Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Orders) Bill, 1958 ( Certified Money Bill ) —Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. S. Lemass)

Under the Imposition of Duties Act, 1957, a Bill has to be introduced in the Oireachtas to secure confirmation of Orders imposing customs duties made by the Government during the previous year. This Bill is to confirm the Orders made during 1957. The purpose of each Order is indicated in one of the columns to the Schedule of the Bill. I propose to make only a brief reference for the purpose of explaining the circumstances in which these Orders came to be made. If any further information is required, it can be given.

The first Order on the list, relating to wheaten breakfast foods, was an Order which substituted a customs duty on these goods for quantitative restrictions following a review of the protection given under Article 8 of the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement. The review was carried out by the Industrail Development Authority.

The second Order, which relates to malt extract preparations, was made to prevent evasion of the duty. Indeed, the Order which was made was found to be ineffective in that regard and a second Order had to be made in September in order to make the duty effective.

The third Order excluded from the scope of the duty upon iron and steel bars, rods and sections, certain types of bars, rods and sections which are not being manufactured in this country. The importance of excluding goods of that kind which are not produced here is that, under the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement, duty-free licences for the importation of these goods involve an obligation to charge 10 per cent. when the goods are of non-British origin.

The Order amending the duty on shirts arose from a threat to native manufacturers of shirts from the rising imports of low-priced products from Far Eastern sources.

The duty on forks was increased and extended to protect the output of the Irish manufacturers against imports from the Continent which appeared to be of the character of dumping.

The duty on power-drawn agricultural machinery comprising certain tool bar frames, cocklifters, broadcast seed and fertiliser spreaders and certain component parts of these articles was imposed to protect the output of the firms manufacturing these articles and operated to extend the scope of a corresponding Order made in the previous year.

The duty on glazed fireclay pipes and fittings was a specific duty which was imposed many years ago and had ceased to be effective with the rise in prices and was substituted by the usual ad valorem duty.

The production of galvanised plain and corrugated iron and steel sheet is now carried on at Irish Steel Holdings, Haulbowline, and the duty was imposed to protect that development.

The duty on spun rayon yarn was imposed following the establishment of a new undertaking at Sligo for the production of these goods.

The duty on concrete beams was imposed to protect the Irish manufacturer and the exclusion in the duty on concrete products in respect of articles which are glazed and polished was terminated to prevent possible evasion of duty.

The production of plant pots of paper and felt was undertaken by a firm which was previously engaged, and is still engaged, in the manufacture of clay plant pots. However, as the public taste appears to be moving away in favour of the other products, they commenced their manufacture and the scope of the duty was extended to cover them.

The manufacture of iron and steel cable and rope commenced in 1954. The duty was imposed to afford a measure of protection to that industry.

The manufacture of coil springs for motor vehicle suspensions has been undertaken recently in Wexford and the duty was imposed to protect that industry.

The production of gummed paper, the last of the items here, to be used in the manufacture of tape has commenced and the duty was imposed to protect the local manufacturer.

Mr. McGuire

I will not say very much on this measure because it is very late, but I think it is necessary to say a few words. In spite of what Senator Sheehy Skeffington seemed to take from some previous remarks I made this evening, I should like to make it clear that I have no sympathy whatever with protecting unnecessarily private enterprise with tariffs and protection of one kind or another which protects inefficiency and bolsters-up undeserved profits.

I want to see industry in this country which will not only be free to operate but which will also be free from protections, props, and so on. In other words, I want freedom in both ways. It was suggested that industry in this country wanted freedom from all sorts of Government interference and, at the same time, expected to be propped up. Nobody wants that.

I have no objection to the particular proposals in this Bill because I think we have had statements from the Minister for Industry and Commerce himself pointing out that the day of wholesale protection in this country has finished and that the infant stages of industry have now been got over. Industry that is worth keeping should, by this time, have become virile and strong. I take it that, in view of that, the duties we are concerned with in this Bill are now being imposed under strong revisionary scrutiny, especially having an eye to the probability that, in a very short time, our industries will be called upon to compete in perhaps a Free Trade Area. That being so, I take it that the provisions in this Bill have been advanced to us here to-day to approve of them but that the Minister is bringing them here only because they are absolutely essential and that they are taken with an eye to the necessity for competing ultimately in a Free Trade Area. Therefore, I approve of this Bill.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I should like to express my disappointment with this Bill and with the general attitude of the Minister on the whole question of the imposition of duties. When the Minister came back to see us here in the Seanad after the change of Government I expressed the hope that we should see some change of policy between the new Government and the old. He assured me in ringing tones that I should see a very big change. On this particular issue, I see no change at all, or, if any, I see a change for the worse.

