment, you cannot find out whether you are going to get a licence until the consignment is actually here. In respect of another suggestion I shall probably be told that its operation would be expensive. I have been wondering whether in the public interest it would not be possible to have a small office in connection with the Revenue Commissioner's Department, carrying a staff of two or three, to which members of the public could go and get definite information with regard to the latest rulings of the Revenue Commissioners in regard to tariffs. You can get those rulings when you take in the goods but if you want to protect industries you do not want to have the goods coming in here and to be paying the duties. You really want to prevent people bringing in the goods. It is desirable that a member of the public, and particularly a trader, should be able to go to some office and get a ruling in respect of a certain class of goods that would be definitely authoritative. A friend of mine told me that he endeavoured by telephone to get some such information from the Revenue Commissioners. They told him quite properly that they could only answer him if he put his request in writing. I am not blaming the Revenue Commissioners because it would be extremely difficult to give an answer by telephone to every query of that kind.
It is well known that, after duties are put on, the Revenue Commissioners, following examination, issue notices to their officials giving them specific instructions. In the case of parts of wearing apparel, they have had to issue notices as to what is to be regarded as a manufactured part. Efforts were made by certain people to evade the duty by getting in by the yard a practically completed article which only required a certain amount of stitching. That was stopped. But other things, such as frilling, were held to be manufactured, and they had to be dealt with. In that particular case, I know that a paper was issued. I think that that paper, with details as to how the duty was to be interpreted, should be available for inspection by a trader and that there should be a small office set apart for that purpose. When the question of delay was raised before in this House, the Minister for Finance assured us vehemently that the whole trouble was due to traders filling in wrong forms. I agree that probably 95 per cent. of the trouble in getting goods cleared from the Customs is due to filling in wrong forms and that only 5 per cent. is due to officials not being quite clear as to what duty is applicable. But I submit that that is not the fault of the public. It is most difficult to discover under what section of the various Acts a particular article should be declared. While the statement of the Minister for Finance is technically accurate, I suggest that the fault is not with the public. Even if the adoption of my suggestion involved expense, I think there would be a corresponding saving in other sections of the Revenue Department by having the forms filled in more accurately. I make those suggestions because I think they are worthy of consideration.
As showing the difficulty of interpretation, a case came to my notice last Friday in connection with my own firm which I may mention. A special order was sent to England on behalf of a special customer for a blouse case not manufactured here. It came by post. When it arrived, the minimum duty was demanded by the Postal Department and my staff refused to pay. When a representative of the firm went down to the Postal Department, the parcel was opened and he was told that the key was made of British steel and was not part of the attache case or blouse case. The lock was held to be part of the case, but the key was held not to be a part of the lock or the blouse case and, therefore, 2/6 duty was charged on the key. That is not a funny story; it is a fact. That is a genuine illustration of the great difficulty an official is in in trying conscientiously to carry out his duty. The 2/6 was duly paid. When the matter came to my notice, I wrote to the Secretary of the Revenue Commissioners asking whether this was a definite ruling, as, if so, we could get the keys over in lots instead of separately. We would, of course, have to pay the duty of 2/6.
What was the answer?
I have not got it yet. I did not expect to get a reply in two days. I think it would be unreasonable to expect a reply in less than a week. I have got the assurance that the matter is receiving consideration and I am quite certain that that is true. There are one or two questions I should like to ask the Minister before considering the putting down of recommendations for the Committee Stage. Why does the Minister confine his film concession to standard-size films? Why not allow people who produce films of 16 mm. size to avail of the concession? In the United States, and to a small extent in England, there are a number of people who are utilising what were originally amateur societies for the production of films. In England, I think that did lead to an increase in the production of films. A number of people may start off here with a 16 mm. film. That is quite large enough to give a good picture. A film of that size has often been shown in theatres. You may get a number of amateurs and one or two people outside arranging to produce an Irish film. As the Bill stands, they are excluded from any advantage. Almost inevitably, they will have to send out the film for development and treatment. They will have to pay the duty on its return. I think that an amateur society like that should get the benefit of the concession. I shall deal with that matter in detail when we come to the Committee Stage of the Bill. One small amateur film society did produce a picture in the Peacock Theatre. It was of 16 mm. size and one of those who took part has since obtained employment as a film actor. The difficulties were so great in the way of duty and cost that the society was not able to go any further. The expenses were considerably more than they could get by the letting of the theatre. If the object is to encourage the production of Irish films, the Minister should encourage the productions of the small societies who will use 16 mm. or even 9 mm. films.
