Senator Douglas has given notice that on the motion for the Adjournment he would call attention to the action taken during the last few days by the Minister for Supplies with reference to piece goods made of cotton in sending notices to manufacturers of cotton fabrics in this country directing them not to distribute piece goods of any description after the 19th April, 1943, unless distribution directions in respect of such class or classes of piece goods have been received from him.
Adjournment Debate—Cotton Piece Goods.
Leas-Chathaoirleach
The Minister concerned is engaged on his Estimate in the Dáil. I would not be able to deal with this matter, but I would be quite prepared to wait although I am afraid it would be useless.
I am not prepared to agree that the Minister would be useless in regard to any matter. I have too high an opinion of him, but it is quite clear that he could not deal with the matter I want to raise. On the other hand, the House will appreciate my position. The House will not be meeting until next week, and the Order takes effect on Monday, and I think publicity should be given to certain criticism of it. Therefore, I propose to make my remarks clearly on the understanding that if the House were meeting to-morrow I would have postponed the matter. I quite understand the Minister for Justice cannot deal with it, but if he can spare 20 minutes I think it would be better to have it debated. I agree that it is a technical matter with which he cannot deal.
In formally moving the Adjournment until 3 p.m. on Tuesday next, I wish to call the attention of the House to the action taken during the last few days by the Minister for Supplies with reference to piece goods made of cotton. The Minister has sent notices to manufacturers of cotton fabrics in this country directing them not to distribute piece goods of any description after 19th April, 1943, unless distribution directions in respect of such class or classes of piece goods have been received from him. The Minister states that he has taken this action under powers conferred on him by the Emergency Powers (General Rationing Provisions) Order, 1942, which was an Order signed by the Minister himself under Article 31 of an Emergency Powers Order made in 1939. The Minister is, therefore, acting under powers conferred on himself by himself. He has sent directions to the manufacturers who have received this notice to the effect that some piece goods may be supplied, and with respect to other piece goods he has not yet sent any directions, so the distribution of these latter goods will be held up until the Minister sends directions.
The piece goods for which the Minister has sent directions are divided into three classes. One class consisting of binder or heavy canvas and towelling only may be sold through ordinary channels of trade. Another class consisting of saddler's ticken only may be sold through ordinary channels of trade until May 2nd and the remaining class, which is much the largest, consists of (1) shirting, (2) dungaree cloth, (3) nursery twill, (4) trouser pocketing, (5) raincoat lining, (6) tailors' lining and interlinings, (7) underwear facing cloth, (8) cloth for oil-proofing or oilproofed cloth, (9) dyed cloth for shrouding, (10) filter cloth, (11) cheese cloth, (12) scrim.
All the goods under these 12 headings may be supplied to holders of buying permits to be issued by the Minister, but not otherwise. Some of these such as filter cloth, cheese cloth and scrim are a specialised trade and would not be sold to the general trade by the manufacturers, even if not controlled by buying permits. No reference is made in the directions sent to manufacturers to various classes of cotton woven fabrics such as sheeting, calico, flannelette other than shirting flannelette, bed ticken, overall cloth, etc., etc., and it is presumed that these cannot be sold at all until the Minister issues instructions. The Minister has not made or issued any public statement as to what class of person or distributor he proposes to issue buying permits for the fabrics, and I can only judge his intentions from reports I have received of various conferences with officials of his Department.
About a month ago a meeting was held at the Department of Supplies which was attended by representatives of the Drapers' Chamber of Trade and representatives of certain making-up groups. At this meeting the Drapers' Chamber of Trade representatives were informed that arrangements had been made that Irish manufacturers would produce during six months ending June, 1943, 152,900 yards of flannelette, drill and Oxford or Harvard shirting and were asked to agree that 75 per cent. of this total should go to makers-up of shirts and 25 per cent. be sold through ordinary trade channels.
Certain other figures of production of linings and dungaree cloth were submitted and the Drapers' Chamber were asked to agree that these specific amounts should all go to makers-up. The Drapers' Chamber of Trade agreed to these proposals because they appeared reasonable and because they knew that the figures of production did not represent the total production of the Irish manufacturers of woven cotton fabrics and that there would be therefore a fair proportion for the ordinary counter trade.
Although the Drapers' Chamber of Trade was not informed of any change in this arrangement it was learnt afterwards unofficially that the scheme of distribution was not being confined to the figures submitted to the meeting and agreed to by them. Discussions were taking place with manufacturers on the assumption that it was to be applied to the whole production of these classes of fabrics by the Irish mills. Only last week the manufacturers of woven cotton fabrics were informed that the Minister had decided that 100 per cent. of the shirtings made by them must go to makers-up, not 75 per cent. as previously suggested and agreed to. As far as I can ascertain, it is also proposed that 100 per cent. of the linings made in this country must also go to makers-up.