Senator McGuire has referred to the fact that the Minister has been quoted widely as speaking rather as if he intends to change the policy of the Government in relation to protective tariffs. I am afraid we must, in fact, judge what he intends to do by what he does. In the Irish Times of 6th March, 1958, there is a report of a speech made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce at the official opening of Irish Week at the N.A.I.D.A. headquarters. He is quoted as saying:—

"It is right, therefore, for us to decide even now that if and when a European economic arrangement, embracing all the countries of Western Europe, including Britain, comes into being, it is more likely than not that we will elect to go into it, and to begin now the reconsideration of economic aims and policies which such a decision would force on us."

We needed, he stressed, to start building up greater confidence in our industrial potentialities. I do not feel that, in introducing fresh tariffs and fresh duties, and in increasing old duties, the Minister is demonstrating, in practice, any change of heart.

On 28th March, 1957, we debated this same type of Bill with the same Minister. In Volume 47 of the Official Seanad Report, column 327, I am quoted as saying:—

"I should like to hear from the Minister something, at any rate.... of the Government's general attitude towards the imposition in future of such protective tariffs and duties as are confirmed in this Imposition of Duties Bill."

At column 328, I am further reported as follows:—

"Could the Minister say whether the Government has under consideration the possibility of having something like a descending scale of duty for the protection of a given commodity being newly manufactured in this country? It seems legitimate to me that we should give reasonably efficient new industries starting here a measure of protection in what one might call their formative years, the years when they are being set up, installed and are exploring markets and perhaps learning a little by their mistakes. It seems quite legitimate that we should give them perhaps even a high measure of protection, but it is equally legitimate that we, as representatives of the people, should expect that, if the industry is thriving and has in fact been learning, it will improve down the years in efficiency, and, as it improves in efficiency, will require a decreasing amount of protection."

The Minister seemed at that time to listen with some sympathy to that point of view. He is reported in the same debate at column 332 as saying:—

"There certainly will be cases where a higher rate of duty at the beginning of an industry might be regarded as necessary, even though there could be at the time a determination to reduce it later when the need to interrupt trade connections and to turn the minds of buyers to the need for securing their requirements from Irish factories has been made."

The Minister has many times in public talked as if he were going to have some new policy on general protection of industries, and so on, but to-day we are confronted with an Imposition of Duties Bill for the confirmation of 15 new or increased duties, and there is not a single duty being reduced by this Bill, and not a single one being abolished.

I was equally critical of the Minister's predecessor, Deputy Norton, but I remember several occasions upon which the then Minister brought in an Imposition of Duties Bill which actually contained proposals for reducing and even abolishing certain duties. Therefore, on the question of protective tariffs the Minister is doing rather less than his predecessor to abolish or reduce these duties which, apparently in theory, he is in favour of reducing. I wonder why that is so.

I notice in a memorandum sent out to all of us on "Ireland and the Free Trade Area" by the Minister's Department, there is in paragraph 12, page 7, a sub-paragraph which talks about the rhythm of tariff reduction that will take place if we go into this Free Trade Area. I quote sub-paragraph (a):—

"In the first four-years stage a series of reductions will take place after one year, i.e., on 1st January, 1959; a second reduction 18 months later; and a third 18 months later again."

Perhaps I am unkind in wondering whether this future prospect has something to do with what we are now doing. We are like people who are about to have a "colossal sale" and who, in order to slash prices later, put them up well in advance. I wonder whether we are not putting on duties now simply for the purpose of cutting them in relation to the Free Trade Area, with a great flourish on the 1st January, 1959. Are we putting on new duties now for the cutting of which we will make an ostensible sacrifice if this Free Trade Area comes about?

