Finance (Customs Duties) (No. 4) Bill, 1932 (Certified Money Bill)—Committee.
Sections 1 to 6 inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 7.
(1) The customs duty imposed by Section 11 of the Finance Act, 1928 (No. 11 of 1928), as amended by subsequent enactments shall be charged, levied, and paid on the following articles imported into Saorstát Eireann after the passing of this Act at the respective rates hereinafter mentioned in lieu of the rates mentioned in the said Section 11 or any such amending enactment as aforesaid, that is to say:—
(a) on all parts of motor cars which are, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, engine assemblies as defined by regulations made by the Revenue Commissioners, transmission assemblies as similarly defined, or propelling gear assemblies as similarly defined —at the rate of an amount equal to fifteen per cent., of the value of the article;
(b) on all parts of motor cars which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, are either radiators, lamps, or starting motors and are imported separately—at the rate of an amount equal to fifteen per cent. of the value of the article;
(c) on all parts of motor cars which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, are metal doors or metal body shells or assembled metal parts of such doors or shells and have not been painted, upholstered, or fitted with glass or wood, and are suitable only for incorporation in the body of a motor car designed, constructed, and intended for the carriage (otherwise than for reward) of not more than six persons exclusive of the driver— at the rate of an amount equal to forty per cent. of the value of the article.
(2) The customs duty imposed by the said Section 11 of the Finance Act, 1928, as amended by subsequent enactments shall not be charged or levied on any of the following articles imported into Saorstát Eireann after the passing of this Act, that is to say:—
(a) on any component parts or accessories of motor car chassis which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, are not assembled otherwise than by welding, soldering, or other like process;
(b) on any component parts or accessories (other than doors and complete body shells) of motor car bodies which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, are not assembled and are suitable only for incorporation in or use as an accessory of the body of a motor car, designed, constructed, and intended for the carriage (otherwise than for reward) of not more than six persons exclusive of the driver.
(3) Whenever the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, is satisfied that any articles chargeable with duty at a rate fixed by this section are required to be imported by a manufacturer for use in a process of manufacture in Saorstát Eireann, the Revenue Commissioners may by licence authorise such manufacturer, subject to compliance with such conditions as they may think fit to impose, to import such articles without payment of the said duty either, as the Revenue Commissioners shall think proper, without limit as to time or quantity or either of them, or within a specified time or in a specified quantity.
(4) In this section the expression "motor car" has the same meaning as it has in Part II of the Finance Act, 1928 (No. 11 of 1928), and the expression "motor car body" has the same meaning as it has in Section 14 of the Finance (Customs Duties) (No. 2) Act, 1932 (No. 11 of 1932).
I move recommendation No. 1:—
Section 7, sub-section (3). To delete the sub-section and to substitute therefor a new sub-section as follows:—
(3) The Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, may by order exempt from the duty imposed by this section articles of any specified class or description in respect of which he is satisfied that it is inexpedient that such duty should be charged thereon.
This recommendation, which is down in my name, is to amend sub-section (3) of Section 7, but I want to speak on the section as it relates to it. I am not satisfied, from some conversations which I have had, that there will not be difficulty in the exact interpretation of the wording of sub-section (1). For instance, I think that it is quite possible that you will find very often that quite a small portion of wood is part of a metal body. It is quite a negligible quantity but I am informed that there is that small quantity and that you will almost certainly have a difficulty there. I said yesterday that the Minister, if he wants to get in chassis here, should let them in free. The object of this recommendation is, to some extent, a try-on with the Minister. That is, having read the Bill carefully, and having considered this recommendation to be a much better provision, I thought I would suggest to the Minister that it might be applied here as I believe it might be far better than a licence provision. Assuming, as I think will be the case, that all the different manufacturers are able to send over their parts and get them assembled here, there will be two or three which will have some wood and you will almost certainly have difficulty in distinguishing as to which particular firm is to obtain a licence. I think I understood the Minister to say that where a licence could be avoided he would prefer it, because even if licences are absolutely impartial and fair still they will always create some delay and a certain amount of suspicion. As a great deal of the motor parts are going to be let in free, the only object for this licensing provision, that I can see, is to remedy defects. I understood the Minister to say that the object of sub-section (3) was to remedy such defects, and if there is any other reason for the sub-section I would be glad to know it. It is with the object of remedying possible defects that I am making this suggestion. I am not going to press the House to a division in a matter of this kind and I am merely putting it forward because I think it would be preferable to a licence.
