I should like—I think I might use the phrase—to protest against the method which is being adopted by the present Government in the imposition of tariffs. I am not objecting to any of the specific tariffs introduced here. A few of them I know something about but of most of them I have no direct knowledge. It seems to me, however, that the method now being adopted is anything but a democratic one. The Imposition of Duties Act, 1932, under which these Orders were made, was intended to give the Government adequate powers to deal with a specific situation arising out of what is commonly called the economic war. It has now become the method by which practically all import duties are imposed and they are produced then to the Oireachtas in a form in which they cannot be amended except by a defeat of the Government. One cannot in fact propose any adjustment, any exemption or any improvement in any of these Orders. One must take the Order or not.
The method which was adopted by the late Government, and by this Government until comparatively recently was, to my mind, more democratic and much better from the point of view of the public generally. Import duties were then either introduced in the General Finance Act or by Special Customs Duties Bills, of which there were generally three or four in the year. It was possible, in connection with these Bills, either to move the rejection of or an increase in the particular duty, or to move the exemption of an article which was found to have been tariffed inadvertently, and generally to criticise the details in a helpful way. With this particular method, all one can do—and I think it is all that was done in the Dáil—is to move the deletion of a particular Order which means that you are opposed completely to any tariff on the goods concerned. I think that is not really a desirable way. I am not objecting to tariffs being put on before they come before the Oireachtas because I recognise that you cannot put tariffs on in any other way, but after they had been put on, the function of the Oireachtas is to criticise them and to express the opinions that come to those of us who are members and generally, to see whether improvements, particularly in detail, cannot be made. This method cuts that out and I think that even if you are to have these Emergency Orders, it would be better if the details of the specific duties were embodied in the Bill so that they could be amended or suggestions made in Committee which, I gather, is impossible on a Bill of this kind.
With regard to the Bill before us, there are one or two questions I should like to ask the Minister. I should like him to tell us how many of the commodities included here are not yet being made in this country and when they are likely to be made. I think that applies to boot-laces—I am not quite sure about elastic—and it applies to a large extent to buttons, and it also applies to one article which is included, but which I think was not read out by the Minister and with which I am most concerned—cotton thread. I think it comes under Order No. 48, and I think the Minister referred only to rope, twine, etc. The most important part of that Order is the inclusion of cotton thread, which is not yet being manufactured in this country and which is the raw material of a very large number of our manufacturers. These manufacturers are entitled to get and, so far as I know, are getting, licences to import, but I think that if the Minister was managing an Irish manufacturing concern he would appreciate the delay —inevitable and not the fault of the officials—the aggravation and the extra expense, in having repeatedly to apply for licences for things which you cannot get here and which are not made even in any quantity in this country.
I recognise that the idea is to prevent any quantity of forestalling, and if that were done for a period of two or three months before the goods were likely to be available, I could understand it, but it seems to me that an error has been made in the case of cotton thread by putting the duty on far too soon. I know that the Federation of Irish Industries, which is interested in this from the point of view of Irish industrial development, has had a great many complaints from its members—not complaints that they are not being properly treated when they apply for licences. Some might have grounds for complaint, but very often it is their own fault, but it does seem to me that this is a commodity on which it is very doubtful if it was wise to put a 40 per cent. tariff so soon.
To some extent, the same remarks would apply to buttons and boot-laces. In the case of boot-laces, this particular order provides, I think, for a duty of 100 per cent. It also provides a prohibitive duty on laces imported with the boots and shoes. If these laces were manufactured in this country, I could appreciate the 6d per pair being placed on laces imported with boots and shoes. They are not, however, being manufactured here. All that is happening is that the outside manufacturer of boots and shoes gains by not having to include the value of the laces. They cannot be included now. They have to be bought, and the price has to be paid by somebody. If there was a gain in that, if they were being made here, I could understand it; but why impose that portion of the duty when they are not being made here?