I do not wish to delay the House, but I do not think we should let each of these items go without some comment. I am not going to mention more than four of them. The first item is the 100 per cent. tariff duty on wheaten breakfast foods. That is 100 per cent. protection with 66 2/3rds. for U.K. and Canada. I should have liked to hear the Minister defending the size of this tariff. We can defend tariffs, protection and so on, but is it really necessary, for the sake of the Irish trade, to put on as big a tariff as 100 per cent? Are we not running the danger of giving them over-protection, and perhaps rendering them weak and enfeebled in this kind of conservatory atmosphere we build around them by such gigantic protection?

The second point I want to make is about an exception in the application of this duty, that is, to exclude from the duty preparations "intended primarily for the consumption by infants and invalids." The intention of the exclusion is admirable, but how is it to be interpreted? How can one ensure that a particular wheaten breakfast food is "intended" not solely but "primarily" for consumption by infants and invalids? How do you know whether an invalid is consuming a breakfast food because he is an invalid or because he likes breakfast food? In other words, I am questioning the possibility of conveniently interpreting such an Order. What kind of court, or what officer of the Revenue Commissioners, will be able to decide whether a given preparation is intended—intended, mark you—primarily for consumption by infants and invalids?

The next point refers to item 4 in the explanatory memorandum and deals with an additional duty of 6/- each on men's shirts not exceeding 8/- in value. The value is 8/- and an extra 6/- is put on. There is also 4/- put on boys' shirts not exceeding 5/- in value. It is quite obvious that that is a very big tariff. The Minister has said that it is to save us from cheap shirts from the Far East, but I would point out that this type of shirt is the kind which will be bought by the poorer sections of our community, and it is the mothers and fathers who are seeking to clothe their children inexpensively and who have not got very much money to do it, who will be tempted to buy the 5/- shirt for their boys. Under this Order that becomes a 9/- shirt. We are putting a prohibitive tariff on goods destined exclusively for the use of the poorer sections of the community. I would object very strongly to that particular duty.

The other two I would mention relate to agriculture—the fifth and sixth in this explanatory memorandum. One is on certain agricultural forks, and the other on certain power drawn agricultural machinery. On the last occasion when we had an Imposition of Duties Bill before us in March of last year I proposed one amendment to delete a part of the Schedule referring to agricultural machinery and I was faintly surprised, shall I say, to find that in this vocational Seanad, which has agricultural representatives in it, I did not get support from any representative of the farmers in the Seanad, for the deletion of this particular duty, though even the Minister has said that the Irish companies were in fact producing as cheaply as the English, the implication being that if the Irish farmer had a choice, at even prices, he bought in preference foreign agricultural machinery.

The Minister has told us, in relation to Item 5, the duty on agricultural forks, that this is mainly to protect the output of home firms against Continental articles which are being brought in. But the customs duty is 30 per cent. full, and still 20 per cent. for U.K. and Canada. Therefore, it is not by any means solely against Continental products which are being "more or less dumped", as he states, but also against U.K. products. This is an increased charge upon our agricultural community, and it is being put on at a time when it has been increasingly difficult for the agricultural community to buy the equipment, the tools and the machinery which are found necessary in modern agriculture. Consequently, I intend to propose the deletion of these two portions of the Schedule also, and I hope I shall have the support of Senators representing farming interests.

We are not entitled in the Seanad to propose amendments to this type of Bill, but we can make recommendations, and I propose on the Committee Stage to make recommendations, or ask the Seanad to agree to proposed recommendations, for the deletion of the Orders—we cannot amend them— relating to wheaten breakfast foods where 100 per cent. is put on, and to these cheaper quality shirts, and the two items regarding agricultural machinery.

Senator McQuire has told us most vehemently that he is not in favour of protecting inefficient industry, and quite genuinely he misunderstood my references to him earlier on. I never mistook him for one who defended this stupid and excessive protection. I think anybody who knows his record knows that he does not stand for that kind of protection of inefficient industry; and he will see from the report that I never even implied that he did. On the contrary, I implied that he is the sort of representative of Irish industry and commerce who would strongly favour the reduction of tariffs and the abolition of them where possible. His speech to-night confirmed that view of mine. I do find it most disappointing, though, when, having said what he did say, he then says he is in favour of these 15 new tariffs, some of them going up to 100 per cent., and is prepared to vote for the Bill. I find that disappointing, and I hope there will be some other Senators who will support me when I beg leave, on the Committee Stage, to propose a recommendation regarding these four deletions from the Schedule.