This recommendation, I think, does not apply to the licence at all. It does not impose a duty, but remits either in whole or in part a duty which existed for a number of years. Frankly, the licence provision is there to enable us to deal with any minor unforeseen difficulties that may arise. In that connection, it is obviously a matter in which discretion must be exercised. It may be that in a certain type of motor car the shell in its simplest from might contain some element of wood. Obviously, we would have to consider whether that piece of wood is something essential to the shell or whether it could be used for building the shell here. In the former case, it would have to be admitted free of duty, and that would come in under the clause, and in the second case, it would be necessary to impose the duty to ensure that only the minimum amount of wood would come in. The intention is to watch the difficulties according as we come up against them and then to come in with a proposal at a later stage deleting the licence provision and making permanent arrangements to deal with such articles.
I am not convinced by what the Minister has said, but I am prepared to withdraw the recommendation. I do not believe myself that ultimately it will be your experience that you will get the margin you want when you have to pay on the engines and other parts. I think the margin is not going to be sufficient. I think the Minister will admit that you cannot get the parts in at a cheaper price than the outsider is willing to sell them at. In this case, one manufacturer demonstrated pretty clearly to me that he could not sell the parts knocked down any cheaper than the complete bodies and car put together, for the simple reason that they are put together by mass production in a chain on the Continent, and to take each part separately cost him approximately the same amount of money as it cost him to include it in his whole equipment. I do not say that this applies everywhere. It does not apply, I think, in the case of a Rolls-Royce, but it does apply to the cheaper makes of cars. The fact that certain portions are still dutiable will not leave enough margin, in my opinion. I can assure the Minister that the charges which he made on a previous occasion, to the effect that the trade were not trying, are not correct. I think that if there is a profit to be made, they will try their best.
I should like to know if the Minister has anything to say regarding representations which, I understand, were made to him by manufacturers of motor parts. Sub-section (2) of Section 7 provided for the free admission of the component parts or accessories of motor cars which have not been assembled. Up to the present, there has been a tax, of course, on these and it has been represented to me, and I understand it has been also so represented to the Minister, that the removal of the tax in this case will throw out of employment a fairly considerable number of mechanics at present engaged by certain manufacturing firms in the manufacture of these articles. I cannot say how many would be thrown out of employment, but from 150 to 200 has been mentioned to me as the number in Dublin. I have not been able to check that, however. It is stated that, by admitting these free, you will destroy their manufacture altogether here and destroy a craft that was increasing and developing, and that the immediate effect, at all events, will be to create unemployment in this particular trade. Strange to say, it is alleged in any case, that the motor trade is in opposition to the removal of this tax on the parts. That statement has been made here to me to-day by a person who seems to be connected with the trade. It is stated that if time is given, at least between now and the Report Stage, evidence will be available to prove that and to show that it is a very serious consideration. I think that the motor trade has been very harshly treated and I should be very slow to oppose anything that would be a measure of relief to them. The Minister has had some statement made to him, I understand, and I presume that he has made some inquiries into the matter and that he will be in a position to inform the House as to how things stand. If there is ground for action, it could be taken on the Report Stage and I should like to ask the Minister now if he has definite information on the matter.
I want to know whether the Senator would be able to inform us of any particular parts of a motor car that are made here.
Pistons and valves— quite a number of parts, I understand.