In that particular section of the Bill there is a reference to "nationals of Saorstát Eireann." I think I am correct in stating that there is a definition of "national" in the Finance Act different from that in the Control of Manufactures Act, and a slightly different definition in the Control of Prices Bill. Which definition applies in this particular case, where there is no definition, I do not know. We do not want to add, with great repect to my lawyer friends, legal expenses to the difficulties of the person endeavouring to produce films here. With reference to the taking off of the duty on motor parts, I do not propose to criticise the provision in the Bill. It is another change which the Government have made in their endeavour to get over the difficulties which have arisen. I do not know whether it will be sufficient to enable the chassis to be made here or not. If it is at all possible to have that done economically, it would be desirable that it should be done. If the Minister really wished to get it done, he might have gone the whole hog and not provided for a duty on the engine, which he admitted in the Dáil—if he was correctly reported in the newspapers— is not likely to be made here. The same applies to some other parts on which 15 per cent. is charged. In the case of mass production, it costs nearly as much to put all the parts together, pack them and send them over here as it does to assemble the car, when this work is done by a chain of men, one man attending only to one particular job. If this is going to succeed, I think it is a pity that the Minister did not take his courage in his hands and go the whole hog. There are one or two difficulties in definition in regard to this matter. They will come up on Committee Stage.
I have already referred to cotton blankets. There are one or two other matters about which I am not quite clear, possibly due to my own stupidity. Are cord and twine definitely exempted or do they come in somewhere else? The duty was previously ten per cent. and that is deleted in one of the Schedules. I have a sort of feeling that these articles come in somewhere else but I cannot find where they come in. Why is a new principle being adopted in refunding the duty in the case of bacon? I am not much concerned with that matter myself but it is of some interest to us here. Having examined fairly carefully the provisions of this Bill, I think I can say that nearly all the Schedules represent a bona fide effort to rectify errors made in the duties in the past few months. Whether we approve of the general policy or not, I think the House should pass the Bill, as this action will be in the interest of the people generally.
When Money Bills like this come before us, we cannot do anything effective. All we can do is to try to affect the Minister's mind. The Minister is a convinced protectionist and, no doubt, he looks upon me as a convinced free trader. Consequently, there is not much use in my trying to convince him of the error of his ways. It may not be any harm, however, if I direct his attention to one aspect of this question which is present to my mind. This country is becoming a very dear country from the purchaser's point of view. People may want something for which they cannot afford to pay the present price or even as much as they paid before. The price may be very much more than they could obtain the article for on the other side of the Channel. It goes against their grain very much. They simply do not want to do it. This is not confined to luxuries, but extends to articles of general use which tend to the efficiency of the country; practical things like tools, paints, varnish, and all sorts of things. There is a great variety of these articles and there is a great deal of specialisation. Some of them are known by experience to be much better than others for a certain purpose. When a person wants a particular thing and finds that it is subject to a high rate of duty he simply does not get it. All that is hampering trade. Money is not used. It induces a general attitude of "let everything rip"; do not do any repairs or bother about anything, just go without; let the standard of maintenance and efficiency of the country go down. The only way I see to get away from that, if we must have tariffs to a certain extent, is to let the aim be to have lower tariffs.
I agree with Senator Bagwell that the tendency is for efficiency, the standard of living, and the standard of existence altogether to go down as a result of these tariffs. While the Minister was reciting his litany and we were saying in our hearts Ora pro nobis, I noticed that he mentioned several cases where the price had gone down. I could give him a list of ordinary things which the farmer cannot do without, although his purchasing power has practically disappeared, and he does not buy anything except what he cannot help, the duties upon which are hitting him very heavily. He cannot, for instance, do without horse-drawn vehicles or harness leather. These things have gone to prohibitive prices, especially harness.
