Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 Dec 1946

Vol. 33 No. 3

Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Order) (No. 2) Bill, 1946 ( Certified Money Bill )— Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)

Senators I think are aware that an Order made by the Government under the Imposition of Duties Act, 1932, must be confirmed by legislation within a period of eight months from the date of the Order. In this year the Government made an Order which this Bill proposes to confirm—Emergency (Imposition of Duties) (No. 226) Order—which relates to duties on wireless apparatus. It was considered desirable to review and recast the duties upon wireless apparatus. The House is probably familiar with the history of these duties. They were originally imposed in 1926 for the purpose of raising revenue to finance the broadcasting station that was then established. Duties were imposed upon wireless apparatus and on all component parts of wireless apparatus at the rate of 33? per cent. ad valorem. They were not intended to and did not have any protective effect. For some years after the duties were imposed the revenue derived from them was earmarked for broadcasting purposes. That situation ended in 1929, when these revenues were credited to the general account of the Exchequer and not appropriated in aid of or set against the cost of the broadcasting services. In 1932 it was decided to recast these duties so as to encourage the assembly and partial manufacture of wireless receiving apparatus here. The duty of 33? per cent. was increased to 50 per cent. upon assembled or substantially assembled apparatus and the duty on component parts was reduced to 25 per cent.

As I have stated, the duties had originally a solely revenue purpose and with the revision of duties in 1932 the Minister for Finance did not wish to lose the whole of that revenue so that the scale of duties devised in 1932 was designed not merely to encourage the assembly of wireless apparatus but also to continue to yield revenue to the Exchequer. The duties were protective to the extent that a lower duty operated upon component parts than upon assembled or substantially assembled apparatus. These duties were revised in a minor degree by various Finance Acts up to 1937. In consequence of the change, the production of wireless receiving apparatus here began, although in pre-war years the output of local factories was not sufficient to supply the whole of the requirements of this market. It is estimated that of the 40,000 wireless sets which were purchased every year on the average in pre-war years, not much more than 25 per cent. were home produced. There was a number of reasons for that position. The industry was a new one and it was developing gradually but the main reason in my view was that the manner in which the trade in wireless apparatus was carried on involved the giving of very substantial discount by manufacturers to wholesalers and importers. That situation had the result that the declared value of wireless apparatus for customs purposes was small in relation to the selling price fixed by manufacturers and the importers were able to pay the duty and still make a substantial profit on the sale of sets.

During the war years the production of wireless apparatus fell considerably owing to the difficulty of obtaining parts but, arising out of the efforts of the firms to keep going, it was demonstrated that many parts which were previously imported for incorporation into sets assembled here could be manufactured here and it was considered desirable to recast the duties, first of all to encourage that development, that is to say, the manufacture of parts which were previously imported complete for assembly in sets here and, secondly, to eliminate the revenue aspects of the original duty. The new scale of duty is designed to encourage manufacture and assembly to the degree now considered practicable and to remove from the scope of the duty altogether such parts as wireless valves which it is considered are not likely to be manufactured here but which were nevertheless subject to duty previously for the benefit of the Exchequer.

The system under which the duty will be operated will necessitate the granting of licences to firms which are engaged in the manufacture or assembly of sets to the approved degree, to import duty free certain components. There are, in fact, three such firms operating at the moment, manufacturing components and assembled sets for sale here. To these three firms, and to these three firms only, is the privilege of duty free importation of certain assembled parts allowed.

I have mentioned that the annual sale of wireless receiving sets in the pre-war years was about 40,000 sets. It is anticipated that the demand in the present and future years will be higher than that, both in consequence of the fact that there have been difficulties in obtaining sets during the war years and the fact that the extension of the rural electrification scheme will create a new market heretofore not catered for by the manufacturers. The three firms engaged in the industry are producing at present at a rate of about 25,000 sets per annum. Their output is increasing and will continue to increase as supplies of materials become more plentiful. When in May of this year the new duties were brought into force the number of employees was 100. It is now about 350 and it is still increasing. It is understood that at least three additional firms are proposing to engage in the production of wireless sets here. One of the existing firms, which established a new and larger factory and got into full-scale economic production before the others, is selling sets similar to sets sold under the same trade name in Great Britain at prices which are the same as those prevailing in Great Britain exclusive of purchase tax. The other firms, which are not yet in full-scale production, are selling sets at prices slightly higher than the British prices but it is anticipated that their prices will come down to the level of British prices when full-scale production has been reached.

There is at present a certain difficulty in supplying parts for the repairs and servicing trades, but it is the intention of the firms in the industry to produce for these trades, and already some supplies are becoming available to them. It is contemplated that the full requirements of the repairs and servicing trades will be met by the production of the local factories in respect of components manufactured by them. To the extent that persons may have sets of types not produced here and require replacement parts for those sets, they will, of course, have to pay duty on those parts. As I explained, however, these parts have been subject to duty since 1926. At present 20 different varieties of sets are being produced and sold here, so that there is a wide choice available to purchasers. All these sets have different characteristics and different performances. The industry is a very desirable one for establishment. It involves a considerable degree of skill on the part of some of the operatives, it is capable of giving substantial employment and its full-scale exploitation may lead to further industrial development of various kinds worth having. For that reason, the Government considered it advisable to make the changes in duties achieved by the Order referred to in this Bill and recommends the Oireachtas to pass confirming legislation.

Sir John Keane

I hope to show the House that a number of matters in connection with this measure will require a great deal more elucidation than has been given in the Minister's opening statement. I should like, as a preliminary, as a sort of academic matter, to call the attention of the House to the extraordinary distance we have travelled in relation to what is known as a Money Bill. I am aware that to deal with a matter of this kind would, probably, require some constitutional change. Here, we have a Bill which, as the Minister says, is primarily designed to prohibit the importation of wireless sets. The revenue aspect of this Bill is purely secondary. Yet, a measure mainly confined to prohibition seeks enactment under the protection of a Money Bill. That means that it escapes amendment in this House. When the device of Money Bills was originally introduced, no such development was anticipated. We have now reached a stage at which the Government might introduce a measure imposing a duty of 200 per cent. or 300 per cent. on an import—a duty which would have a prohibitive effect—and that Bill would, under our present regulations, be protected as a Money Bill. I think that the time has come when this matter should be re-examined by whatever committee is appropriate to the purpose, with a view to preventing an abuse of the facilities afforded by, and the principles of, Money Bills.