If there are parts made here, then I think they ought to be protected. I can quite understand that the motor trade would be opposed to this remission of the duty on parts because if a man can get, and get cheaply, a part he will probably be content to put that on to his car, whereas if the part is dear, and if it is made dearer by reason of an import duty, he will naturally be inclined to scrap the old machine and buy a new one. I can quite understand the motor trade being against this, but I do not think the public generally will be against it. In relation to the one point that has been put forward, if there is any part of a motor car made here I think its manufacture ought to be encouraged.
I met representatives of the motor trade. They announced that they were opposed to the removal of the duty. I want, however, to say this for them, that ten years ago they came to the then Minister for Industry and Commerce and announced that they would be ruined if the duty was put on. They strongly opposed at that time the imposition of a duty, but last week they came and opposed equally strongly its removal. The case they made for it was that motorists might do their own repairs; that they would order parts, say, from manufacturers across the channel, import them here and do their own repairs, whereas if the import duty applied they would not go to the trouble of clearing the parts through the customs.
I think the Minister is not quite correct in that. I was not present, of course, at the conference, but I think the representation made to the Minister was, not that motorists would order the parts from manufacturers at the other side, but rather that they could buy them from traders at the other side. It is quite a different point.
That they would get the parts from traders at the other side free of duty and do their own repairs. Frankly, I must say that I was not the least bit impressed by that argument. I think there are very few motorists who would be inclined to do that, seeing that there is no advantage in price in respect of standard parts. In any event, I think the majority of motorists, when their cars go out of order, will run them into a garage and tell the proprietor to put them right. It is only very seldom indeed that they would undertake to do the repairs themselves. I think they will find that the possibility of increased trade, following a reduction in the price of parts, will off-set any advantage of that kind. It is not at all unlikely that the lower cost of repairs will induce people who have cars lying up, or waiting to be overhauled, to put them into commission again.
The other point raised by Senator O'Farrell is a more serious one. There are certain firms in town doing, to some extent at all events, work in the manufacture of parts. The employment given is, I think, much larger than the actual number named would suggest. It would be impossible to say what the actual number is because these firms do repair work of all kinds. Their principal work relates to the grinding of cylinders and valves and jobs of that kind. They make parts for obsolete types of cars. I think that is the principal work they are engaged on. They make parts for cars which, so to speak, are no longer on the market. The firms that made them are not now in existence. I am not convinced that the remission of the duty is going to make any serious difference to those firms. We are bringing them into consultation with the Department so that the matter can be examined from every aspect. To my mind the arguments already put up to us were so tenuous that we would not be justified in not taking the action contemplated here. In fact, one of the firms overstated the case. It said that it had been in existence for 25 years: that it had been making these parts during that period and making them quite successfully. It forgot that for 15 of the 25 years there was no duty in operation. This proposal is really reverting to the status quo. It ought to be of considerable advantage, and should encourage people to get their parts from concerns here rather than to import them.
It is true to say that some parts required in the building of a motor car can be manufactured in the country. We hope to get a number of them manufactured here at the end of a period. I think the first step in that direction must be to break the habit of importing the chassis as a unit and getting it assembled here—getting a substantial part of the assembly done here. After a period, when that has become the established practice, we can examine the position and get the simple parts—all types of parts— manufactured in the country. What we are doing here is, we are giving a concession that unassembled parts will be completely free of duty, and that the more difficult assemblings will be subject to a lower rate of duty than heretofore. In connection with firms doing these partially manufactured parts, it should be pointed out that it is only in the case of completely unassembled parts that the duty ceases to operate. The majority of parts which would be imported would be assemblings of one kind or another and they would be subject to the full rate of duty. It is only the raw steel, shaped or moulded into one particular form, without any addition, that would be free of duty. Even the addition of a screw would make it an assembly, and would make it therefore liable to the full rate of duty.
