Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 7 Jul 1965

Vol. 59 No. 3

Imposition of Duties (Confirmation of Orders) Bill, (Certified Money Bill) 1965: Second and Subsequent Stages.

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

Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. S. Flanagan)

An Explanatory Memorandum has been circulated for the information of Senators.

The purpose of this Bill is to confirm three (3) Orders, numbered 143, 144, and 145, made during 1964, two of them under the Imposition of Duties Act, 1957, and the Finance Aat, 1962, and the third under the former Act only. It is a statutory requirement that such Orders must be confirmed not later than the end of the calendar year following that in which they are made, if they are not to cease to have statutory effect on the expiration of that period.

Order No. 143 provided for (a) the reimposition of customs duty on metal domestic ornaments, metal cuff-links and polyethene film, (b) removal of the customs duty applicable to certain paper felt and (c) the deletion of certain Notes to the chapter of the Customs and Excise Tariff of Ireland which deals with the duties on tools, implements, cutlery, spoons aud forks. The need for these amendments arose as a result of the transposition of the old tariff to the Brussels Nomenclature form of customs classification.

Order No. 144 was made by the Government on the recommendation of the Minister for Agriculture. It provided for the imposition of a customs duty of 5/- per lb on all imports of certain preparations, derived partly from meat, and materials for the manufacture of such preparations. The need for this amendment also arose as a result of the change in customs classification.

Order No. 145 was made by the Government on the recommendation of the Minister for Finance. It enabled that Minister to assign to the Minister for Industry and Commerce and to the Minister for Agriculture, as appropriate, the power to issue licences direct to applicants for the remission of protective duties. Previously that power had been vested in the Revenue Commissioners. The change was introduced as part of the effort being made to streamline and expedite the procedures for customs clearance.

I shall be glad to give any further information required in connection with the Bill.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

As regards the third item involving expediting procedure, I do not think anyone will do anything except welcome it and wish it had been done sooner. As regards the meat preparations item, I understand from the explanatory memorandum that this is something that arose out of the introduction of the Brussels Nomenclature and that it is merely restoring the position that existed previously which was inadvertently changed in the change-over.

The wording in the explanatory memorandum in regard to the first item is a bit different. It says that these amendments arose as a result of the transposition of import duties. It does not offer the same kind of assurance as does the explanatory memorandum in relation to No. 144-that there is no change involved here in the situation that existed previously or that there is not any introduction of duty for things which were not previously subject to tariff. It may be that this is simply the wording of the explanatory memorandum. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could give us an assurance that this is merely a tidying-up measure. When the Brussels Nomenclature took effect an assurance was given at that time that the changes were purely technical in character. I do recall, however, that some of the representatives of other countries here did not take the view that these changes were as technical as was suggested, and they felt that a little bit of tightening up had gone on in the process of these technical changes. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to say whether or not he can give the same kind of assurance in relation to No. 143 as exists in regard to No. 144.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

It used to be my practice when I was in this House before to speak rather a lot about these Imposition of Duties Bills. I am very pleased to find that, on the face of it at any rate, they have changed considerably for the better. It is with very great relief, but not without a feeling of some suspicion that there might be something else around the corner, that I rise to welcome the provisions of these three Orders. I see that No. 143 is simply for the purpose of bringing customs duty into line with the proposals in the Brussels Nomenclature. There is just one question I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary which arises out of the provision for duty free imports, that is, how licences can be issued ? I should like to know what considerations are taken into account by the Minister when he decides to issue a licence? I should not like to feel that some applicants would have access to duty-free import licences and that others might not.