Mr. S. Lemass

Senator McGuire referred to the possible advent of the Free Trade Area in Europe and the need to keep that in mind when considering applications for new tariffs. It must be clearly understood—Senator Sheehy Skeffington has not understood it, apparently—that any agreement for the establishment of a Free Trade Area in Europe will not merely involve arrangements for the gradual removal of tariffs but also for the removal of unfair trade practices. The agreement will certainly provide that action can be taken by any country against dumping, as it will be defined in the agreement.

It will provide, I hope, for the elimination of cartels, which distort trade, and thus give full play to competition and give access on equal terms to raw materials for the industries of all countries. It will certainly necessitate the abolition of the dual price system for iron and steel which operates in Britain. Until these conditions exist, until Irish industry is given the opportunity of competing upon equal terms with the industries of other countries, then clearly we will have need to protect them, and the right to protect them, in circumstances where these conditions are not fulfilled, perhaps even under a free trade arrangement.

It is not possible at present to forecast when, if at all, such an agreement will be made and what its exact terms will be. In so far as there is a draft agreement at present—and at present there is not very much of a draft—it contemplates that the tariffs which are regarded as effective for the purpose of the agreement will be those in force on 1st September, 1957. In our case, however, and in the case of some other countries, arrangements will I hope be made to permit of the operation of some other effective date. Indeed, the negotiations have now proceeded over such a length of time that that date is probably regarded as inapplicable to the whole arrangement. The aim of protection is to get industries in a position, by giving them an adequate market in which to operate, to increase their efficiency and acquire that stability in their operations which will enable them to meet the impact of competition from abroad when it comes.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington said that I promised a change of policy. I do not think I ever, in any statement, even by implication suggested that no new tariffs were going to be imposed no matter what the circumstances. If one is to start thinking about operating a descending scale of tariffs the wisdom of doing it at present would be very doubtful, at the present stage of the free trade negotiations. I have said that in the circumstances that are likely to arise in the future protection as a instrument of industrial development looks like being less important than in the past. I believe that to be so but the granting of protection in the circumstances such as are now arising is not merely necessary for the preservation of our existing industrial organisations but is justifiable in that the competition which some of our industries are meeting can accurately be described as unfair.

In regard to the particular duties to which the Senator referred I would point out that he was wrong in one statement. One Order in fact removes a duty and one reduces another, so that obviously the Senator has not studied them very carefully. I would like to make some comment on the four duties he referred to, in order to make an effort to ensure that no member of this House will be foolish enough to support him in making recommendations for their revocation. In regard to the wheaten breakfast foods concerned, the duties were imposed following a review by the Industrial Development Authority of the position, at the request of the British Government—which was entitled to make that request under the Trade Agreement-for the substitution of a quantitative restriction by a custom duty.

We guarantee the price for wheat and the firms making this product here use 100 per cent. Irish wheat. If these firms were not given that protection it is obvious that they would not be able to remain in business, against the competition of firms which can obtain wheat at very much lower prices than that which we guarantee to our producers. The firms making wheaten breakfast food are very efficient firms, as it happens. They are all associated with world-wide organisations and able to avail of technical advice of a high standard, so I do not think anybody can suggest that they are not working efficiently. I feel sure that if they could be assured their raw material at the price which their competitors abroad get it that they also could produce at the same price.

Seán Ó Donnabháin

How does the Minister define breakfast food?

Mr. S. Lemass

It is a wheaten breakfast food. The Senator and Senator Sheehy Skeffington must give full credit to the ingenuity of the Revenue Commissioners who can interpret all these terms with remarkable skill.

With regard to shirts, this problem of low-price textiles and textile goods from Hong Kong and Far Eastern countries is, of course, of world-wide concern. It is not merely a problem for us; it is one of the considerations which are being constantly borne in mind by those engaged in a European Free Trade Area because it has a bearing there, too. We have here a shirt manufacturing industry which is not merely well established but is of a very substantial scale. Its output exceeds £1,000,000 in value and it employs over 2,000 workers. The number of firms engaged in it is large and they are in close competition with each other and, facing competition from countries in which social conditions are similar to our own, I am sure they could stand up to it in the export market, but it is unreasonable to expect them to meet the kind of competition which they are encountering from Far Eastern sources. Indeed, no country in Europe could meet that competition.