There is this position to be considered, that a person ordering a part likes to be in a position to be able to send it back to the place where he got it if it does not suit. That is one of the main reasons why people get parts, say, from a firm here. In that case the parts have to be cleared at the customs by the importing firm. If the part is sent back there is the fact that a customs duty operates at the other side, so that the difficulty with the customs would be just as serious under present circumstances even though on duty applied. That is why I feel there will be no loss to the repairing shops or garages in the country. We hope we will be able to induce some firms to utilise their machinery on the assembly work that we are contemplating.
I would ask the Minister to look more closely into this because it is a matter of very great importance to an industry in this country. Messrs. Ford assemble their cars, and particularly their tractors, in Cork. They get very large quantities of certain parts made by the Macroom Engineering Company. They also make parts for obsolete cars. They are continuously making parts in immense quantities for these cars. If persons have, under the shelter of a tariff and on the assurance that the tariff would remain in force, invested their capital in plant and in the employment of men, then I think this is a matter that deserves very close consideration. This matter was only mentioned to me this afternoon. I would commend this recommendation to the Minister for his consideration. Perhaps he might consider it on the Report Stage.
The Minister did not answer my point with regard to licences. The question put to me yesterday was: does this mean that some firms will get the engines in free under licence?
There was that impression. Does it mean that some firms will get the body shells in free? So far as the licensing provision is concerned I want to be quite clear that this is only going to be used by the Minister in carrying out the section where some small technical defect has arisen. Otherwise, if firms get the suspicion that another firm may be allowed to have an engine in free, then they will not take the risk.
There will be no licensing of an engine assembled or body shells or any of the articles specifically mentioned that are subject to duty. As regards this licensing provision, I frankly confess that I cannot see how it is intended to be used. It is merely inserted there in the event of some difficulty arising which was not foreseen. I would prefer that it was not there. Its presence there is going to mean that I will have people coming to me trying to induce me to give them licences for parts in respect of which we had already determined that no concession should be given. The difficulty of explaining it arises from the fact that it is there to meet the possibility of some unforeseen difficulty and of work in progress being held up because of that fact. If the difficulty were foreseen, if we knew what it was likely to be, we would have provided for it specifically in the Bill. I hope that we will be able to delete the licensing provision at the earliest opportunity, as soon as we have had experience of the operation of the section. When we have had a month or six weeks' experience then we will know more definitely than we do now the difficulties which have to be met.
Will there be publication of the licences in cases where they are issued?
I think it is most inadvisable that there should be publication of the licences issued to individual firms. There are two types of licences. There are the licences that are issued in accordance with the powers conferred by the Finance Acts of this year. Then there are general licences. They are licences for particular classes of commodities subject to duty, of things that are not being made here and that are required by manufacturers in the process of manufacture. They are generally issued in the form of an instruction to the Revenue Commissioners to admit certain classes of goods when consigned to any manufacturer in the Saorstát. Sometimes there might be a quantitative restriction as well, but generally there is not. Then there are licences issued under the emergency duties and under perhaps one of the Budget duties to individual firms to import limited consignments of specified goods to meet special circumstances. Someone, for example, may be building a factory here and desires to import machinery which can only be got from Great Britain, patented machinery of one kind or another supplied by some British firm. That person would get a licence to import specified items of machinery. In the case of such licences it is most undesirable that publication should take place, because it would mean giving to the public a very large amount of information concerning the business of an individual firm. The only other cases in which licences are given are to meet special cases of hardship where contracts for the supply of goods had been entered into before the imposition of the duty, where the goods were lying in a ship at the North Wall or had, in fact, been unloaded on the quay, but not cleared of duty.
