I move the recommendation standing in my name:—
That the following sub-section be added to the section:—
(2) This Act shall remain in force until the 31st day of December, 1948, and shall then expire.
If Senators give a few minutes' thought to this recommendation, they will probably agree that it should be sent to the Dáil. This is a Bill to confirm an Emergency Imposition of Duties Order made on the 28th January last and which came into force on the 29th January, 1947, the following day. It imposes an ad valorem duty of 37½ per cent. on all kinds of combs, for use or for ornament, subject to the reservation that, if imported from countries of the British Empire, they will be subject only to a 25 per cent. duty.
There is in the Order the usual licencing provision, which is rather peculiarly worded. It says that the Minister may authorise "a particular person" to import combs without paying the duty. I do not know if the words "a particular person" have any special significance, but if so I object very strongly to any provision in an Act or Order that a Minister may authorise a particular person to import goods free of duty if every other importer must pay the duty. However, that is not the main purpose of the recommendation.
This Order was made under the authority of the Emergency Imposition of Duties Act, 1932. The word "Emergency" in this connotation has a meaning quite distinct from the usual meaning we associate with it in our present legislation. At present, we have Emergency Powers Orders made under an Act passed into law at the outbreak of the European war in 1939. That is a totally different connotation from that in the 1932 Act, which was passed seven years before the outbreak of the war. It is interesting to look at the 1932 Act. So long as I can remember, there has always been a short cut in Ireland for all our grievances. Resolutions used to be passed years ago, calling on the old Irish Party "to remedy our grievances by a one-clause Act." This is a one-clause Act. The only effective clause in it provides that the Execctive Council, may, if and when they think proper, do by Order all or any of the things set out in paragraphs (a) to (j) in the first sub-section of that section. The second sub-section provides that an Order made under sub-section (1) shall continue in force for eight months and shall then expire, unless in the meantime it is given statutory effect by an Act of the Oireachtas.
The purpose of this Bill is to give permanent statutory effect to this Order. It is interesting to go back to the origin of the 1932 Act. It was enacted on the 23rd July, 1932. A week earlier the British Government had imposed a tariff on cattle, dairy produce and agricultural produce imported into Britain from this country and our Bill was very largely retaliatory. The economy of the country was in jeopardy and the Government, in July, 1932, came to both Houses and asked for a measure to which there was no bounds, except the reservation I have just mentioned that they had to come back with their Order within eight months to get a confirming Bill if the Order were to live. When the Bill was going through both Houses very important statements were made concerning it, although reading the debates now one feels that the attention of Deputies and Senators was given very much more to the underlying motive than to the actual text of the Bill. Little was said about the Bill. A good deal was said in bitterness and anger about the things that led up to it. There were some statements made which indicate what was in the mind of the Government at the time and what influenced both Houses in giving their approval to the measure. Speaking in the Dáil on the 14th July, 1932, the then Minister for Finance, Mr. MacEntee, made the statement:—
"If another State seeks to interfere with our trade, to attack our industries, we shall defend them...."
Bear these words in mind—if somebody is attacking our industries, we will defend them—and this is the machinery, this is the instrument which was provided by the Oireaehtas for the defence of our industries in 1932. Obviously, it was not intended as a permanent measure. It was intended as a defensive measure in the midst of a crisis.
Speaking in the Seanad on the 18th July of that year, the then Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, Mr. Connolly, a member of the House, made this statement:
"The clauses of this Bill give a considerable amount of power to the Executive to act, and to impose such tariffs as they may think it desirable to impose, in view of the economic position that will inevitably be created by opposition on the part of the British."
Again, note the grounds on which the enactment of the Bill was sought—in view, as the then Minister for Posts and Telegraphs said, "of the economic position that will inevitably be created by opposition on the part of the British".
But the matter was put very much more clearly by Mr. MacEntee who, when replying to a question in the Dáil on the 15th July, said:
"It is not the desire of the Government that this Bill should remain in force one moment longer than is necessary."
There was an undertaking, and I think something similar was said in this House by the Taoiseauh in relation to the duration of the emergency legislation which was being enacted in 1932—"Give us this measure; give it to us urgently so that we can cope with this menace to our economy. Once that menace passes we can see whether we require this legislation or not."