The duty on agricultural forks is another one of the duties with which Senator Sheehy Skeffington is concerned. He will be interested to know that we have a number of firms in this country making these forks more efficiently than in England. Their prices are lower than for those made in England and they are even exporting their products to Britain. It is a fair standard for judging any Irish agricultural industry, if it can beat the British price.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

It is perfectly clear then that they do not need protection.

Mr. S. Lemass

It is perfectly clear they need protection if they are met with dumping.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

This does not apply to the Continent only. It applies to the U.K. and Canada as well.

Mr. S. Lemass

There are certain international obligations which prevent us imposing duties on the products of a single country. At any rate that industry is one that I am very glad to be able to help. If I can prevent it being undermined by the unfair importation which it had to meet last year its development is assured. Its quite remarkable efficiency has been disclosed by its achievements. It is an industry which I must say was subjected to review in all its aspects and operations by the Industrial Development Authority and the report of the authority was such as to justify me in making that statement regarding its efficiency.

As far as agricultural machinery is concerned that is a matter on which we have had a lot of discussion, in and out of the Dáil, and the policy of the Government in that regard has been made very clear. We believe it is desirable that we should aim at making here all the agricultural machinery which can be economically produced. We believe that is being done at the present time. Indeed, the prices of Irish agricultural machinery compare quite favourably with the prices at which such agricultural machinery can be imported but that can only be maintained if the volume of their output can be assured to the Irish manufacturers.

There is a problem, however, regarding the design and quality of Irish agricultural machinery produced here to meet all the needs of Irish farmers. I have been urging that the farming organisations and the machinery manufacturers, instead of sniping at each other at long range, should get together and establish some type of organisation which can keep them in constant touch, and ensure that any complaints regarding quality and design of the machinery produced here will be attended to and rectified.

I have met the machinery manufacturers and discussed that matter with them, and I have their assurance that they would be only too anxious to enter into an arrangement of that kind. I hope the farming organisations which have been doing some campaigning against them will be equally willing and, if that arrangement is made, it will be to everyone's benefit.

There was, of course, an organisation set up under the auspices of the Government in 1956 to carry out certain tests on agricultural machinery and some ploughs were tested. The results of the test were not to the disrepute of the Irish plough, and these tests can be continued in relation to other types of machinery at any time. The committee set up in 1956 was not given any money and the problem of who is going to pay for future tests is not yet solved. The committee is still in existence and if any organisation of farmers wants to avail of it, as a means by which the suitability of design and standard of quality of Irish agricultural machinery can be tested, they are free to do so. Personally, I would prefer to see the Government out of this. It seems to be common sense to suggest that the producers of the machinery and the farming organisations should get together and do this work for themselves.

I have said that the instrument of protection will be less effective in future in producing the type of industrial development that we desire. That is because we must now seek industrial development in the form of undertakings planned from the start for export business, but it is clear that until we can assure the manufacturers of conditions of fair competition protection must be continued for the meantime.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

May I ask the Minister just one question? I understood him to say——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

The Senator could raise this matter on Committee Stage.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

The Minister made a statement——

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

You are permitted to ask a question but not to make a Second Reading speech.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

The Minister said that some of these actually did abolish or reduce tariffs. I would just ask him which ones?

Mr. S. Lemass

Number 69 of 1957 removed duties from certain iron and steel bars, roads and sections.

Question put and agreed to.

Agreed to take remaining stages to-day.

Bill considered in Committee.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

May I have permission if the Committee Stage is taken now to put in recommendations? Otherwise I would prefer that the Committee Stage be taken later.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I have no objection to that because of the short notice of the Committee Stage.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

SCHEDULE.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I understand that Senator Sheehy Skeffington wishes to move recommendations.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I move recommendation No. 1:—

To delete the following :—

No. 28 of 1957.

Emergency Imposition of Duties (No. 393) (Wheaten Breakfast Foods) Order, 1957.

Imposition of duty on prepared wheaten breakfast foods.

Perhaps I may be allowed to deal with the other three recommendations which I propose to move, on recommendation No. 1. The other recommendations relate to boys' and men's shirts and agricultural implements and machines. If a vote is to be taken, it should be taken separately on each.