Passing to the details of this measure, its object, as the Minister says, is primarily to prohibit the importation of wholly or partly assembled sets, in order to build up, so far as possible, a home industry and to encourage the complete assembly of wireless apparatus. If we examine that matter closely, the Bill has certain very disquieting features. Under this measure, there will be within the wireless trade practically two divisions. In one group, will be the licensed manufacturers or assemblers and, in the other group, will be the ordinary retail traders. What are the requirements for obtaining a manufacturer's licence? I know that certain people have claimed such licences and that their claims have been refused. I do not think it is satisfactory that what may be an issue of considerable importance to an individual should be determined, as I imagine it will be determined, purely by the decision of the Minister. Perhaps, on first examination, the decision may come from one of the Minister's officials. If he refuses the application, has the aggrieved party an appeal to the Minister? In justice, he should have. I should go further and say that he should have an appeal to some body with technical knowledge, competent to hear and adjudge such appeals, because I doubt that the Minister will claim that, within his staff, he has the necessary knowledge to deal with matters of so technical a nature. I am sure he would not go outside amongst people who have already got licences for advice as to the rights or wrongs of an application. In fact, who does advise him or his officials on the merits of such an application? Is it not only just that there should be some more or less formal procedure in coming to a decision in such matters?

In connection with the manufacture or assembly of sets, the Minister has told us that there is provision to allow parts to be imported duty free. I take it that this will be a developing matter. To-day, a number of parts which are not being made here may be allowed in duty free. If the object of the Minister is to establish an increasing degree of manufacture, he may say: "I think that those parts which are duty free to-day should be made at home in due course and, after a certain date, we shall no longer allow imports duty free of those prescribed parts." Would the Minister give the House more enlightenment on that matter? What machinery has he for examination as to the parts which may be allowed in duty free to-day and which may be liable to duty tomorrow on account of the possibility of their being made at home? Arising out of these two questions is the necessity for some independent body, with technical knowledge and quasi-judicial functions, outside the trade, to deal with these matters and see that injustice is not done as between the retailers and the manufacturers and above all, that the listening public is adequately protected.

As I have said, there are two main groups in the trade—the manufacturers and the retailers. The manufacturers are to be allowed to import parts duty free. That privilege will not be allowed to any of the retailers. What is there to prevent a manufacturer bringing in parts duty free and passing them, at a profit, to a retailer, so that he may carry out repairs? There is a serious possibility of a black market within the trade. That, I imagine, would be very hard to prevent. We are accustomed to hosts of officials inquiring into everything but, bearing in mind what human nature is, there is a probability of transference of duty-free parts from a manufacturer to a retailer at a profit. What machinery has the Minister in existence or in contemplation to prevent such illicit traffic, as I would call it? Manufacturers at present, as well as retailers, do repairs, so that we will obviously reach a position in which the manufacturer who does repairs can carry them out to a certain extent with duty-free parts, while the retailer will be forced to carry them out with parts on which duty has been paid. That seems, on the face of it, to be a great injustice. I suppose the Minister has addressed his mind to that possibility and here again I should like to know what steps he intends to take to prevent that very likely discrimination between manufacturers and retailers.

With regard to this matter of repairs, there are a number of old sets—many of us have them—with many years of service but which can be kept going for many years by repairs. We may, I think, assume that none of the parts used for the repair of these older sets is likely to be admitted duty free and, if so, is it just that people—generally people of moderate means who are less able to afford a new set—should have imposed upon them the penalty of this duty on repair parts, that duty not in any sense being in the interest of home manufacture but merely a tax on the importation of parts for old sets which are never likely to be made in this country? The Revenue Commissioners may say that they cannot give up the revenue from this duty, but is it a just tax? That is the point which ought to be gone into. I shall have something to say in a moment about the general social aspects of this new boon to mankind.

I have heard it suggested that the real purpose of this measure is to drive these old sets out of date as soon as possible or within a reasonable time in order to stimulate home manufacture. I hope the Minister would not agree to such a proposition. But knowing human nature and knowing a certain amount about trade methods, correct or incorrect, I would not put it beyond certain people to take that line and say: "I am in the wireless manufacturing business and I am only too anxious that these old sets should be scrapped in order that new sets will be bought." A very useful way of scrapping them is to put a duty on the parts required for repairs and so increase very much the price of repairs. Let me call attention to the very great increases. Small articles which were 6d. before will be up to 3/- now and the 3/- article will be up to 7/- or 8/- with this 75 per cent. duty. All these are points which will require clarification.

The Minister says that this is a suitable industry for the country and in that I agree. Compared with some of the industries with which we have been burdened and others which are threatening, this industry is eminently suitable. It is as suitable to this country as the watch industry was to a small country like Switzerland, but implicit in that suitability is a fair deal for the unorganised consumer. I have been told that I have rather made myself the champion of the unorganised consumer and I am not ashamed of it. I intend to speak up on every occasion where I think the consumer is being unduly exploited or unduly neglected. I should like to remark incidentally that in statements made in this House and in the Dáil and in speeches which the Minister has made at functions of trade associations and so forth throughout the country, which I pity him for having to attend, I rarely find any reference to the protection of the consumer. It is all: "Let us have industries. Let us manufacture or die," and there is not a word about whether the poor people who have to buy the articles can do so within their means and in face of the rising prices. I feel that the consumer is an integral part of any effort to manufacture at home and if we cannot manufacture at a price which is fair to the consumer, we should not manufacture at all.

