Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 8 May 1968

Vol. 64 No. 15

Motor Vehicles (Registration of Importers) Bill, 1967.

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

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Colley)

The purpose of this Bill is to provide a statutory framework within which full effect can be given to agreed arrangements covering the assembly and importation of motor vehicles. As was indicated in the public announcement in regard to these arrangements, made at the end of last November, their aim is to ensure the continuation of the motor vehicle assembly industry.

The initiative in this matter was taken by the Government after the conclusion of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Area Agreement when discussions were undertaken with British motor manufacturers and their Irish assemblers, with the co-operation of the British Authorities. Although these negotiations were protracted and, in certain respects, complicated, the basis of the arrangements now agreed upon is relatively simple. The manufacturers and assemblers of British vehicles have given me satisfactory assurances of their intention to support the continued assembly of their motor vehicles in Ireland on a long-term basis. It is generally understood that what we have in mind is a period of not less than 25 years. In return for these assurances, the Government agreed to implement immediately the duty reductions on fully built-up vehicles which would not otherwise fully mature until 1975 under the Free Trade Area Agreement.

The assurances to maintain assembly are related to the level achieved immediately prior to the conclusion of the Free Trade Area Agreement when assembly operations were at a high level generally, and there is also an expression of intent to expand motor assembly operations, in so far as this may be consistent with the economics of the operations and the development of the market. In connection with these assurances regard must, of course, be had to fluctuations in market demands which might affect the industry as a whole or the position of particular firms within the industry.

Comparable concessions have been offered to assemblers of non-British vehicles, subject to satisfactory assurances being given by the manufacturers and assemblers of these vehicles and, as a result, these assemblers are also being enabled to participate in the arrangements. The Government decided to implement the duty reductions provided for under the scheme as from the beginning of this year, on an interim basis by a system of licensing, under which the motor assembly firms have been given facilities to import fully built-up vehicles at the appropriate reduced rates of duty.

Implementation of the arrangements in the longer term, however, requires the enactment of suitable legislation as provided for in the Bill. The principal provision of the Bill is one for the channelling of imports of fully built-up motor vehicles through registered firms—principally the existing assemblers who have given me the assurances to which I have referred. This provision for approved channels of trade is necessary so that, as the duties on British vehicles are reduced under the Free Trade Area Agreement, the arrangements will not be undermined by the importation of vehicles by firms or persons who are not parties to the agreed arrangements.

The Bill does not apply to agricultural tractors, large passenger buses and some other vehicles which were not subject to the former quota arrangements, but, apart from these, it embraces all the principal classes of motor vehicles. It does not apply to vehicles of the motor cycle and scooter type. It applies to second-hand vehicles because, otherwise, evasion of the scheme would be possible. It is proposed to enable the definition of motor vehicle in section 1 to be amended by Ministerial regulations. This is considered to be desirable so that account may be taken of future technical developments and also to facilitate adjustment of the definition if the practical application of the measure should give rise to any difficulties or anomalies.

All assembly firms which comply with the arrangements will be eligible for registration as importers of fully built-up motor vehicles of the makes and marques which they now handle. The only requirement for registration, in the case of assemblers of British vehicles, is the assurances they have given to maintain the level of their assembly operations. All the firms concerned have already furnished me with the kind of information which I consider necessary to enable me, if the need arose, to form a judgment on whether a firm is complying with its assurances in this regard. Registration will also be open to assemblers of non-British vehicles who give assurances to maintain, at least, their basic level of assembly.

Subject only to a Free Trade Area duty preference for British-built private cars, it will be possible for these assemblers to do as well, in the aggregate, as assemblers of British vehicles. A firm may be removed from the register only where it is in breach of an assurance or undertaking given in connection with the arrangements or by agreement, where, for example, a firm merges with another or for some reason goes out of the business.

The definition of motor vehicles does not extend to completely knocked down aggregates of parts for local assembly and there will, therefore, be nothing to prevent anyone from starting up in the motor assembly business. There is provision to enable such new entrants to qualify for registration as importers of fully built-up vehicles, subject to their achieving a satisfactory volume of assembly.

While the principal purpose of the Bill is to provide for the channelling of imports through firms engaged in the assembly of motor vehicles, there is provision in the Bill to cover, in certain circumstances, the importation of fully built-up vehicles by firms which are not in the assembly business. This provision will apply, for instance, to British cars of more than £1,300 in value c.i.f. which, in the past, were not subject to quota and are imported by certain firms who are not engaged in assembly. These imports will be permitted to continue.

Since the quota arrangements were abolished as from the 1st July, 1966, and up to the time the new scheme was announced towards the end of last year, a few firms, which are not in the assembly business, have been importing small numbers of vehicles in fully built-up condition. It is the intention to enable them to continue importation on that scale. The duty concessions provided for under the agreed arrangements will not, of course, apply to such imports since the concessions are available only to registered importers who are engaged in assembly. The imporation of fully built-up vehicles on change of residence, by tourists and in a number of other special circumstances will be allowed to continue.

There have, in the past, been some expressions of doubt as to the future prospects of the motor assembly industry. This was understandable having regard to the views expressed in the report on the industry which was prepared under the auspices of the Committee on Industrial Organisation. The conclusion of these new arrangements alters the picture completely. The principal objective of the Government in seeking to have these arrangements concluded was to provide, as far as the Government could do so, an assured future for the industry and, in particular, for the workers in it. That has been done.