In one or two cases, mainly in relation to the emergency duty, licences were issued, but very rarely in relation to the Budget duties, except in the circumstances actually provided for in the licensing provisions of the Bill, such as the provision relating to structural steel or building stone. There a permit may be given for the importation, free of duty, where the steel or stone was required for a building, the erection of which was commenced before the duty was imposed. These are the only circumstances in which licences are issued. In respect of them, and apart from the considerable difficulty involved, it would be, in most cases, very undesirable to publish. In so far as general licences in respect to certain commodities are issued, that is commodities required by manufacturers in the course of manufacture, the practice is and has always been observed that where successful application for such licence is made every manufacturer in the country interested or likely to be interested in the thing is circularised to the effect that such a facility is available.
I do not think that the House should be in any way satisfied with the statement of the Minister. First of all, he narrows it down to what has been done, but we have to have regard to what the law empowers to be done, and, right through all these schedules, the law empowers a very large measure of unrestricted licence. That is a very dangerous power to give to any Government. Do not let us be satisfied with the assurance that nothing has yet been done that is undesirable or that nothing will be done by this Government that is undesirable. Let us look to the broad principles that govern a matter of this kind in which a Government can undoubtedly give preference or in which pressure can be brought on the Government which they cannot resist, for particular reasons which need not be detailed here, but which may favour individuals who are powerful at the expense of those who have not that power.
There is really a very serious principle involved here. It is ridiculous to say that the Government can be trusted and can be given a blank cheque without any regard to the implications or dangers involved. We have naturally to provide certain checks which must be imposed by Parliament on the Executive, and I think this is eminently a case in which Parliament should be vigilant and the only effective vigilance is the publication of the licences given to individuals. General licences, of which everybody can take advantage, I do not so much mind, but the Minister referred specifically to the dangers of publishing particulars of a licence given to a firm to import special machinery. I do not see any danger. The details of the machinery need not be set out. These are not the things that are dangerous—it is where a firm who claims this special use for certain general commodities and other firms could possibly put up the same claim. Favour can be shown to one firm over another, perhaps innocently. There is great danger and I hope that Parliament will not be satisfied with the rather plausible explanation of the Minister.
I should like to explain that, in relation to the Budget duties, we have no power, except in one or two particular cases, to issue licences unless the article is not procurable in the Saorstát in the quantity required or is required by a manufacturer in the process of manufacture. There is no power, in relation to the majority of the duties, to give any licence for the importation of the goods for sale to firms who propose to sell them to others. We must be able to stand over these facts —that the article is essential to the process of manufacture and that, for some reason, it is not procurable in the Saorstát, either not procurable at all or not procurable in the quantities required. In relation to the Emergency Duties, there is, of course, a complete discretion. Licences can be issued on any condition at all but, in the case of these duties, certain general principles were laid down and licences are issued in accordance with these principles or refused if they do not conform to them. Even in the case of the Emergency Duties, I think it would be desirable that we should, after experience of their operation, transform the general duty into the specific duty which we would be in a position to determine from our experience and get rid of our licensing power.
Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 7 agreed to.
[The Leas-Chathaoirleach took the Chair.]
SECTION 8.
Whenever it is shown, to the satisfaction of the Revenue Commissioners, in respect of any cinematograph film of full standard size, whether positive or negative, which was or is imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 1st day of December, 1931 (whether before or after the passing of this Act) and was or is chargeable on such importation with the duty imposed by Section 10 of the Finance Act, 1931 (No. 31 of 1931), or the duty imposed by Section 17 of the Finance Act, 1932 (No. 20 of 1932), either—
(a) that the production of such film was organised by persons whose chief or only place of business was in Saorstát Eireann and that the producer of such film and the majority of the artists employed in the production thereof were at the time of such production nationals of and ordinarily resident in Saorstát Eireann, or
(b) that such film was produced wholly or mainly in Saorstát Eireann and that the majority of the artists employed in the production of such film were at the time of such production nationals of and ordinarily resident in Saorstát Eireann,
the Revenue Commissioners shall, subject to compliance with such conditions as they may think fit to impose, allow such film to be imported without payment of the duty imposed by whichever of the said Sections 10 and 17 is applicable or repay any such duty already paid.
