The points raised in the course of this debate show how necessary it is to examine applications for tariffs with care, not merely from the point of view of providing assistance for the industries seeking protection but from the angle of the consumer. The various views advanced in this debate have, I think, covered every aspect of this tariff.
Senator Dockrell mentioned the difficulties which users of wallpaper have in securing variety of designs and papers of quality. It is quite true that, in the past, the quality and variety were not satisfactory. That situation was responsible to a considerable extent, I think, for the losses which the paper manufacturing industries sustained over a period. In the past six months, however, the standard of quality has improved considerably, as has the variety of designs. One of the difficulties in the industry is the limited market. Some Senators referred to that. Senator Dockrell, who has vast experience in paper distribution, referred to the small market here and the difficulty which any industry of this kind must inevitably have in trying to cater for the designs and the variety which people expect, while they are at the same time obliged to compete with manufacturers who have a far bigger market and consequently are able to produce a much greater variety of design and have available the different types of paper people expect to get.
In this particular case, the tariff application was examined with minute care, mainly because any increase is, in effect, a substantial increase. While, as Senator Dockrell says, this increase in the rate of duty seems very small, it can in its effect be fairly considerable. These firms in the past found it difficult to produce papers of quality. I think it was Senator Séamus O'Farrell who said that, if the duty was put on at all, it should be taken off the cheaper sort and put on the dearer papers. The difficulty is that the bulk of home manufacture is in the cheaper line and, consequently, they must get the protection. There is a good deal to be said about the point of view expressed by Senator Stanford, that some users of paper do not buy paper at all because they are obliged to buy very expensive paper or, alternatively, must buy a less satisfactory paper. In such a situation, some people have the walls painted and we see a number of houses decorated by ordinary painters. Some Senators—including, I think, Senator Miss Butler—asked why, if the industry was flourishing, it needed protection. I think the description "flourishing" applied only to the recent improvement in variety of design and standard of quality. In fact, the concerns have lost money in recent years and it was in order to keep the industry going that this increased protection was necessary. Another contributing factor to the difficulties which this industry has had, as well as a small market and severe competition from manufacturers who have available a very big market, is that the base on which wallpaper is made is produced here by the mills and it is a protected industry. Consequently, the wallpaper-making industry starts with an initial disadvantage. Senator Colgan mentioned that the industry with which he is connected through the union has found an outlet for certain paper production in the manufacture of wallpapers.
This tariff is, in many respects, a marginal case. There is a good deal to be said on both sides. There are two concerns here manufacturing wallpaper. In recent times, the standard of quality and the variety of designs have improved considerably and I think everyone accepts the view that it is reasonable, in these circumstances, to provide protection. Senator McGuire mentioned that a number of tariffs catch more than they are intended to catch. That is one of the difficulties of a tariff, especially where the machinery of tariff protection has to operate in spheres where there are various degrees of variety or where the matter is complex. The difficulty is that the tariff has to be operated on the simplest possible lines, in order to enable the revenue authorities to operate it but business is a complex matter and it is not easy to get a tariff framed that will only provide protection for the particular article intended and at the same time exclude all others from its scope. In this particular case, extreme care was taken to see that the tariff protected the particular commodity concerned and did not include in its scope anything that should not be covered by it.
I hope that the industry, as a result of discussions which have taken place, will exert itself to the full to provide better qualities of paper in the future and to provide, in so far as it is possible, with the limited market available in this country in comparison with other countries, greater variety in designs. Anyone who has seen the recent books produced by those firms will agree that there is a substantial improvement over what was produced previously. In recent months, the firms have increased the number of persons employed and I believe the tariff has had a beneficial result, in the last six months, from the point of view of assisting the industry concerned.
It is one of the functions of the Industrial Development Authority to ensure that the cases which come before it for protection of this nature are examined from every angle and that not only is the application examined but that the progress of the tariff and the capacity of the industry concerned to provide an article at a reasonable cost, in view of the measure of protection given, is all the time kept before those concerned.