The only crumb of comfort I see for the consumer is the statement of the Minister that at the present time—and I emphasise "at the present time"— one firm is producing wireless sets similar in quality—quality is always a doubtful factor in all these cases, but I assume that it is so—and equal in price to sets manufactured in Great Britain. That is all right for the present, but does anybody imagine that the present minimum price of £15 for sets in Great Britain will continue when supplies become more plentiful and when a sellers' market becomes a buyers' market? Will the Minister give the House an assurance that that position will continue to be observed, and that, in five years' time, home prices will be at least equal to, and possibly even less than, prices across the water, because without that assurance there is no protection whatever for the public in that statement?

With regard to variety, the Minister said that at present 20 different types of sets are being manufactured. I have had conversations with competent people in the trade and they assure me that they know only five. They do not say that there might not be a set with a knob in a different place from another set or with somewhat different lettering on the dial, or with a different kind of cabinet, but so far as essential works are concerned—numbers of valves and such other technical matters —they say that there are only five sets of different type being manufactured here. You cannot call one set which works off the mains different from a set which works off batteries. I do not know if a battery set and a mains set are regarded as different types.

This is a matter which, on grounds of social policy and education, I would ask the House to say requires a very deliberate and careful approach. The wireless is no longer a luxury. My friend, Senator Foran, I think, will agree with me that there are very few working men, with the possible exception of the leaders of the labour movement, who to-day could readily pay a minimum of £15 for a set which is an essential part of their equipment as citizens to listen to the voice of the Tánaiste or the Taoiseach on occasions. We should all be in a position to do that in our homes, and it should be the object of the Government to make wireless sets as cheap in price as any other essential article in a person's home. There should be strong resistance to any attempt to keep up prices mainly in the interests of home industry or local manufacture. I think that at the present time £15 is in or about the minimum price of a wireless set. It should be our aim to produce sets at a much lower price so as to bring them within the range of the ordinary working man, realising their social and educational value as well as the enormous influence they have in keeping people at home— keeping them off the streets and away from the "pubs." We should realise the moral effect that a good wireless set has in family life.

This is a Money Bill, and I have no doubt it will be passed. At the same time, I want to say that it contains principles which should be the subject of a much more deliberate approach. There is the question of the suitability of local manufacture as well as the effect that a preference may give to manufacturers over retailers. There is also the question of a penalty—indeed, one may say that it is a tax—on those who have old sets, and there is the assessment of the educational value of a set on the minds of listeners. We have in this Bill an example of the bad way, and the wrong way, of introducing tariffs. All these questions should be examined before a prohibitive tariff of this kind is introduced without any corresponding safeguard for the consumer. This brings me to a request which I made on the Finance Bill to the Minister for Finance and which, I am sure, he conveyed to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It was that the Minister for Industry and Commerce should seriously consider the revival of some such body as the old tariff commission before important questions affecting the price level, as well as the lives and social conditions of our people, are brought into force by Order or without notice. Before that is done there should be an examination of the whole problem by people representing all sides—not merely manufacturers, but consumers and educationists as well —and only on their report should a decision be made. I hope that the Minister will on this Bill or, possibly, on another Bill which is to come before us to-day, give some indication of his views with regard to the revival of a body corresponding to the old tariff commission.

Professor Johnston

After listening to the Minister and to Senator Sir John Keane, I find myself unable to make up my mind as to whether this Bill is one of the Minister's wiser and better-considered industrial policies, or whether it is what the late Stephen Leacock would refer to as "a moonbeam from the larger lunacy" on some of his other industrial policies. We have on the one hand the prospect of establishing a new industry which it is anticipated will give employment to 350 people. We have on the other hand the interests of 3,000,000 people minus the 350, who are primarily concerned with wireless because they want to listen to it, or because the desire of a great many of them to have a wireless set has not been met. Now, it is perhaps encouraging to know that at present there are certain Irish manufacturers of wireless sets who are able to produce sets at a price which compares favourably with similar sets produced in England. Like Senator Sir John Keane, I should like to be assured that that is not due to some special circumstance affecting manufacture here and there which may, possibly, be removed in the near future, and which may lead to a situation in the future not unlike that which existed in the past.

My recollection is that, during a great many of the pre-war years, it was a notorious fact that an Irish-made set cost something of the order of £5, or more, than a set of similar quality made abroad and imported duty free if it could have been imported duty free. This difference in price undoubtedly operated to diminish the demand for wireless sets at home. It diminished the number of possible owners and listeners, and that, in my opinion, is a matter of grave social and political importance. In fact, I think that the dominant interest in this matter should be that as many people as possible should own a wireless set, and that it should be available for their acquisition at the lowest possible price whether made at home or imported.

I suggest that the Minister himself has a very special personal interest in the greatest possible number of persons owning and using a wireless set. I remember a famous broadcast which the Minister made just before the election of 1944 in which he announced the electrifying fact that the extraction rate for flour would be reduced to something like 85 per cent., and that we were to get a white flour after having, for some years, pestilential black bread. I also recall that Dublin Opinion rather unkindly suggested that the Minister was an expert at political billiards, and that what he really wanted to do was to go in off “white”. Anyhow, he may find an occasion before another election when he may have a personal interest in going in off “white” or in off “red,” as the case may be, in which case I suggest it would be very much to his interest that as many people as possible should own wireless sets, and thereby be able to hear his dramatic broadcasts.

Now, what are the facts with regard to the number of people who own wireless sets in Éire as compared with other countries? I have before me a paper which was contributed to the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland by Dr. Beddy. It was read on the 25th November, 1943. In that paper certain interesting statistical comparisons were made between Ireland and Denmark. It appears from this publication that in Denmark one person in every five owned a wireless set in 1938, whereas in Éire one person in every 20 owned a wireless set. In other words, there were four times as many persons, in proportion, owners of wireless sets in Denmark as there were in Ireland, so that in this respect we lag very much behind the standards of other civilised countries in Europe in this very important matter. I think, therefore, we ought to keep before our minds the desirability of making wireless sets available for our people at as cheap a price as possible, so that as many people as possible will be able to purchase them, whether they are made at home or come in from abroad. If they can be made at home at a price corresponding to, or very little in excess of, the price at which they can be imported duty free, then I welcome this industry, but if there is going to be an important differential in price, resulting from dearer costs of production at home, I think we ought to put the interests of Irish listeners well above the interests of the 350 people who may otherwise be employed in making the wireless sets here.