I move recommendation No. 2:—
To delete in lines 50 and 51 the words "of full standard size."
This is the matter I raised yesterday. I was pressed by the Cathaoirleach to put in the recommendation at the last moment although, in this case, I had said that I would be able this morning to find out the facts pretty accurately. I have made inquiries in relation to this and I find that the Bill, as introduced, did not include these words, but that a Deputy in the Dáil was approached by a firm who process and develop nine millimetre films. They were afraid that, under this section, they would lose their trade. Personally, I do not think there was any danger of their losing their trade under the section because I cannot see the ordinary person, who will take a film in the street with nine millimetre film in a small camera, going to the trouble of satisfying the Revenue Commissioners as to the nationality and ordinary residence of the people who happen to walk into his film when he is taking it. I do not think that was really very serious. But the reason why I object to limiting this to standard size was not in relation to nine millimetre film at all, but in relation to 16 millimetre film. If you are going to have, as was attempted here recently and may, I think, quite likely be attempted again, an amateur film society—they are practically certain to use 16 millimetre film—if the object of this is to encourage a possible film industry here, we certainly must encourage the amateurs, because it is out of them that, in all probability, a film industry will grow.
So far as I can find out, and I think I can say positively, 16 millimetre films are not processed here at present. There is some talk that one firm may process them in the near future, but that firm will not process anything but their own product which is sold for amateurs and sold, negative and positive together, at a price of 25/-. Any amateur production society will not want a negative which can only be turned into a positive for 25/- per 100 feet. It will want a negative from the successful portions of which a number of positives can afterwards be printed, and that negative can be bought for 10/- or 12/-. The difficulty at the present time is that it is almost impossible for people who wish to form a society of this kind—there is a handicap on the ordinary amateur which is not so serious—to get film. They must buy from one firm who supply only the negative which will be turned into a positive at a fixed price which includes the processing. That may be done here, but it is not yet being done here.
My effort to delete these words "of full standard size," was made somewhat hastily yesterday because I was asked to put down the recommendation by the Cathaoirleach. I recognise that I do not want to affect the possible sale, though I do not think there is anything serious in it, of nine millimetre film here. What is really required is not the form of words I suggest, but these words with the addition of the words "or 16 millimetres." As it stands now, the benefits of this section will be lost so far as an amateur film production society is concerned. The Minister for Finance was not here yesterday but, as Senators know, an effort was made by a number of people a little over a year ago, and a fairly successful film was produced, but the cost was 25/- per 100 feet, and taking a small theatre like the Peacock, as they did, the loss was too heavy to allow them to venture again. They could have obtained film at 10/-, which could easily have been done, and they would have had no expense on the portion of film that is wasted in production of a film and they could have got two or three positives which could have been shown in different parts at the same price. If this is really meant seriously, I would urge that 16 millimetre film should be included. I do not know how the Minister views this, but if he is at all favourably inclined, I am prepared to put the recommendation down for Report Stage, because I do not want simply to move the deletion of these words, because I recognise that it is quite conceivable that, if anyone had to go to the trouble of certifying the nationality and residence of persons in their private films—they might be frightened and it would be better to leave the nine millimetre film alone. It is very small and would not be used except for small private purposes.
I have a very open mind on this matter. I am perfectly open to conviction and I do recognise that there is quite a good deal to be said for the point of view expressed by Senator Douglas. If the Senator would withdraw his recommendation and put down another on Report Stage on the lines he indicated, I will have it examined in the meantime and will be able to say more definitely to-morrow what my attitude would be in regard to it.
Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.
I move recommendation No. 3:—
To delete in line 61 the word "employed" and to substitute therefor the word "engaged."
