A point arises, on Section 1, out of the statement which we have just heard from the Minister. I understood him to say that, in the matter of repairs, a user of wireless apparatus will be in no worse position than he was——
Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Order) (No. 2) Bill, 1946 ( Certified Money Bill )— Committee and Final Stages.
Question proposed: "That Section 1 stand part of the Bill".
No. Parts will still be subject to duty and the rate of duty is changed.
The rate of duty is increased. I have to repeat that we have now the admission that repairs will cost the users of old sets—and those will be mainly the buyers of parts for repairs——
Not necessarily. They will be affected more to the extent that the repairs involve the importation of parts for replacement but 99.9 per cent. of the repairs carried out to wireless sets are not of that character.
I see the Minister's point but I am not prepared fully to accept it. The Minister's case is conditioned by what the repairers will charge for the substituted parts. If I have an old set and if the part required is not made in the country, I shall have to pay substantially more for the part required. If the part is made in the country, I shall not necessarily get the repair done more cheaply. I shall be in the hands of the manufacturer. He may make the article available at less than the amount charged for the imported article or he may not. The temptation to the manufacturer will be to take advantage of the duty. I fully expect to see manufacturers who are making parts put up the price practically to the price of the imported part, which includes a high duty. I think that repairs will cost owners of old sets substantially more than was the case in the past.
Another Committee point arises. The Minister is apparently satisfied, by analogy with the motor trade and by his knowledge otherwise, that there is no danger of parts imported duty free by assemblers or manufacturers finding their way into the repair market There are, in fact, two repair markets. There are the repairs done by the importing manufacturer, who gets the parts in duty free, and the repairs done by the dealer, who has to pay duty on the parts. If the Minister says that the machinery is water-tight, well and good, but, without a host of inspectors, I see great difficulty in ensuring that it will be watertight. I never knew that the motor and wireless trades had to keep elaborate returns such as would be required in the case of those dealing with rationed goods—returns which would enable an inspector to satisfy himself that there was no illicit diversion of parts which had been imported duty free.
The position is not quite similar because many of the un-assembled parts of motor cars are duty free now. The duty was removed from those parts.
Then Senator Summerfield's argument does not apply, because many parts in the motor trade are duty free, both to the assembler and the repairer.
But there is no danger of what the Senator suggests.
I am not at all satisfied that that is so. With all due respect to the Senator, he has full knowledge of the motor trade but I suggest that he has not got equal knowledge of the wireless trade, and I should like to be satisfied as to the machinery for ensuring that there is no illicit diversion of imported parts to repairers. I can see great difficulty in getting a system which is water-tight without a very considerable number of inspectors.
A very high proportion of the repairs, so called, carried out to wireless sets consists of mending broken connections and other operations of that kind and the replacement of valves. The remission of the duty on valves will have the effect of cheapening that form of repair, and most of the components imported as components for incorporation in sets by assemblers rarely have to be replaced. They are in fact not liable to break down, and, when they do, it is generally only a matter of repairing a connection or some operation of that nature. I could not outline now the detailed arrangements which may be made by the Revenue Commissioners to ensure that there is no evasion of the duty in the manner the Senator fears may occur, but I think we can be sure that they will take effective steps to see that the concession which may be given under this Bill to manufacturers will not be abused.
To allay suspicion and as the point has been raised, I must emphasise that the machinery in so far as the motor trade is concerned, does not permit of any illicit use of duty-free parts. The manufacturer or assembler in this case has no advantage over the retailer who is purely a retailer. I say that with full responsibility and it is easily proved.
I am not suggesting that there is anything wrong in the motor trade. I am merely trying to find out the position in the wireless trade. I should also like some information as to the position of those people who are licensed transmitters. I am told that these amateurs, people interested in special work in wireless telegraphy, have rather special equipment which is never likely to be made in the course of the manufacture of ordinary receiving sets. All the parts of this special equipment will now have to bear this duty of 75 per cent. Does the Minister think that is just?
Not unless the parts are of the character specified in the Order.