There are all kinds of things contained in this list which are not luxuries, the price of which has gone up—things that the farmer cannot possibly do without. I bought a milk can two days ago of the same kind that I paid 12/6 for some time ago and I paid 2/6 more for it. That is only one instance. Everywhere you turn you find the price of things has gone up. The result is that the people are not buying things, except what they cannot possibly do without. The whole thing is a condemnation of the system of tariffs. We have often protested against them, but there is no section of the community which is feeling this pressure so badly as the farmer, because his means of living is being deliberately taken away and the price of everything he has to buy is going up. Where it is going to end nobody can tell.
Perhaps I might take some of the minor points raised first and get them disposed of. Senator Douglas raised one or two points. The first was in connection with films. The wording of the Bill, which confines the concession given by the section to films of full standard size, was inserted in the Dáil on representations made there to the effect that the processing of films for less than normal sized cameras was being done in the country. Heretofore, exemption was granted to negatives of films produced anywhere when the organisers, producers and the principal artists were nationals of and ordinarily resident in the Saorstát. That concession was found to be valueless because of the fact that the processing of the films, the making of the positives was not being done in the country. That was the reason why Section 8 was put into this Bill.
Is the Minister satisfied that the 16 mm. film is processed here? I am not. The 9 mm. film is.
The statement was made by a very responsible member of the Opposition in the Dáil and I took his word for it. The section as introduced applied to films of all sizes. The statement was made that the processing of these smaller sized films was being done here and strong objection was taken to giving the concession in respect of these films. Consequently these words "full standard size" were inserted in the Dáil. I will undertake to have that looked into.
I can find out between this and to-morrow. I know it was not done some time ago.
That is true. In fact, one of the reasons for the concession was the fact that when people took these films here, produced the negatives here and sent them away to have the positives made, they were subject to duty on coming back into the country. That was the reason why the concession was granted. Cordage, ropes and twine are made subject to duty by Reference 22 of the First Schedule. The duty has been increased to 20 per cent. The other Reference deletes the old duty, which takes place simultaneously with the imposition of the new duty. Perhaps it would be better if we left the other minor points over until we get to the Committee Stage. I agree that it would be to the interest of merchants engaged in the importation of goods if more explicit information as to the operation of duties upon various classes of goods were available and we have the question under consideration as to the form in which more definite information can be provided. The publication of the instructions issued by the Revenue Commissioners to the officials at the various importing points would hardly be desirable. These instructions are frequently of a more or less confidential nature, in so far as they advise the Customs officers how to detect attempted fraud and other devices of that kind. The publication might facilitate those who are seeking means of outwitting the Revenue Commissioners.
There are two kinds of instructions. There is the other kind which simply sets out the exact classes that come under a general description.
That is so. There is also a document of that kind sent out, but the document has no legal significance. Its publication might give rise to complication, in so far as it would not purport to be an accurate description of the classes of goods to which the duty applied. It is issued for the information of the officers concerned. He is told, for instance, that lubricating grease is generally of such a colour; that it is generally imported in certain sized drums and that, consequently, any grease of that colour imported in that sized drum must be carefully examined before being passed. General information of that kind is provided for the guidance of officers. However, the question of the publication of precise information is one that is receiving attention. I hope we will be able to get over the difficulty, although it will not be a very simple task.
On the matter of the main points raised, I have only to say that it is probably much too early to attempt to give any account of the results produced by the various tariffs imposed this year. A factory does not open the day after a tariff is imposed or increase of productive capacity is not created by the very act of imposing a tariff. Despite adverse conditions, despite a certain amount of political uncertainty, despite the fact that the world depression has produced its reactions here, and that consumption has fallen off to some extent, a very substantial industrial development has taken place in the past year. The extent of that development will not be fully appreciated for, perhaps, another six months to come, but it has been quite considerable, particularly in connection with those industries the establishment of which was comparatively simple. There are certain industries in respect of which development must necessarily be slow. If you take the flour-milling industry, for example, it takes perhaps from six to nine months to build and equip a flour mill. I said some time ago that I hoped to be able to say in twelve months' time that all the flour required in the Saorstát was being produced in Saorstát mills. There is every reason to believe that that will be the case. I fixed a period of twelve months, because it is going to take that time to build, equip and put into production mills in respect of which the plans have already been prepared.