This recommendation is verbal and I am not certain whether it is necessary or not. I put it down for the purpose of raising the point of the meaning of the word "employed," and whether it means employed for gain or not. If it means employed for gain, the amateur is cut out of the provision. I have a very eminent legal Senator beside me and I am not, perhaps, giving secrets away if I say that he is not quite sure himself. He does not think there has been a sufficient number of decisions as to the legal meaning. I suggest that the word "engaged" would suit.
"Employee" and "employed" are doubtful words in the statutes. They are used in the Factory Acts, but there is a definition of them given and it only includes persons employed under contract. In Acts where there is no definition, it is doubtful and the meaning depends on the context and object of the Acts. It is a doubtful word to use when there is no definition given but "engaged" can be used perfectly safely.
"Engaged," I am afraid, for the purpose of discussing matters, might enlarge the exemption too widely. I could conceive cases where there might be one or two professional artists engaged in the production of a film together with a large number of people, not amateurs, but merely country folk.
Engaged to form a crowd. I wonder whether it would be desirable to have the exemption in that case, but I think I will take the Senator's advice on the matter.
They would be part of the scenery.
That is just what I am wondering.
If the Minister likes, I will put it down to-morrow and I am certain that, even on his own argument, he will find that "employed" does not mean "employed for gain." I want to include amateurs because I think there is a possibility of something similar to what was previously attempted being started again.
It might be better to leave in the word "employed" and to add "whether for remuneration or not."
I will have an opportunity of consulting the legal advisers to the Revenue Commissioners to-morrow.
The House might allow the Minister to bring in the words to-morrow with him if he decides. I am not going to press it against the Minister. I raised it simply to clarify the position.
Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.
I move recommendation No. 4.
To delete in line 63 the words "nationals of and."
The object of this is not really to limit it but to point out that I do not know what it means, because the Minister was not here yesterday. If he will refer to the Finance Act, he will find one definition of a national. If he refers to the Control of Manufactures Act, he will find another, and, if he goes to the Control of Prices Bill, he will find a slightly different definition of "national" while, in this Bill, there is no definition of "national" at all. How anybody could give a certificate or know what a national was, as the Act stands, I do not know. I think that probably the words "ordinary resident" which is, I think, a recognised definition, would be sufficient, but you want some way of defining it, unless you want to make this futile.
Would it meet the Senator's point if the word "citizen" were substituted for the word "national"?
That is more doubtful still.
It ought to, but I do not think anybody knows what a citizen is.
We have Article III of the Constitution which does make some attempt to define as a citizen a person who shall enjoy the privileges and be subject to the obligations of citizenship.
I do not object to the use of the word "citizen." I suppose I ought to defend the Constitution, but neither of the two Governments have ever been able to get sufficient advice to bring in a Bill dealing with citizenship. I simply wanted to know what it meant.
I think we could find a definition of the word "citizen" in Article III of the Constitution.
I am satisfied, if the Minister is satisfied.
The only difficulty about it is that it would limit it to all those people who are entitled to citizenship under Article III, but we will have to take it as a temporary provision, pending the introduction of the Citizenship Bill, which has so long been promised and which eventually must come.
Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.
Recommendation 5 reads as follows:—
Section 8. To delete in line 66 the word "employed" and to substitute therefor the word "engaged."
The same points were covered by recommendation 3 and the matter can be dealt with again.
Recommendation, by leave, with drawn.
Recommendation 6 reads:—
Section 8. To delete in line 68 the words "nationals of and."
This will also come up again.
Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 8 to 19, inclusive, and the First and Second Schedules agreed to.
THIRD SCHEDULE.
I beg to move recommendation 7:—
Third Schedule. Reference No. 6.
Third column. After the word "blankets" to add the words "or rugs."
The Minister explained to us yesterday the extreme difficulty of arriving at a definition of a blanket. When the Finance Bill was before the House the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance said he was quite willing to agree that the meaning of the English language had changed since the present Government came into office, because a blanket which might not be regarded as a cotton blanket before had now come to be regarded as a cotton blanket. He assured the House, however, that his Government was in no respect responsible. We are in the difficulty that blankets come under three possible headings and in this Bill the Government have tried to exempt cotton blankets under the three headings. The cotton blanket sold in large quantities in this country is a coloured article, sometimes with a border, and it is used mostly by the poor people as a blanket. I think the Government made a real blunder when they refused to accept my recommendation in relation to this particular type of blanket.