In order to understand the adverse effect the action of the Minister will have on the people of the country, and especially on the poorer classes, it is necessary to explain that, since last summer, the Minister has used the Importation of Fabrics Order to control the shirtings, linings, overall cloth, etc., coming into this country from Great Britain, and that he has refused to grant import licences to drapers who wished to import these classes of fabrics for sale over the counter to the ordinary public. I have already given the House the reasons why I objected to this Order, and it is not necessary, nor is there time, to repeat them now. As long as the production of the Irish manufacturers of woven cotton fabrics could be sold through ordinary trade channels, there were still some cotton shirtings and some linings and flannelette available for the public, and the result of his action in refusing import licences was not so serious. I still hold the view, which I stated to the House last spring, that the Importation of Fabrics Order has reduced the total amount of the fabrics received from Great Britain.
It appears to me that the action he has now taken is designed to prevent any shirting—and very little, if any, lining or flannelette—from reaching the public, except in the form of ready-made garments. If this is so, I consider it a most foolish policy which, when it is understood, will be objected to in all parts of the country.
The general supplies of clothing for the people of this country may be roughly divided into three classes. Firstly, there is the ready-made garment, made up in a factory and sold retail through the drapery trade. This is probably the largest class. Secondly, there are articles of clothing made up by dressmakers and seamstresses, working on their own. I do not know what proportion the clothing made in this way bears to the total requirements, but I do know that it is substantial, and that it provides employment for a large number of individuals, both in the cities and in country towns. Thirdly, there are the garments made up at home from cloths bought over the counter in drapery shops. When I was a young man—I have been connected with this trade most of my life—the quantity of clothing made at home was a very considerable one. Since then, the production of ready-made articles of clothing at reasonable prices has very greatly reduced the quantity of clothing made at home. But it is still by no means a negligible quantity, as is proved by the substantial sales of cloth in drapers' shops. The rise in prices of ready-made clothing in the last six or nine months has, I know, been followed by an increase in the number of garments made at home, particularly in poorer homes.
The policy of the Minister appears to me to be calculated to cut out almost entirely the last two classes of clothing—at any rate, as far as woven fabrics of cotton are concerned. If he applies the same policy to woollen goods — and this has not been announced, one way or the other—he will put the dressmaker out of business entirely, and this will affect people all over the country who are having a difficult enough time at present. Even if he does not interfere with woollen woven fabrics, but insists that 100 per cent. of the cotton linings must go to makers-up, he will make business almost impossible for dressmakers, and its effect will be felt all over the country. Artificial silk fabrics, of which there is still a fair quantity, will help, but they will not take the place of all types of cotton linings. Dressmakers are not organised, and will not find it easy to express a collective opinion.
On February 18th last, the Minister for Supplies told Deputy Dillon in the Dáil that a system of buying permits would ensure that more cloth would be available to drapers, tailors and dressmakers in rural areas, since it would help to prevent the deflection into other channels of the supplies which would otherwise go to such persons. I would like to know how the scheme of buying permits, of which textile manufacturers have just been notified, can possibly secure more cloth for drapers, tailors or dressmakers in rural areas. Is he going to give them buying permits? How can he do so fairly, unless he has a register prepared of all such persons carrying on a bona fide trade. His scheme, as far as I can understand it—and I read it fairly carefully—makes no provision at all for drapers, tailors or dressmakers in rural areas, as far as cotton textiles are concerned.
If the Minister appears to have little sympathy for dressmakers, he seems to have none at all for the women who make up garments at home, for themselves or their families. I do not know his reasons, but I imagine that he may argue that more employment is given if a made up garment is purchased. I agree that this is an important factor, and if the bulk of the clothing made at home were the leisure time work of wealthy ladies, I would have no sympathy for them if, during the emergency, they had to find something else to occupy their time. But, as those in the drapery trade know, the fact is that the poorer housewife who makes up garments for herself and her children, not because she would not like, but because she cannot afford, the better made up articles she sees in the shops, will be hit most severely by the Minister's policy.
There are also in the country a number of charitable organisations who make up clothes for the very poor. In many cases, they are given away. They are dependent on supplies of cloths obtained from the retail trade for the continuance of their work. If all cloth is to go to makers-up, these organisations will have to give up their work. Surely, some part of the reduced fabrics available should be reserved for these charitable bodies?
As one instance of the hardship on the poor which will arise if the Minister does not alter his policy, I will take the case of shirts, which have risen considerably in price during the last year. A shirt made by one of the Irish shirt manufacturers will almost certainly be a better-shaped and better made article than the average homemade one, but for the family having to live on a small wage it may be a great benefit, where the mother can make the shirts for her husband or her sons at a cheaper price than she could buy them ready made. If the Minister persists in his plans, indicated in the Order, no shirting material will be on sale in drapers' shops, and it will not be possible to buy even enough shirting to repair a shirt, when present stocks in the wholesale and retail trade are exhausted. These stocks of shirting are very small at the present time. The cheapest shirting available at present comes from England. It is similar to the utility shirting on sale in that country. It could be obtained and sold retail with normal profit, at, say, 1/6 per yard. A woman could make a man's shirt at home from this material for, say, 5/6, varying according to size, if the Minister would allow any of this cheaper cloth to be sold over the counter. To my knowledge, he has refused permits to drapers to obtain this cheap shirting from England. His object, I understand, was to ensure that all the cheaper shirting imported would go to makers-up. I do not object to the bulk of it going to them, but I think some of it should be available for those who make shirts at home.