The Earl of Longford

We have been hearing a great deal about the blessing that wireless is to the people of this country. I am not denying the great educational value of wireless, but I do not think, simply because the Danes have four times as many wireless sets in proportion to what we have, that they are necessarily four times a more civilised people.

I think we should consider this matter from every point of view. I hear that 350 workers are employed in the wireless business. I think that our first interest should be to have not only those 350 workers employed but to get 3,000 workers employed. I think large numbers of employed workers well paid, well clothed, well fed and well housed would be rather more important to the country than making wireless sets cheap.

Now, for people in many parts of the country wireless sets are undoubtedly a great blessing and they are of great educational value. Personally, I think books or, for that matter, even theatres, are of more value even than wireless sets. I do not think it is of such enormous importance to get wireless into every home at just any price, even if it means unemployment. I feel that we should consider, in this question, the point of view of the nation as a whole and that there are other things more important than making wireless sets cheap. Therefore, I think this measure is very much a step in the right direction and I shall be prepared to support it.

I feel, however, that the point raised by Senator Sir John Keane about parts is rather an important one and that it would be a very bad thing if there should be a black market created in parts. If there is anything wrong in the details of this measure it should be amended. I am not saying that the measure is in every way a good one in detail, but I think it is a sound measure. I feel that all measures which increase employment, without definitely being detrimental in other respects, are beneficial to the people as a whole and all such measures ought to be supported.

Mr. Summerfield

I am glad to be able to compliment Senator The Earl of Longford on his contribution to this Bill. Frankly, I did not think it was possible to evoke such a long speech as we have had from Senator Sir John Keane. Once again, we are told that he is the champion of the consumer.

Sir John Keane

The unorganised consumer.

Mr. Summerfield

There are other champions of the consumer in this House but, apparently, Senator Sir John Keane is anxious to appropriate to himself the title of champion of the consumer.

I will explode one of the fallacies he gave expression to, with respect to duty-free parts and the possibility of a black market. I am engaged in an industry in connection with which numbers of duty-free parts are imported. I refer to the motor-assembly business. On this occasion I can at least pay testimony to the efficacy of the Civil Service by saying that the assembler does not get any more parts than are necessary for his business and he has to account for all of them. Therefore, that little point to which Senator Sir John Keane devoted such a lot of time need not worry the House very much. The inspection system that exists in this State will, I am sure, see to it that the duty-free parts for the assembly industry, whether in regard to wireless sets or motor cars, are just sufficient to meet requirements and there is no possible chance of getting any more than the assembler requires.

Let us get rid of the oft repeated suggestion that everything made in this country must be not only as good, but also as cheap, as articles that are made in other countries. We are a comparatively small community—our population runs to about 3,000,000 people. We live in close proximity to one of the biggest industrial nations in the world, nation that possesses between and 50,000,000 domestic consumers. Prior to the last war that nation had an enormous export market, apart altogether from meeting its domestic needs.

I wonder whether the people who make those statements are such friends of this country as they pose to be. I suggest they are not doing the country any good by repeating those statements so often. If you give me an order for 100,000 articles, I can give them to you at a cheaper rate individually than I could if you were to order only one. That is a sound business maxim.

I think the Minister is to be congratulated in making it possible for us to do something which will increase employment in this country. This country owes a lot to the variety of industries created here, created too in the midst of hostile criticism. Those industries were damned by the faint praise of people who should have known better. Were it not for the variety of the industries and the fact that we had certain goods, not at a cut price but at any price—if we had not the native manufacture they would not be there—where would the people of our country be during the past five or six years?

Here is another industry that will strengthen our industrial fabric. We hope that this effort will be followed by others. It may be necessary—I am not saying that it will be in this case —for the initial cost of the article to bear a little increase compared with any similar article that may be imported from Britain or America. If you want really cheap goods, you might go to Japan. I repeat that this will help to strengthen our industrial fabric. The 350 people who will manufacture the articles will be consumers of our agricultural products. Let us take a realistic view of the situation. I was particularly anxious to counter the oft repeated fallacies uttered by people who pose as the friends of this country but who, by reason of their ill-informed criticisms, are doing the country no real good.

Liam O Buachalla

D'ainneoin cuid de na rudaí adúradh faoin mBille seo, is léir cheana go bhfuil Seanadóirí i gcoitinne an-tsásta leis an ráiteas atá tugtha ag an Aire dúinn anois beag i dtaobh an tionnscail atá i gceist. Tá sé dóchasach go maith faoi agus de réir na bhfigiúir agus de réir an eolais a thug sé dúinn, ní dóchas gan údar é.

Bunaíodh cuid mhaith tionnscal nua sa tír seo le cúig bliana déag anuas. Bhí daoine in aimhreas faoi chuid acu, aimhreas a bhí gan cúis réasúnta a bheith leis. Ach maidir leis an gceann seo, tionnscal déantóireachta gléasraidh cian-éisteachta, tig linn a rá nach léim ins an dorchadas é.

Tá trialacha á dhéanamh le tamall ar ghléasanna agus goireas cianéisteachta a dhéanamh agus de bharr na dtrialacha sin, tá curtha i n-iúil dúinn go réasúnta soiléir gur tionnscal é a fheileann don tír. Muintir na hÉireann, tríd is tríd, is daoine anabalta iad. Buadh na teicniúlachta, baineann sé le n-ár muintir chomh maith agus a bhaineas sé le muintir ar bith eile ach a bhfuighidís an seans. Ón eolas atá againn ar an margadh agus de bharr eolais eile, tá léirithe go dtí seo go bhfeileann an tionnscal seo agus tionscail eile mar í don tír.