I have no comment to make on Order No. 144. Order No. 145 is obviously a very good one. It is for the purpose of simplification and it is a very good thing that individual Ministers—the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Minister for Agriculture—should have the power directly to issue these duty free import licences. I should like to put a question there as to the basis on which, say, character A would be given such a licence or that character B would be refused one.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I must thank Senator FitzGerald and Senator Sheehy Skeffington for their remarks on these Orders. Like Senator FitzGerald, I have a rather suspicious mind myself and I spent some time digging through these Orders to see if anything was being put across me. With regard to Order No. 143 I should like to point out, first of all, that the purpose of the Order is ratification of the existing duty on certain paper felt, so that we are actually removing a duty in one instance as well as restoring it in another. This is because ordinary carpeting felt is not manufactured in this country and is, therefore, as a result of this Order, imported duty free.

With regard to the other items, metal cuff-links and so on, and the duty-free licences on them, a lot depends on whether or not and to what extent the particular article in respect of which a duty-free licence is sought is made in this country. So far as fully manufactured cuff-links are concerned, I understand that no licences for these are ever granted because they are manufactured here. A similar position obtains with regard to polyethylene film, unless documentary evidence is produced to show that home manufactured film is not available; otherwise the duty-free facility will not be granted. In that connection I should add that most types of film are, in fact, manufactured in this country and, therefore, the volume of licensing there is very small.

Duty-free licences are freely granted for articles of brass and other metallics and also for metal domestic ornaments and wrought iron articles for domestic use but, here again, only on the production of the necessary documentary evidence that home manufacturers—which involves 16 firms—are unable to supply the goods, or reasonable alternative articles therefor. The volume of licensino, therefore varies with regard to the individual items covered by the Order, having regard to the home production situation in regard to each.

With regard to the deletion of notes 5 and 6 which deal with metal tools and ornaments, I can only say that I have not read these notes myself and I am, to that extent, open to the charge made by Senator Fitzgerald that something may be slipped in. I want Senators to accept my assurance that this is not so. However, if the House would like me to look further into that, I should gladly do so but I do not thing it is of very considerable importance. It was felt there was rather a contradiction between some of the paragraphs in the Schedule and that it would clear up the situation if these notes were deleted.

With regard to the general suspicion that the change involved by the adoption of the Brussels Nomenclature may have been used as an opportunity for tightening up here and there, I think, as I have already said, this is something that only a wily mind could think of and might use. If the House would like any further information on that, we can postpone the further Stages of this Bill until a later occasion.

Question put and agreed to.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

We should like to have the remaining Stages now, if there is no objection.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I am not entirely clear from the Parliamentary Secretary's statement on certain points. Could we, perhaps, clarify the position on Committee Stage? If, in fact, it were not clarified on Committee Stage, could we postpone the Report Stage?

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

It is for the House to decide that when we come to Report Stage.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I am assured in regard to Order No. 143 that there is absolutely no change from what the position was previously. It is merely restoring the duty which was inadvertently omitted previously.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

Next Stage.

Mr. O'Quigley

We are agreeable to taking it now.

Agreed to take remaining Stages today.

Bill considered in Committee.

SECTION I.

Question proposed: "That section 1 stand part of the Bill".

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

I should like to ask if the word "re-imposition" used in the explanatory memorandum means re-imposition on something which existed up to the introduction of the Brussels Nomenclature and then ceased in each and every one of these cases?

Mr. S. Flanagan

Is the Senator referring to Order No. 143?

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Subject to what I have already said that it also includes the abolition of a duty which was found to be unnecessary, I understand it merely restores the position to what it had been previously. As regards polyethylene film, does this apply to all polyethylene film or merely to polyethylene film of certain measurements? I had the impression that it only applied to certain measures.

Mr. S. Flanagan

I understand that in respect of polyethylene film the Brussels Nomenclature introduced a definition limiting the duty to articles of a non-rectangular shape and the effect of this Order is to restore the original position. It was confusing as far as we are concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

Section 2 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Title agreed to.

Bill reported without recommendation, received for final consideration and passed.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I suggest that the Seanad adjourn sine die. In the event of any of the important Bills which are being considered by the Dáil being available we would, however, meet next week.

The Seanad adjourned at 10.5 p.m. sine die.