With reference to wheaten breakfast foods, the Minister has told us that these manufacturers have to use a great deal of Irish wheat and therefore their costs are high and consequently they need increasing protection. I understand the price of wheat has dropped. There has been a lot of noise because the price has dropped.

Mr. Lenihan

It has not dropped yet.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

Yet the Minister is telling us that they need 100 per cent. protection for these Irish goods. I think the packet of wheaten breakfast food which costs 1/10 retail can be sold at a profit in some shops for as low as 1/4, and sometimes less. I would suggest that there is a big margin there and possibly these firms are pricing their products too high and are seeking for protection which is not justified. I think, in any event, that a 100 per cent. duty is too high, and if I had the opportunity of proposing a reduction in the duty I would do so, but in the Seanad we can only suggest it be deleted, enabling the Minister to introduce a fresh Order. Our powers extend only to delete.

On the question of cheaper shirts, I think it is monstrous that we should add a duty of 4/- on boys' shirts to the original value of not more than 5/-. We are here hitting the poorer sections of the community. Protection of this size is unwarranted. It transforms a shirt made at 5/- into a 9/- shirt.

In regard to agricultural components the Minister has told us that these forks can undersell the British equivalent; yet he is asking for a 20 per cent. duty on U.K. imports. I do not know how he justifies that and I do not know how the Seanad takes his justification. He refers to some Continental countries, but in fact he is putting 20 per cent. on the U.K. and Canada and 30 per cent. on others. Furthermore, he tells us that we are underselling the British in their own market. I am not convinced by the Minister's argument, and it is time we resisted the further imposition on the agricultural community of the extra charges caused by these protective duties, particularly when, out of the Minister's mouth, we are informed that they are not necessary.

Mr. S. Lemass

So far as wheaten breakfast foods are concerned, I have explained that the review of the protection given there was requested by the British Government under the provisions of the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement. That review was carried out by the Industrial Development Authority who were required by the terms of the agreement to consider what protection was needed, having regard to the relative cost of economic and efficient production. It was the Industrial Development Authority, in the report it made to the Government, following that review, that recommended the imposition of duties at this rate. It made that recommendation to my predecessor and it was the previous Government which acted upon it. I think that they rightly regarded themselves as obliged to act upon the report of the Industrial Development Authority which carried out this formal review under the provisions of the trade agreement. If the Senator's recommendation was adopted, the result would be to increase the protection these people are receiving by restoring quantitative restrictions.

In regard to shirts, I have nothing more to say. It is possible for us to buy shirts made in Hong Kong and other foreign places much cheaper than we can make them ourselves. If we decided to avail of these cheaper shirts, we would be putting 2,000 workers out of employment in this country, and I cannot recommend the Seanad to do that.

In the case of forks, the Senator completely misunderstands the situation. The effect of the withdrawal of the duty would be to undermine the position of the Irish industry and increase the price of forks. They manufacture these forks cheaper than we can get them from Britain, because they have the whole of the market. If that position was undermined by the dumping of these goods from Continental countries, the effect would be an increase in the price of these forks for Irish farmers, rather than a reduction.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I am not convinced that if you import small boys' shirts at 5/- you will throw out of employment 2,000 Irish workers in the shirt industry.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

I propose to put each Order separately.

Recommendation put and declared negatived, Senator Sheehy Skeffington dissenting.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I move recommendation No. 2:—

To delete the following:—

No. 89 of 1957.

Emergency Imposition of Duties (No. 399) (Shirts) Order, 1957.

Extension of scope of duty on shirts.

Recommendation put and declared negatived.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I move recommendation No. 3:—

To delete the following:—

No. 91 of 1957.

Emergency Imposition of Duties (No. 400) (Drags and Forks) Order, 1957.

Increase in duty on certain agricultural implements and extension of scope of duty.

Recommendation put and declared negatived, Senator Sheehy Skeffington dissenting.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I move recommendation No. 4:—

To delete the following:—

No. 108 of 1957.

Emergency Imposition of Duties (No. 401) (Agricultural Machines) Order, 1957.

Imposition of duty on certain agricultural machines.

Recommendation put and declared negatived, Senator Sheehy Skeffington dissenting.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without recommendation, received for final consideration and ordered to be returned to the Dáil.

Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 27 Mar 1958