You cannot forestall to any serious extent by importing one pair with your boots or shoes. You might forestall and damage the ultimate manufacture if you were to bring in large quantities; but the one pair that comes in the boots or shoes, and which is included in the price by many manufacturers, seems to me to make it impossible to forestall to any extent and to affect persons ultimately going to make laces here. That, to my mind, is quite an unnecessary thing, trifling as it is, though the sum total comes to a fair amount of the cost to the public who have to buy boots and shoes. It is admitted that it is not possible to obtain more than from 45 to 55 per cent. of the boots and shoes in this country. Therefore, they must be imported. Why not let the laces come in with them until such time as they are made here? Then I would be in favour of the prohibitive duty.
I would be glad if the Minister would let us know when boot-laces will be made here; when elastic will be made in quantity; and when buttons that are dutiable will be made, sufficient to meet, at any rate, the demand of the manufacturers. I should also like to know the position with regard to electric lamps which, I believe, are going to be made here, and are not yet being made; and, particularly, how soon the cotton thread—which is a very serious matter for a very large number of manufacturers, particularly manufacturers in the making-up trade which has grown up in the last few years, and who are being definitely handicapped by that order—will be made.
When I am speaking on the subject generally, although this does not deal with quotas—the Minister, however, referred to possible quotas on sugar— perhaps I may not be out of order in referring to quotas which are kindred to the Orders here. In the case of the Boot and Shoe Quota Order, with which I do not quarrel in principle or object to, there is a very considerable amount of dissatisfaction at the fact that the Order is made for three months instead of a longer period. I imagine this is largely a matter for the Minister for Industry and Commerce but, as he is not here, I hope the Minister will convey it to him. In what I am stating now, I am speaking on behalf of certainly 75, if not 80, per cent. of the persons who have to import boots and shoes. They wanted the quota Order made for six months instead of three, and the reason was not solely because it would save them trouble in only having to apply once instead of twice, but because of very practical reasons.
The first reason is that when the quota Order is short—and I would remind the House that you only receive your licence for the quota a day or two before, possibly only the day before, and possibly only on the day on which the quota period commences—it is not possible within that short period to order goods and obtain delivery in time from the best manufacturers; with the result, in my opinion, that there will be an increased amount of purchasing from factors, which means, in the long run, that the public will get less value. The second reason is that many people who import boots and shoes import, say, during the first three months of the year a comparatively small quantity compared with what they would import in the next three months. If you have a six months period it is possible to place your orders in bulk and to adjust them according as trade develops or can be reasonably anticipated. If your quota Order is for three months, you have either to do without supplies which you cannot get here, or you have to get in during the first three months more than you need, which means that capital is being wasted and there is a loss in profit. I think that if the Ministry, after a quota Order is made and the preliminary period has elapsed, would then take into consultation a number of persons who have to import, and find out what the difficulties are, some of these aggravations would be avoided.
In his speech on the Bill under which these quota Orders are made, the Minister for Industry and Commerce promised that he would have consultations. The manufacturers, of course, are consulted, and properly consulted, before a quota Order is made, because that is essential. I do not suggest that the distributors could be consulted wisely before the Order is made, but I say that, after it is made and has come into operation, and before the second period, it would be easy to get some representative persons and consult them and that some of these difficulties would be avoided. I would say—and I believe it applies to most quota Orders—that the longer the period can be made the better and that it should not be less than six months if the public are not, to some extent, to lose through buying not being done as well.
There is one other point. I think it will be quite obvious that if Irish importers are to buy in the best market, it is desirable that they should place as large orders as possible. When the quota Order period is short and you do not know what your licence will be for the next period, you cannot place a large order. With a six months period you can place a much better order, with delivery spaced over the period. With three months you can only give half or less than half that order—certainly not more than half. When orders are small, the public generally cannot buy from as good houses and as good manufacturers as they could if giving large orders.
I, therefore, urge on the Government to consider whether a six months period would not meet their requirements under the quota Orders. What I am saying now is derived partly from my own experience, but it has been put to me by a large number of persons and has nothing to do with party politics. I do not know a single person who is affected who does not hold the views I have expressed with regard to the length of the quota Order, and I urge the Government to consider that carefully on the next occasion.