Ón méid adúradh mar gheall ar an bprionsabal atá i gceist, sé sin le rá, tionnscal a chosaint, ní dóigh liom gur tugadh dóthain Aire don taobh eile den scéal. Tá sean-rá sa nGaeilge a deireas gur beag scéal nach bhfuil dhá innsint air, agus tá dhá innsint ar an scéal seo chomh maith le scéal ar bith eile. Sílim nach gá aon argóint a dhéanamh an lá atá inniu ann i bhfabhar cosanta a thabhairt do thionnscal. Sílim go bhfuil an cheist pléite agus socraithe go maith. Bhí tráth ann agus cheap daoine nach raibh aon argóint fhóntach le fáil ach i bhfábhar saor-tradála. Na Sasanaigh, bhíodar an-láidir ar an tuairim sin ar feadh i bhfad. Ach má scrúdaítear polasaí Shasana le roinnt blianta tabharfaí faoi deara go bhfuil siad eirithe láidir go maith i bhfabhar caomhaointe tionnscal.

Ach tá argóint amháin ann i bhfábhar cosanta a thabhairt do thionscail agus níor cheart gan áird chúramach a thabhairt uirthi i gcónaí. Ar thionscal mar an gceann atá i gceist againn a chur ar bun, gheobhaidh dream maith daoine deis luachmhar saothair. B'fhéidir go bhféadfaí na hearraí a bheadh i gceist a cheannach taobh amuigh den tír ar luachanna is ísle ná a luach soláthair anseo sa mbaile. Is beag an sólás do dhaoine a bheadh ábalta agus a bheadh sásta earraí áirithe a dhéanamh a rá leo nach dtiubharfaí an deis oibre sin dóibh toisc go mbeadh na hearraí a dhéanfaidís níos daoire ná d'fhéadfaí iad a cheannach ar an gcoigrích. Cuimhnimis nach i gcónaí, is ionann an margadh is saoire agus an margadh is fearr.

Thairis sin, dob í ceann de na rudaí is mó a chuir ríméad orm agus an tAire ag cainnt, go raibh sé sásta, ón eolas atá aige, go bhfeileann an tionnscail don tír. Tá an mhuinín seo agam, má thugann na hoibrithe faoin obair go ciallmhar dícheallach; má thugann na daoine a bheas i bhfeighil an tionnscail an aire dó mar is chóir, agus cothram na féinne a thabhairt don tír mar is cóir, go bhféadfaí an tionnscail seo a mhéadú go rathúil in Éirinn agus ar ball, nach hamháin go mbeidh margadh na hÉireann acu agus é fairsing go maith, ach go bhféadfaí na hearraí a dhíol ar fud na margadh coigchríoch. Tá an tionscal seo ar bun go láidir i dtíortha eile, mar An Eilbheis— mar shompla—agus gléasanna cianéisteachta ag dul amach ón tír sin ar fud an domhain. Níl aon bhuntáiste aicionta ag an tír sin thar mar tá againne. Ón eolas atá agam ar oibrithe na hÉireann, ón eolas atá agam ar imeachta déantóirína hÉireann, níl fáth ar bith nach bhféadfaí an tionnscal a leathnú go mbeidh chómh tabhachtach i bhfus agus atá sé i dtíortha eile.

Táim ar aon intinn leis na Seanadóirí adúirt go mba chóir go mbeimis réasúnta cinnte nach ndéanfaí éagóir ar an bpobal trí mheáchain mhí-chothrama a bhaint amach, nó gan mianach na n-earraí bheith go maith. Ní bheinn féin i bhfábhar an sean-Choimisiún a bhí ar bun fadó le ceisteanna faoi chaomhaint tionnscal a réiteach. Sílim go bhfuil a leithéid de chóras as dáta agus gan bhrí. Sé mo thuairim—agus ní bhaineann sé leis an tionnscail nua seo amháin, ach baineann sé le gach tionnscal dá bhfuil curtha ar bun ins an tír—go mba cheart go méadófaí cumhachta Bhinse na bPraghsanna sa tslí go mbeadh sé d'údarás aige imeachta gnótha ar bith sa tír a fhiosrú go mion i gcás ar bith ina bhfeictear go bhfuil imní ar an bpobal nach bhfuil siad ag fáil cothram na féinne, tré imeachta an ghnótha sin. B'fhiú an chumhacht a bheith ag an mBinnse tuarascáil ar a gcuid fiosrúchán a fhoilsiú ionas go gcuirfí an pobal ar a suaimhneas. Thuit rud nó dhó amach sa tír agus ba argóintí iad i bhfábhar a nmholta atá mé a dhéanamh.

Ón eolas atá agam ar lucht déantóireachta sa tír níl call le imní ar bith i dtaobh a rí-fhurmhór. Tá a gcuid gnóthaí á stiúradh go stuama, éifeachtach cneasta acu. Tuilleann siad muinín a bheith againn astu agus tuilleann siad ár mbuíochas.

Is maith liom an Bille a bheith ós ár gcómhair. Sé, b'fhéidir, an chéad chomhartha agus gníomh cinnte eile go bhfuilimid ar tí tosaithe ath-uair ar an obair mhóir a bhí idir lámha againn go dtí 1939 nuair a tháinig an Cogadh Mór. Is comhartha é go bhfuilimid ar tí aththosú arís ins an tír seo ar thionscail agus déantóireacht a chur chun cinn, a neartú agus a leathnú. Tá súil agam go n-éireoidh leis an tionnscail seo, chomh maith agus d'éirigh le na tionnscail a cuireadh ar bun roimhe seo.

Mr. Baxter

I wish to comment on the principles embodied in this measure. Despite anything Senator Summerfield had to say on the matter, I think Senator Sir John Keane is to be congratulated on raising the issue which he put before the House. It would be a queer House if that sort of thing were not done on every possible opportunity and I am sure the Minister would feel it was hardly worth while coming here unless there was to be an intelligent examination not only of the particular Bill, but of the principles embodied in it. It is not necessary that we should all agree. Discussion in the House would be very monotonous if that were so. Senator Sir John Keane, or any of us who speak in the name of consumers, either here or elsewhere, is perfectly justified. The consumers in this country are an all-important section. We are all consumers. This Bill dealing with wireless sets and the possibilities of building up new industries here, gives us an opportunity of stating our views about the value of radio sets in the country. While Senator Lord Longford is not prepared to acquiesce in the point of view that the Danes are four times as civilised as we are simply because they have four times as many radio sets, it is true to say that the Danes are a very well-informed people. As producers, they are probably the best informed people in the world and it is a tribute to the knowledge of Danish farmers that they have risen above very considerable natural difficulties and have built themselves up to their present position as the foremost exporters of agricultural products in the world.