The menace passed in 1938, nine years ago, and an agreement was made with the British, the very thing that was needed to get rid of the emergency legislation of 1932. The agreement was made. The British menace passed and the Act of 1932, automatically, should have been repealed or should have ceased to exist in 1938. But 15 years after this emergency legislation became law we are now presented with an Order made under that Act imposing a tariff on combs. It may not be a very important economic question whether or not there is a tariff on combs although I understand from the Minister's statement on the last occasion that £61,000 worth of these articles were imported last year, but what influenced me largely in putting down this recommendation was the fact that complaints had been made to me that this Order, made last January, is imposing undeserved hardship on a large section of the community. I am not entitled to make the case that the firm or firms making plastic combs in this country are charging unreasonable prices. I do not know whether they are or not.
No complaint has been made to me that the prices were unreasonable but the complaint has been made that the ordinary person who buys a fine comb wants an ivory comb and not a plastic comb and that the ivory comb is affected by this Order as well as the plastic comb although we do not make ivory combs and do not intend to make them. I have received figures from one firm of importers and it is very interesting to know how the tariff affects the ordinary people. The import price of an ivory comb is 1/-. The wholesale price would be 1/3 and the retail price 1/11. That refers to one particular comb of particular dimensions. The price will vary with the size. That refers to a particular comb which was on sale last January. When 25 per cent. is added, if the comb comes from Great Britain, that is, if it gets the Imperial preference, the import price becomes 1/3, the wholesale price 1/7, and the retail price 2/6, but if it comes from outside the Imperial circle, the tariff is 37½ per cent. which means an import price of 1/5, a wholesale price of 1/10 and a retail price of 2/9 for a comb which could have been imported into this country at 1/- last January.
There is a certain firm, in which I have no interest and about whose business I know nothing beyond the fact that some members of the company know me and wrote me a letter in ths matter but I should like to read for the House what the proprietor of this firm has said:—
"A firm in County Dublin is making very nice plastic combs and deserves the protection they received in the recent tax. The matter of importance, however, is that the customs demand a similar tax on the ivory tooth combs. These are not made in Éire. The above firm makes a substitute, but of all household items nothing will take the place of a real ivory comb. Dublin makers state in their own interest that the substitute is just as good as the ivory comb. Our experience of nearly half a century as importers of these items shows that there can be no substitute. Any housewife will confirm this. The imposition of a tax makes no difference to us. We simply levy the tax on the combs. If the tax is doubled we must still import, but the poorest person will still give any price for the ivory. It is in the interests of the latter that we ask you to have this tax abolished. The victims are chiefly the poorer classes, and, of course, they are not aware of the injustice done to them."
So that what actually is happening is that the Minister uses this 15 year old machinery to impose a tariff on combs. He is not keeping out the ivory comb—but he is making the poorest people pay 2/9 for an article for which they paid 1/11 last January. I suggest that this thing is entirely an outrage. I ask Senators to bear in mind that the next item on the Order Paper is a Bill which authorises the Minister for Health to make regulations which will have the effect of sending people to jail if they do not submit their children for school medical inspection. People are now to be made to pay 2/9 for a comb for which they paid 1/11 before this Order was made. I suggest to members of the House, irrespective of the side on which they sit, that this thing is an outrage. It is not protecting the plastic comb which is the only comb made in this country. Here is a wholesaler writing to me that he must go on buying the imported ivory comb because the public demand it. What is happening is that the public are just being asked to pay 10d. more than they would have to pay if there was no tariff put on the comb. The 10d. is divided between the Minister for Finance, the wholesaler, and the retailer.
I would urge strongly that this Bill be given a life of 17 months and that, at the end of the 17 months, the Order should lapse. I would prefer that it lapsed now. I am perfectly willing to say to the Minister that he can have it for 17 months. In that time he can reconsider the position. I hope that in the meantime the whole structure of the Act of 1932 is going to be examined. I think it is an abominable thing, 15 years after this emergency Act was passed into law, that it should still be used for the purpose of making emergency Orders in relation to all kinds of things. I suggest that if we retain this Act and operate it to make these emergency Orders that we are defeating the whole purpose of the Finance Act, of budgetary discussions and of everything else. What is the purpose of the Finance Act and of the legislation which the Minister for Finance brings in here annually if, four months before the Budget, a Minister can make an Order in his office automatically imposing a new duty on some imported articles which then becomes operative? There is no sense in having a Finance Act or in having the pretence of control by the Houses of the Oireachtas over revenue, expenditure and income if, at any time he likes, the Minister for Industry and Commerce, or any other Minister, can sit down in his office and make an Order imposing a duty which may bring him in thousands or hundreds of thousands of pounds without having to consult anybody, and without having to come to either House of the Oireachtas until the thing has been in operation for eight months.