There are other industries, of course, which can be established much more quickly. The packing industry is a case in point. That is an industry which did not require anything in the nature of substantial capital expenditure. The machinery required was, as a rule, quite simple and most of the employment was manual; in fact, most of it was unskilled. There are approximately, however, 1,000 people in employment in the packing factories established in the Saorstát as a result of the imposition of the duty. These are, I admit, mainly juveniles; to the extent of about 60 per cent. they are juveniles. It is, however, additional employment here and it means that additional revenue is coming into a large number of homes. That industry still has in it the seeds of further expansion.
There are other industries, such as the boot and shoe industry, in respect of which a fairly rapid development is possible. I mean in so far as existing factories are concerned, the increasing of the productive capacity to the physical limit of the factory was quite a simple operation and has taken place. In addition to that, we have got three new factories established and a fourth one coming shortly into production. At least three other factories are, to my knowledge, in course of planning, the construction of which will be undertaken in a short period. Even when we have all these additional factories going, there will still be a lot of leeway to make up for as far as the boot and shoe trade is concerned, but the progress has been certainly as rapid as, and, to some extent, more rapid than, I anticipated when the duty was increased to 25 per cent. There are other industries in respect of which the capital equipment is very heavy, and it will take a considerable amount of time, and certainly careful preparation, before these can be got upon their feet in a manner that will ensure successful operation afterwards.
As far as the general policy is concerned, it has, despite the conditions that have prevailed during the year, more than justified itself. Senators who are inclined to be critical of that policy, because it has not produced an unexampled air of prosperity in the country, should ask themselves what exactly the conditions would be here if that policy were not in operation. If we decided here and now to remove these duties, and to allow the industries that have grown up in consequence of the duties to meet the full blast of foreign competition, particularly the kind of competition that they would have to meet in these days, would conditions in the country be improved by it?
I think nobody can maintain that they would. On the contrary we would have to contemplate a much greater volume of unemployment and a much more serious volume of unemployment because it would be more permanent and hopeless.
It has been said that unemployment is growing. To what extent that is true it is hard to say. In certain parts of the country it is true that unemployment is much less than ever. In some parts of the country unemployment as such does not exist at all. In other parts of the country unemployment is a serious problem and one that we are attempting to tackle by every possible device including the device of the direct provision of work upon State schemes. There has been an amount said about the unemployment problem here by people who have not appreciated the fact that it is by no means as serious as it is in other countries. I do not want to minimise the seriousness of unemployment at all. We have taken drastic measures to deal with it. The size of the problem is our justification for these drastic measures. But not merely is unemployment less serious than it has been represented by certain people but——
Would the Minister quote the figures of unemployment for the time when the present Government came into power and now?
I do not know them. When this Government came into power the figures of unemployment were faked.
I do not believe that.
Cathaoirleach
Senators must not interrupt.
It is true that certain figures were available and these figures gave the registered unemployed. In the County Galway there were only two labour exchanges; in Mayo only one; in certain other counties there were only one or two labour exchanges and these were fifty miles apart. For many of the unemployed workers of the country the existence of these employment exchanges had no significance at all. The unemployed never attempted to utilise them. So far as Government relief works were concerned there was in existence a certain system of preference for the supporters of the Party who preceded us in office. First there was a preference given to ex-members of the National Army who were married. The second preference was given to the unmarried workers who were ex-members of the National Army. These two preferences succeeded in monopolising all the relief work that was there. Consequently those who were not ex-members of the National Army had little inducement to register at the labour exchanges. In fact the exchanges were of very little significance at all to the majority of the workers.
We changed that system. We made it at first conditional on all local authorities who received State grants in respect of work that they should recruit their workers from the labour exchanges. We made it a rule that whatever works were to be provided there should be laid down and put into force a system of preference which precluded any system of favouritism entering into the matter. We made it a rule that the relief work to be given in the case of unemployment should be determined first of all in relation to the number of registered unemployed in a particular county or district. We established a system of registration of the unemployed through the post office and the Gárda stations. We secured that every unemployed person in the country should register. The result was that in one week there were 40,000 unemployed persons registered who were not registered before. Is it seriously to be suggested that 40,000 persons became unemployed in one week?
I wonder would the Minister give me a reply to this point?
Cathaoirleach
The Minister is now closing the debate.
I just want to ask one question.