Utilisation of radio in a country like Denmark is of incalculable value. Our country is much bigger than Denmark and our population more scattered. Our people have not the same opportunity for contact and discussion and the radio can be of inestimable value in providing educational facilities. To the extent that you will raise the cost of commodities by the erection of new industries here, you are handicapping Irish consumers. I do not take the view, of course, that simply because something is going to be dearer if produced here rather than purchased from an outside country we ought not to provide it for ourselves. In a great many of these things, we have to pick and choose. While there may be general assent to the point of view that whatever we can do for ourselves we should try to do and what we cannot do for ourselves we must purchase from others, it must definitely be understood, by Senator Summerfield and by everybody who stands up in this House as an industrialist or who purports to speak on their behalf, that consumers here cannot afford to pay any price for an Irish product merely because it is an Irish product. It is to the Minister's credit that in a number of speeches recently he has pointed out that, if there are to be Irish industrialists here, directors of industry and people working in factories, they must put their best foot forward, must work hard and give good service to the community, they must increase their output and improve both in quantity and in quality. If that be the aim of the Irish industrialist, as I think it is the aim of the Minister now—though in his earlier years he may not have regarded it as of such major importance—and if there is a fair appreciation that that aim is essential to the future progress of Irish industry, there will be much more hope for Irish industry, as we will be making the right approach.

On the other hand, I am afraid there are too many people here who regard Irish industry as a happy hunting ground where there are possibilities of exploitation. You cannot blame a great many people amongst the farmers who are frequently very critical about the imposts they have to bear because new industries have been brought into being. They see the costs rising from day to day. It is easy to say that consumers are prepared and should be prepared to pay something more for the Irish article and that you cannot expect to have it manufactured here at the same price, as the number of consumers is small and we have not got a very large market. That would be true in certain large-scale industries. I take it we cannot have an Irish motor industry, as the market would not justify the capital expenditure, unless the skilled labour in Irish industry were prepared to work very much harder than the skilled labour in British and American industry and do even better work. I do not know what would happen then, but I do know that, in the present circumstances, we must try to produce commodities for ourselves, amongst ourselves, for exchange between ourselves. If some of those commodities can only be produced at a price very much higher than their world value, the pressure of that price on the consuming public will be very considerable. It is all right for the people in the industry, who may be paid very good wages and may not have to work very hard. As consumers, they are well able to buy, but we must think of the others, who may be in other industries not very well paid and who have to face these rising costs. You can have social unrest arising out of a situation like that and none of us can look lightly on that.

This policy is very difficult and complicated. It may be a desirable policy to pursue, but I agree with Senator Sir John Keane that it must be pursued with caution and discrimination. As the Minister has been saying recently, Irish producers must give really good service or they will not hold their place; if they give good service, they will hold their place and we will all be proud of them and glad to encourage Irish industry. But there is a great body of consumers here who have very little protection and all the time we must think of them.

In this particular case, it should be the Minister's policy to get a radio into the great majority of the homes. It would be of inestimable value, from the cultural and educational standpoint and also it would make life in the poorer and more remote districts much more tolerable. If the organisation of new industries is going to render that much more difficult, I do not think the Minister's policy in that regard would be justified. Inasmuch as the House will give him support in this Bill, the responsibility and obligation is on him to see that the people who are going to come into new industries, on account of these opportunities, will give service to the community at least the equivalent of what manufacturers in another country would give if they were given the market which is being provided under this Bill for these people and which is being closed against those outside.

Mr. Hawkins

From listening to some of the speeches already contributed in this debate, one would be inclined to draw the conclusion—and I am afraid some Senators have drawn this conclusion—that the result of this Bill will be to increase the cost of wireless sets to the user or consumer. My understanding of the Minister's statement is that the result will be the exact opposite. Those concessions which were already made under previous Acts and Orders were availed of to a great extent, not by the manufacturers or the consumers, but by those people engaged in the wholesale and retail business.

It has also been suggested that the purpose of the Bill is to find employment for some 300 persons. That is not the truth. I know that from my own personal experience. A few months ago I met some of the people interested in that business across the water. This firm is coming over here to set up a new industry in the manufacture of wireless sets and other electrical equipment in the confidence that they will be able to cater for the needs of the people here and, in addition, build up a very extensive export trade. That is one of the things we should encourage.

A good deal has been said in the debate about Irish industrialists and one would feel that all those engaged in the building up of Irish industry have made fortunes. I am sure every member of the Seanad has met people from time to time who have invested money in Irish industry, with the very opposite result. This Bill is a good Bill and many of the statements against it have been made through being misinformed.

Professor Fearon

There is a point which has not yet been made by any member of the House and which is, I think, of sufficient importance. It is the difference between possession and use. We assume that, because people possess a wireless set, as a great many do, they also use it. That is not at all invariable. In many cases, people have wireless sets in their houses in much the same way as they have fire extinguishers. They use them when they have some visitors whom they cannot otherwise entertain, or for use when something special happens. I would have listened to the Minister with more confidence, if I heard that this Bill would increase the use of wireless sets and not merely the possession of them. I suppose there will be some small decrease in the cost and that may mean a greater number will be sold, but that is only part of the business. You want more sets to be used and I feel that the way to get them used is to give us very much better programmes. I think the sale could be encouraged in many ways. One thing I should like to have passed on to the proper authorities is this: could we not have a concession on the licence for Irish-assembled sets, just as we have on Irish-assembled cars? I think the tax on wireless, which is partly a means of social entertainment and partly a means of education, means putting a tax on our hearing. If something could be done in that way, it would certainly brighten our New Year a bit.