I am speaking without technical knowledge and am therefore rather at a disadvantage, but I am informed that there are a number of parts used in this short-wave transmission which are never likely to be made in this country, as the demand is so small. Yet these people are to pay a vastly increased price for these parts now and I am in fact told that some of them will not be able to continue in business, so to speak, and that it will not be worth while taking out a licence at all.
The Order gives considerable discretion to the Revenue Commissioners. They are given power to remit the duty in the case of apparatus imported for the amelioration of the lot of blind persons, for the use of blind persons, for imparting or receiving instruction in wireless telegraphy in a school or college or for use for some purpose other than as a component part or accessory of wireless telegraphy apparatus. These are the purposes for which the Revenue Commissioners may, at their own discretion, remit the duty and I think that the cases in which completely assembled transmitting apparatus is imported, other than by schools and colleges or for the purpose of receiving or imparting instruction, would not be very many. Most of these sets are in fact constructed by the people using them.
I am told that there are quite a number of these amateur transmitters and that their sets are home made, that is, made by themselves, out of imported parts. I wish the Minister would look into the point.
I will examine it and see if that type of work would be restricted.
I should like the Minister to examine it to ascertain whether any substantial hardship is being imposed on these people by this new arrangement.
On the principle that valves are to be allowed in free of duty because they will never be made here, these other parts for home transmitters should also be exempt from duty in accordance with the principles of the Bill.
Yes, if they are of that character.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 2, Schedule and Title agreed to.
Bill reported without recommendation.
Question—"That the Bill be received for final consideration"—put and agreed to.
Question proposed: "That the Bill be returned to the Dáil."
I do not propose to deal with the question of our fiscal policy which has been discussed on this measure, but the Minister said there was a possibility of stepping up production of wireless sets. I might suggest to him—I did not hear the suggestion made up to now—that an improvement in the programme from Radio Éireann would be a great incentive to the production of wireless sets.
I cannot allow a certain statement on general economic policy just made by the Minister to remain unchallenged because it is really a fundamental matter. The Minister said that some of the speeches, and, no doubt, mine amongst them, showed political immaturity and showed that we had not grasped what he suggests is now axiomatic—that his economic policy is the last word.
I think the Senator misunderstood me. I was not accusing him of political immaturity.
I am very glad to hear that I am exempt, but the statement was made all the same. Surely it is open to great question. It is not my intention to go into the wide range of our economic policy which has driven our price level 100 points higher than the level in the neighbouring country. I know there are a lot of explanations of it, but that is the fact, and it has created a very considerable alarm amongst people whom we do not hear very much. I hear them in queues, and in the buses. I do not suppose the Minister travels in buses, but one hears quite a lot in them. I hear every day the complaints of the harassed rentiers and only the other day my daughter-in-law came in and showed me an article and said: “What do you think I had to pay for that?” It is going on all over the place and everybody knows it and Senator Summerfield knows it as well as I do.
This policy, whether right or wrong, is one which has to be considered. Free trade principles are not dead, and one has only to look at international affairs to see that the whole economic future is tending towards wider markets for trade. I would not accept for a moment that the policy which the Minister has outlined for this country is the last word. We have a long way to go before that can be established as a safe thing for the plain people of this country.
I object to this measure because I have had no indication from the Minister as to what practical steps are being taken to safeguard the ordinary wireless user against excessive prices. I am frankly suspicious, in the case of a small market, of a few manufacturers getting together and fixing their prices. I think that is a grave danger in our economy—in a small country such as this. I am an unrepentant capitalist where the capitalist safeguards are of the established form, namely, where you have plenty of goods, and where there is competition amongst producers. There is little or no competition at present, and there is unlikely to be competition in the case of a small market. In such a market, you are unlikely to have adequate protection for the public, and for that reason I emphatically challenge the Minister's statement that his policy is the last word in political wisdom.
Like the Senator, I do not wish to start a discussion on this now. But I do want to say with regard to people travelling on buses, to whom he referred, that any prices they may now be complaining of are most unlikely to be influenced by customs duties because, with very few exceptions, all customs duties have been suspended.
Question put and agreed to.