Cathaoirleach
I am very sorry, but Senators had opportunities of asking these questions before the Minister rose to reply.
The fact is, when people talk of the figures as to the unemployed to-day and the number of unemployed last March and compare the two, that one set of figures has no relation to the other. Any conclusion based upon these figures must therefore be erroneous. The position is now that we have got upon the register more than we bargained for——
Hear, hear.
——A number of landowners and others seeking cart work in connection with relief schemes have registered as unemployed. The figures as to the unemployed do not, therefore, represent those who normally get a livelihood by working for others but those who are at the moment seeking for work in order to get a livelihood. These landowners are looking for work for their horses and carts on the roads. The figure of the unemployed now includes persons who have other means of livelihood. We have holders of land, persons who are quite prepared to take work on the roads and quarries if offered to them. We are trying to get these figures to meet. We have issued new instructions and new forms for the purpose of getting information which will permit of an analysis of the figures. Owing to the great pressure of work in the offices this is a very slow process. The work in the offices has been intensified and the time available for the work is limited. It will help the Senators to appreciate the change in the position when we have these figures analysed.
Might I point out that in a normal year up to the present the number of vacancies notified to the labour exchanges and filled through the labour exchanges in this State was 16,000 to 17,000. That is to say, that in twelve months 16,000 vacancies were filled through the labour exchanges. That number had been notified to the labour exchanges and that number had been filled in the course of a year. In the present year the number of vacancies being notified to the labour exchanges and filled by them is at the rate of 100,000. That many forms are being filled up. Senators who bear these figures in mind will appreciate the difference between the two sets of figures and they will also see the amount of value to be attached to the figures previously issued by the Department of Industry and Commerce.
Reference was made to the policy of tariffs. It was said that they were not imposed on a scientific basis and it was suggested that there should be a general relation between the tariffs imposed. I would like to tell Senators that the Tariff Commission Act has not been repealed by us. It is our intention to utilise the Tariff Commission in the making of a detailed examination in the matter of tariffs. A detailed examination is desirable. The term of office of the existing members of the Tariff Commission expired recently. New members were appointed on the Commission, and in the near future they will take up the matter of undertaking the examination of the tariffs that have been put on. This examination will be useful in certain cases.
Consideration has also been given to the advisability of having some general examination of the position undertaken with a view to rectifying any possible anomalies that may have arisen in the matter of the existing duties. We sometimes find that two duties apply to the same article and difficulties arise in that connection. The Tariff Commission may be called upon to undertake an examination which will ensure that any difficulties of that kind will be removed. Senator Sir John Keane talked about a delay of three months in the importing of certain marble work that he required. I am sorry indeed to hear it was not more than three months. I cannot see any justification whatever for importing into this country any worked or unworked marble. We have in this country marble of a quality to suit all requirements. The working of the marble could be done quite well here and if it is required to bring in marble from any other country in an unworked state it can be worked here. I submit that if people want foreign marble they can find in this country workmen who would be able to prepare it. Senator Bagwell talked about the drab life that we were creating for certain classes in the country, and seemed to regret that heliotrope and colours like that——
It was not I made any reference to that.
It was I.
Yes, it was Senator Sir John Keane. If the Senator would go to the trouble of going down to Beggar's Bush Barracks and looking at the designs, patterns and colours of the fabrics there he will find that there is nothing drab about them and that he can by wearing the fabrics made in Ireland parade in any colours. As to the matter of the granting of licences, I just want to say that I am anxious to shed all the licensing powers I have as quickly as possible. It is not easy to do so. There have been licensing provisions inserted in the Finance Act for three reasons:—(1) owing to the difficulties in the matter of definition. We had an example of that to-day in the matter of size where it was desired to bring certain stocks for paints and we found it was not possible to get a definition of that class of size. We had the State Chemist and others on the job for weeks past——
How do you manage to get a definition in the licenses?