The other matter is whether it would be possible to divert a little more of the revenue to be obtained from this increase to the support of our own broadcasting station. At the moment we are competing against many programmes from the other side which have almost reached a record low level of worthlessness. If we are to build up a good Éire programme, we have a very fine opportunity now. I understand it is possible to tell from the changes in the consumption of electricity how much listening-in is done. I know that in London, for example, they can tell that certain people are more popular than others. I understand one of our own local comedians is very high up on the list of wattage consumption when he comes on. I do not know whether the Minister has figures for the amount of listening-in done in this country. I think that is really a thing we ought to arrange for. We want to have more ears used and more current consumed through sets rather than selling a few more. A great many sets have collected as many cobwebs as have been collected by the programmes they have failed to circulate.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I wonder whether the Minister in his reply could undertake the task of reconciling the different and irreconcilable views expressed by people in favour of this Bill. So far as workmanship goes, the experience of the 18th and early 19th centuries has shown that the Irish craftsman certainly cannot be beaten anywhere in the world, and if craftsmanship is an issue in the production of any article, I personally would assume that we would start upon level terms. Senator Summerfield, evidently feeling that some such thought might be in the minds of people and that there might be a corollary drawn that the money was not going to the craftsmen but to the distributors and the manufacturers, met it, in anticipation, by saying that we are a small country and a small market and therefore we have to produce things at a higher price than elsewhere. The answer to that was very conclusively made by Senator Hawkins, who pointed out that with our craftsmanship and with equal organisation we would not be a small market, because if we were able to produce as good an article, then the market would be infinite, in fact, that England being next door to us was an advantage and not a disadvantage, as Senator Summerfield seemed to think.

Mr. Summerfield

That depends on the article.

Mr. Kingsmill Moore

I am assuming an article in which craftsmanship plays a considerable part. I know perfectly well that where you have to use a heavy industry, we have not the facilities for so doing. I am not taking any particular side in regard to these particular remarks. They seem to be a little inconsistent. I am asking the Minister if he would think well of telling us the principle upon which he is being guided in the imposition of these tariffs. The Minister, I imagine, would probably agree with me that in an ideal world the ideal system would be free trade. He would, however, point out that it is not an ideal world, that there are considerable numbers of recognised exceptions and that a natural exception is in operating the particular class of article we are now dealing with. It is certainly no longer an infant industry. It has been carried out for over 20 years. The exception which depends upon the assumption that you must protect an industry until it has found its feet, until it has been organised and has trained workmen does not apply in this case. There are other arguments for protection. It is unnecessary to go through them now. Perhaps the Minister will give us a general indication, such as I think he was inclined to give comparatively recently outside the House, as to what are the basic principles which he is following in deciding what things are to be protected, to what extent they are to be protected, and subject to what limitations they are to be protected.

Mr. Lemass

I think Senator Sir John Keane misunderstood my remarks when introducing the Bill in one important respect. It is not necessary to have a licence to manufacture wireless sets here. The tariff which is now in operation on wireless sets and component parts is, however, operated so as to permit of duty free importation of homogeneous parts and certain component parts by manufacturers who are manufacturing wireless sets in an approved degree. The principle we are following in this regard has been applied already in the case of the motor car assembly industry with which Senator Summerfield is familiar. In that case also our desire was to encourage the importation of motor cars in a "knocked down" condition —to use the technical term which was in use—and their assembly here. Duties were imposed upon motor cars and upon assembled parts of motor cars; but any manufacturer who brought in a car in an approved degree of dis-assembly got the components at a much lower rate of duty than anyone who brought components in separately or dis-assembled in some other degree.

In this particular case, the position is somewhat complicated by the fact that the duty upon wireless apparatus and parts was originally imposed as a revenue-raising duty, solely for the purpose of raising revenue, and it has always been so arranged as to yield some revenue, even though the protective effect of later changes may have reduced the total yield. The system which has been devised is to maintain the duty upon sets and the component parts of sets and to give this right of duty-free importation to firms manufacturing sets in the approved degree and in respect of certain defined components imported by them for the manufacture of sets. They cannot import parts for the purpose of trading in parts. At the present stage of development of the industry, coils, transformers and loudspeakers are being manufactured here; whereas condensers, volume and tone controls, and switches are being imported already assembled as components for incorporation in sets manufactured here. Other technical parts are also brought in free of duty. Cabinets and other parts of that type have also been manufactured here and can be manufactured for use in new sets or for replacement purposes. The position in regard to the repair and servicing trade is not much worse in consequence of these changes than it was previously. I again ask the House to remember that, at all times, parts imported by that trade were subject to duty and, because that duty was for revenue purposes, it applied to all parts. The change we have in mind now is designed to eliminate the revenue-raising aspect of the duty and, consequently, we have eliminated from its scope such items as valves, which are not made, and are not likely to be made here.

The position of the repair and servicing trade is, therefore, that they will be able to get such components as valves free of duty for the first time. They may have to pay at a higher rate for certain parts or components which at present cannot be supplied from the existing factories, but it is contemplated that the existing factories will be, within a short time, able to supply replacement parts of home-manufacture to the trade for the types of sets they are producing. To the extent that they are not producing these parts, the parts will be imported by the repair and servicing trade subject to the payment of duty.

As regards old sets, sets of a type that are not produced here at all at present, the parts required for their repair and replacement will be subject to duty as they were heretofore but the duty will be changed. The House should not assume that the parts of one set are not interchangeable with the parts of another. So far as a number of these parts are concerned, such as switches, coils, condensers, etc., they can be incorporated in almost any type of set and are, not infrequently, of standard design.

The extent to which it is possible to develop the industry and the employment given by the industry is, of course, problematical to some extent but I think we can step up the annual purchase of wireless sets considerably higher than the 40,000 pre-war average. I think it is almost certain that the current demand, which cannot be made fully effective because the supply is not there, would be considerably in excess of that number and it is probable, with the growth in the popularity of wireless broadcasting, the extension of the rural electrification scheme and the development of housing schemes, that the use of wireless receiving apparatus will increase and that the demand for such apparatus will expand. On the basis, however, of the pre-war demand, it is obvious that we can more than double the present rate of output and more than double the employment given by the industry. With that increase in production, there is no reason why the industry should not be as economic here as anywhere, because, provided that the production is not dispersed between too many separate and competing firms, there will be sufficient demand for the products of each to make full-scale economical production possible.