He had probably the same object in view in preventing retail drapers from importing overall cloths, linings and flannelettes from Great Britain, and it would appear that he proposes now to prevent drapers from obtaining these cloths from Irish factories. He probably thinks that he is keeping more people in employment by so doing. If this is his view, I am satisfied that he is wrong. In my considered opinion, he will put more people out of employment than he will keep in employment. As I have already indicated, he will put large numbers of dressmakers out of employment. In addition he will put out of employment a large number of the drapers' assistants employed in the piece goods departments of the drapers' stores if he cuts off supplies of piece goods from the retail trade.
I wish to make it clear that it is not, in my opinion, the Irish manufacturers of garments who are to blame for the Minister's policy. They naturally want as much material as possible to keep their factories going but they will be satisfied if a reasonable proportion of the cloth goes to them, as I am satisfied it would do, without this latest scheme of the Minister. I will be surprised if the Minister has the approval of any group of manufacturers or traders for this scheme for buying permits. I believe that the shirt manufacturers were satisfied with 75 per cent. of the Irish production and I know that the shirt manufacturers and the manufacturers of woven cotton shirting were able to agree on a scheme which would guarantee that makers-up would get this 75 per cent. of the total production of shirting and that the Minister knew that they had so agreed before he issued this direction to the textile manufacturers.
The cotton textile manufacturers are unanimously opposed to a system of Government-controlled buying permits, because they feel that they ought to be allowed to supply a reasonable proportion of their production of cloth for essential clothing through the ordinary channels of trade for use by dressmakers and for home use, and they believe that the system of rationing the reduced supplies amongst all their customers, which they adopted a considerable time ago is much fairer to users as a whole than that proposed by the Minister. I need hardly point out to the Seanad that from the point of view of the manufacturer, if he gets his profit, it is immaterial to him whether he sells to one particular class or sells to all his usual customers, but if he looks at the matter from the broader point of view of maintaining production at home and spreading employment over the largest number of people, he views this scheme of the Minister with considerable concern, and I know that the manufacturers were unanimous in advising the Minister against this system.
The Drapers' Chamber of Trade has informed the Minister that it is strongly opposed to buying permits. It is in sympathy with his efforts to keep down prices, and has offered to co-operate with him in a registration system which will prevent cloth from passing through too many hands and thus increasing the price to the public. I do not know of any group of manufacturers or traders who are in favour of a system of State-controlled buying permits. In spite of this, the Minister persists in a policy which has no support from experienced men anywhere in the country. Since the outbreak of war this country has been, on the whole, fortunate in its supplies of clothing.
This was due mainly to the initiative and energy of its manufacturers and traders. Admittedly, the position is getting more difficult. The problem is to see first that there are no restrictions that will prevent supplies which are obtainable from reaching this country and secondly that such supplies of clothing as are available will be as fairly and wisely distributed as possible with the minimum interference with ordinary trade and employment. Irish manufacturers and distributors are just as much concerned as he is in seeing that it will be distributed as widely and as fairly as possible. They have, however, practical experience which the Minister and his officials have not. I have drawn the attention of the House to this matter in the hope that by giving some publicity to it at this stage the Minister will reconsider his decision before it goes too far. It is not yet too late to amend or rectify it. I believe that if the Minister could get in touch with people of experience he would really see that it is not a good policy to cut across all previous usages and to adopt a system which would mean that the whole production of a certain class of goods should go to one source of supply or to one class of people.
I should like to refer to another matter relating to the distribution of clothing. I understand that the Drapers' Chamber of Trade is being informed that the Minister proposes at an early date to insist that drapers shall in future surrender for wholesale purposes three coupons for every two which they are entitled to obtain from their retail customers.
In this matter also the Minister is proposing to act contrary to the considered opinion of the trade and I believe if he does so, he will make a grave mistake. His object, I believe, is to get the coupons back quickly. There are quite a lot of coupons that are not immediately required. The traders who have now a larger number of coupons than they are likely to require in the near future are those who had large stocks which they have sold to the public and for which they have received coupons. The traders who used their capital or who borrowed from banks in order to obtain goods when they were available should not be penalised as against traders who did not do so. At the present time, it is inevitable that stocks will be gradually reduced, but the time will come when the position will be reversed and when it will become possible gradually to increase stocks. Coupons are now required for purchases outside the country.
A number of traders have ordered goods from abroad—from the United States and South America—which they do not expect to get delivered until late in the year. These purchases were made by traders who had every reason to believe that they would be in a position to render the necessary coupons when the goods were delivered. The Drapers' Chamber of Trade suggested that the Department of Supplies should require traders to send a proportion of the coupons which they now hold to the Department and that they should receive a formal receipt for those returned. That suggestion, I am informed, has been turned down which I think is a serious mistake. It is a bad principle to require a trader to pay out three coupons for something for which he can only get two from his customer. Frankly, I cannot understand why the Department is insisting upon it. I thank the House for giving me this opportunity of ventilating the matter, and I move the adjournment.
The Seanad adjourned at 6 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 20th April.