Because the particular size which it is desired to import is a patented article and sold under a patented name. It is quite easy for the Revenue Commissioners to distinguish by a variety of devices that particular size from other sizes. It is not easy to get a definition of it. I will give another example of it. We imposed a duty upon paint, but cellulose, which is used for painting carriages, is not made here and it was desired to allow cellulose into the country under licence. We got the State Chemist on it and he took six weeks to find a definition. Consequently we put a duty upon all paints with a licensing definition so as to allow in cellulose. Certain safeguards are easily conceivable to prevent fraud. There is this second type of definition which is operating to insure that the quantity of goods imported under it will be merely sufficient to supplement the home production. We have been endeavouring to develop the manufacture of tins—tins for packing sweets, cocoa and the like. We realised that the existing concerns were only making a limited range of these tins and that difficulty would arise in respect of certain types and designs, and that it would take some little time before the firms here would realise what they were up against and have machinery installed for their requirements. Consequently we operated the licensing system. When firms wanted to import a particular type of commodity we established contacts with all the firms here making that commodity and before giving the licence to import we satisfied ourselves that these firms were not able to supply the orders. It was only when we were able to satisfy ourselves as to that that we gave the licence to import. There is a tariff or duty upon a noted well-known fabric. We had that duty because we wanted to guarantee that the development of that fabric would be on right lines. We have now sent notice to the firms importing this stuff and enjoying the benefit of this licence that we expect them within a reasonable time to instal the machinery for the making of the fabric themselves, or to make arrangements with other firms in the Saorstát to do it.
These licensing provisions are for the purpose of meeting unforeseen difficulties that may arise. I admit that it is possible in theory to avoid the necessity for such licences by having a careful examination in advance of the effects of the proposed duties. But that is possible only in theory. It has never been found possible in practice. I know that the Tariff Commission spent three or four years upon the consideration of some applications for a tariff on woollen goods. But immediately they published their tariff they found that they had to change it within three weeks. This tariff that had been put on woollens was under consideration, I think, for three years, and yet after it had been imposed the tariff had to be altered three times within six months, so that in practice it is impossible even by a long examination to prevent mistakes being made.
Senator Miss Browne stated that the efficiency of our industries, and the standard of living of our people have gone down. That statement is not correct. On the contrary, the efficiency of our industries has not merely been increased, and demonstrated for the first time in recent months, but we have had foreign firms which established contact with industries here for the first time astonished at the efficiency that existed. One well-known firm, to my own knowledge, have secured not merely the home market for their products, but because of the contact established here, following the imposition of certain duties, have established a substantial export trade. One boot manufacturing firm got an order for shoes of a certain description from a firm with multiple stores here, and the supply was so satisfactory that that firm wanted to give an order for these shoes for sale abroad. Other examples of the same kind are continually coming to our notice. In fact, it has been frequently demonstrated that the efficiency of our firms engaged in a number of lines of industry is all that might be expected and, in some cases, much higher than that normally prevailing elsewhere. They have, to my knowledge, shown a commendable desire to bring their equipment up-to-date. A very large number of them have, during the last three or four months, overhauled their machinery and introduced the latest devices for the perfection of their products, and generally to make themselves quite competent to stand up to any firm in the world as far as the quality of their products is concerned. I do not think it is correct to say that the standard of living of our people has gone down. In fact, I would say that there are a very large number of people in this country who have eaten meat much more frequently within the last six months than they ever did before.
Because it could not be sold.
They will not agree that the standard of living has gone down. Although it is undoubtedly true that the index of business activity has shown some falling off, that is not confined to this country. It is true of every country in the world. But here, because of the policy we are now operating and the efforts we are making in an almost virgin field to develop our productive capacity, we are weathering the general storm as well as, if not better than most people. I said last week that so far as the abnormal conditions that were produced by the action of the British Government were concerned, we have got over the worst. I repeat that. We can confidently hope that whatever dislocation and hardship may have been created here, we may look forward to continually improving conditions in the future. It only requires that those responsible for the direction of policy will not lose their heads, but will see clearly the road they are taking and follow that road and see where it will eventually lead.
If you, Sir, will permit me, I would like to ask the Minister a question.
Cathaoirleach
If you mention the question I will ask the Minister.
Another Senator was allowed to speak four times, and I am wondering has he a privilege that I have not. I only want to ask one question.
Cathaoirleach
Ask it and I will put it to the Minister.
I want the Minister to apply the test of the income of the Insurance Fund and to see how that income is reflected on the question of unemployment this year as compared with last year.
The income from the sale of stamps has been increased this year.
Question put and agreed to.
Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 14th December.