Sir John Keane

I do not want to interrupt the Minister, but in his speech in the Dáil he used the term: "entirely economic". Could he enlighten us as to what that implies?

Mr. Lemass

I was using that term to imply no disadvantage arising out of the inability of the persons engaged in the industry fully to employ the capital equipment they must use in connection with it. As regards many of the speeches made in the course of the debate, it is, I think, symptomatic of our comparative under-development in political experience that any proposal of this kind usually leads to a discussion upon the fundamentals of economic policy. In other countries that would not happen because most of these fundamental issues of policy have been already debated to a conclusion or have been settled by experience over a long time. Here we are still at the stage of working out the main lines on which we are to try to progress and consequently particular propositions, relating to details of our industrial organisation, still lead to these debates on fundamental policy. I do not want to open a wider discussion than I think is necessary on this Bill. I would not at all agree that it is sound principle to require that manufacturers in this country should be able to produce and sell at or about the lowest price at which we can buy corresponding products anywhere. I think that would be a completely false standard to establish.

On the other hand, I think it is not unreasonable to require that they should produce and sell here at or about prices at which corresponding goods can be sold in countries with a somewhat similar social structure. I have for practical purposes applied in particular cases the selling price for goods in Great Britain as a test by which to judge the efficiency of production here, at least to this extent— to require our manufacturers to show cause why it is necessary for them to exceed that price and at the same time expect to get protection from the community. There will be many cases where it is desirable to maintain some particular form of industrial activity by protection even if there are good reasons why it is not possible to have costs as low as in Great Britain or any other corresponding country, but in such cases we should be able to show to the Dáil and to the Seanad and to the public who are interested, why the good reason, whatever it may be, overweighs the consideration of price which would otherwise be a good argument for declining protection or reducing the protection at present in force. I should like, however, Senators to get out of their minds that Irish manufacturers are now, and must necessarily in future, be compelled always to produce at prices higher than those prevailing elsewhere.

Mr. Baxter

Prices lower.

Mr. Lemass

Prices higher. At the present a very large number of our manufacturers are producing and selling at prices which are substantially lower than the prices prevailing in Great Britain and other parts of the world. That is not altogether due to abnormal circumstances which will pass after a short period. It is due to the fact that they have passed beyond the early stages of development in which the gaining of experience by executives, the training of workers and other special factors necessarily affected the cost of production here. Our industries have, in consequence of their wartime experience, developed in efficiency much more rapidly than they might have if the war had not occurred. The existing concerns have also the substantial advantage of having equipped themselves with plant and machinery at a total capital cost very much below what it would now be necessary to incur to establish an equivalent productive capacity. It is therefore satisfactory to know that over a wide range of goods—motor tyres, leather, containers and many other commodities of that kind—the general level of prices here is substantially below the world level and is likely to remain so. Recently, in the case of leather, sanction was given for the purchase of supplies abroad to supplement home production and it was found that they could only be imported at a price which was 250 per cent. above the home prices.

Mr. Baxter

Is not that due to the low price for raw hides?

Mr. Lemass

Undoubtedly. By various controls we have kept down the cost of hides and pelts to our manufacturers.

Mr. Baxter

If you let it up a bit, the price of cattle would be better.

Mr. Lemass

That is also a very doubtful assertion.

Mr. Baxter

No.

Mr. Lemass

I fully agree with the views expressed by Senators, that it is desirable that wireless sets should be as cheap as possible and, therefore, available to the largest number of families. I want to make quite clear that there is no likelihood that removal of this duty would mean that wireless sets would be available to us at present more cheaply than we can produce them ourselves. As I mentioned, we are producing sets at the rate of 250,000 per year. It is very improbable that we could import them at that rate even if there were no duty in force.

Mr. Sweetman

Would the Minister repeat the figure which he gave as the rate of production?

Mr. Lemass

Twenty-five thousand per annum.

Mr. Sweetman

You said 250,000.

Mr. Lemass

I am sorry. I was going to add that the only source of supply that might be open to us would require very high prices—much higher prices than those ordinarily prevailing in Great Britain or here. The firms now in production here, when they shall have got over this intermediate period and can get supplies of materials sufficient to occupy their machinery fully, can continue to produce at, at least, the British level of prices. Any new firm that may come into the industry fully understands that it will be required to do so if it is to get the facilities of free import of parts and a continuation of the protection which the Bill affords. It is, I think, much to be desired that the number of wireless sets in use should increase but, if there is to be an expansion in the use of wireless sets by reason of their cheapness, it would require the adoption of some such scheme as was, I think, carried out in the dictatorial countries prior to the war. Very cheap sets were there distributed at the Government expense, the dictators being desirous of being heard when they spoke. Whether it is necessary to do anything in that line here is another matter. Whether we do or do not subsidise the price of wireless sets to certain classes of the community, we can produce all that they will require. I have considerable sympathy with the view expressed by Senator Fearon, that the licence tax on wireless sets should be abolished. I doubt, however, that the Minister for Finance would agree to that. It is, again, necessary to remember the history of wireless broadcasting here. When the Government of the day decided that a broadcasting station was to be established in 1926, they decided also that it would cost them nothing.

The entire capital cost of construction of the station, plus the annual cost of operating it, was to be defrayed by a licence tax upon sets and a customs duty on imported apparatus. They departed from that policy some time subsequently and appropriated the revenue from the customs tax for Exchequer purposes. But there is still in existence the idea that the broadcasting service should not be a general charge on the revenue but should, to some extent, pay for itself. It does, in fact, pay for itself at present to the extent that the revenue from the tax upon sets covers the annual cost of the broadcasting service —or almost covers it. It would not necessarily be an improvement, from the point of view of the general body of the public, if the revenue from the tax upon sets were removed and a tax imposed upon something else to make good the revenue loss. On the other hand, to the extent that the broadcasting service represents not so much an educational facility as a recreational facility of a particularly desirable kind, I think that it is good policy, generally, to encourage the use of wireless receiving apparatus and to make it as cheap as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take the next stage now.