Blankets of this description are manufactured in foreign countries and, as far as this winter's supply is concerned, the 45 per cent. duty has been paid; the people have had to pay an increased price, all because of some person's blunder when the present Minister was in Ottawa. These blankets are coloured and they often have a border. They are genuinely used as blankets, but the manufacturers on the Continent describe them as sheets. There is always a difficulty with the invoices, because the blankets are sent in as cotton sheets although here they are not recognised as such. There is a blunder in this particular provision. In the Finance Act there is the reference "and also rugs other than rugs intended to be used as floor coverings." In order to make the thing less difficult, I think the words "or rugs" should be added to the word "blankets."
I am inclined to agree with the Parliamentary Secretary as regards the change in the meaning of words in the English language. I have satisfied myself that cotton blankets are not liable to duty as blankets. I did not anticipate that the Revenue Commissioners were going to hold that a cotton blanket was a sheet. Something like that, apparently, did happen and that is why this recommendation has been considered necessary. A rug that is not intended for use as a floor covering would come under the heading of a blanket. I think there is little difficulty likely to arise under the section. The term "blanket" will be held to include "rug." I have no objection to the recommendation, but I do not think it necessary.
I think it is quite conceivable that some official will discover that a certain article must be regarded as a rug although ordinarily it would be regarded as a blanket, and he will submit the matter for a decision to headquarters.
I had not an opportunity of looking into this matter since yesterday, but, if I can do so, I will look after it in the morning with the object of getting a definite ruling from the Revenue Commissioners as to whether they are likely to permit the term "blankets" to include rugs. If not, we will consider the advisability of accepting the recommendation.
I would like, when the Minister is putting this matter to the Revenue Commissioners, that he should make it clear that it is the coloured blanket is in question. There are also white cotton blankets and in that respect I have no fear at all.
Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.
I beg to move recommendation 8:—
Third Schedule. Ref. No. 12. Third column. After the word "rubber" to add the words "nor on unfilled quilts of any description."
This is a matter in connection with which I would like the Minister to get into touch with the Revenue Commissioners. I endeavoured on the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill to exempt all quilts which are not manufactured here. On the Report Stage I drew attention to the quilts used by the very poor and I got Alhambra and Honeycomb quilts exempted. Since then I have been doing my very best in the way of writing to manufacturers and visiting the Revenue Commissioners with the object of giving whatever assistance I could. Six months ago some of the manufacturers slightly changed the names and called certain quilts Grecian Alhambra quilts. The Grecian quilts would be dutiable, but the Grecian Alhambra quilts would not. We have persuaded the manufacturers to call them Alhambra quilts. There are no Irish manufacturers. It will solve the whole difficulty if the Minister agrees to exempt unfilled quilts of any description. The trade in high-priced quilts is a very small one, because the wealthier people buy bed-spreads or eiderdowns. The Minister should find out whether it would not be easier for the Revenue Commissioners to include all unfilled quilts in the exempted list.
I would like this matter to be left over until I have an opportunity of looking into it.
That is really my object—that the Minister should look into this matter. I think he will find it is quite possible.
There was a considerable discussion in regard to this question of quilts about 12 months or two years ago. On that occasion I recollect that there was some hope of a considerable manufacture of quilts in this country.
This refers to unfilled quilts only.
I think it will be found that there is a firm in Cork engaged in that manufacture.
There was a rather long and acrimonious discussion on this question this time last year.
Recommendation, by leave, withdrawn.
Third and Fourth Schedules and the Title agreed to.
Bill reported. Report Stage fixed for Thursday, 15th December.