It has been suggested, in connection with the Bill, that one of its effects will be to restrict access to the trade, thereby adversely affecting the play of competition. In the first place, I would point out that the present freedom of access to the assembly industry is not being restricted in any way—any person or firm will be free to engage in the business of assembling motor vehicles from c.k.d. aggregates. Secondly, the point which has been made would only be valid if the existing situation in the industry indicated that there was a lack of adequate competition. I think anyone who considers the wide variety of makes and types of motor vehicle available on the Irish market and, in particular, anyone who has a knowledge of the trade, must admit that competition in the motor industry is just about as keen as it could be. Since all existing firms engaged in the assembly or importation of new motor vehicles will be eligible for registration, it is clear that the Bill will not interfere with the present full and free play of competition.

I mentioned in the Dáil and I think I should repeat here the appreciation not only of myself but also of my colleagues in the Government of the helpful co-operation which the manufacturers and assemblers displayed during the course of these negotiations. We are also appreciative of the assistance and co-operation afforded by the British Authorities. In conducting the negotiations and in making the duty adjustments, the Government did all it could to ensure the success of the negotiations but success would not have been possible without the goodwill of the other parties involved. These new arrangements have been welcomed by the industry and I am sure that the continued co-operation of management and the active support of the workers in the industry will ensure that the arrangements work out satisfactorily. I should, however, like to stress that the future of the industry will continue to depend on the attitudes of those engaged in it, both management and workers. The initiative taken by the Government in having the arrangements agreed and in promoting the legislation now before this House affords the industry an exceptional opportunity for the future. Their own interest and the interest of the economy as a whole places on management and workers alike the obligation of ensuring that nothing is done to jeopardise the successful operation of these new arrangements for the long period ahead which is envisaged for their duration.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

While this Bill is an ingenious solution to the problem of preserving temporarily this particular industry in its present form and on its present scale, it is not a measure about which one can be too happy. It runs quite contrary to the stated philosophy of the Government in regard to the adaptation of industry in this country to free trade conditions. It is based on the assumption either that we shall not join the EEC—and that is directly contrary to all Government statements and assumptions—or that when we join it we shall get a concession in this matter of a kind which is—I was going to say improbable but I regard that as a misleading word—one which it is almost certain that we cannot and will not get, a concession that runs so completely contrary to the philosophy of the EEC and to the way in which they have managed their affairs that there is, as far as I am aware, no grounds for believing that such a concession can be obtained. I shall go back to that again but on that basis this arrangement is one of a temporary character, a very temporary character except on the assumption that we are not going to join the EEC. I have a feeling sometimes that the members of the Government say one thing and mean another on this particular issue and that while we are constantly being told that we shall be joining the EEC this is not believed to the point where practical Government policies are implemented on that assumption.

This arrangement is one which will preserve quite effectively the industry in its present shape and on the scale on which it was operating in 1965 so long as we do not become a member of the EEC. It involves an arrangement, one might say, in contravention of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement but one carried out with the agreement of the UK Government. Of course, the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement is one between two partners who are free to vary it any way they like and are not answerable to anybody. It is one, moreover, based on no philosophy as the EEC is but simply on considerations of practical mutual convenience and reciprocal advantage, indeed reciprocal advantage which I think has been greatly miscalculated on our part. That, at any rate, is the basis of it.

There was, therefore, no problem in putting this proposal to the British Government and in securing their agreement. All that was necessary was to convince them that certain short-term advantages from their point of view sufficiently outweighed any long-term losses involved. There was no problem of persuading them to reverse philosophy of outlook or to change commitments that they have entered into with other countries. It was a straightforward bilateral transaction. In one sense the Government are to be congratulated for having negotiated it successfully, if all that one is concerned with is the preservation of this industry in its present shape for a few more years, or if one assumes that we shall not at any stage in the next 25 years join the EEC. I think that the Minister has done a disservice to the industry, to the workers in the industry and to the Irish economy not by making this arrangement, which is defensible up to a point, not so much that as by the terms in which it has been announced. From the beginning a spurious picture of semi-permanency has been spread around, since the first leakage to all three national newspapers simultaneously, rather oddly, during the Cork by-election, through the speeches in the Dáil by the Minister right up to his introductory speech here today. A figure of 25 years has been mentioned repeatedly as the period for which this will operate and the Minister in dealing with this in the Dáil, at column 153, No. 1, Volume 234 of the Official Report, spoke as follows:

As I have said, it is not possible for me at this stage to say what the outcome of our negotiations in regard to entry into the EEC will be in so far as this concerns the motor assembly industry. Obvously, I cannot give any concrete assurance in that regard, but, nevertheless, it would be unrealistic not to recognise the fact, as I pointed out, that this scheme, on a strict interpretation of the Free Trade Area Agreement, is contrary to it. Nevertheless, the scheme has evolved and been agreed to as a result of negotiations.

Secondly, as far as the Commission of EEC is concerned, it has demonstrated on a number of occasions in its operations that, while it is anxious to secure equal application of the rules of the Community within the Community, it has regard to special difficulties arising in the economy of any particular member and is prepared to make special arrangements where special difficulties arise. While I cannot enter into any commitment in advance of such negotiations, I think I can say it would be unduly pessimistic to visualise that this arrangement could not carry on when we are within EEC. There might possibly be some modifications of the scheme.

I should like to ask the Minister what evidence he has in any case within the EEC at the moment on the basis of the extensive case law built up that an exception of this kind to the stringent provisions has been allowed in comparable conditions to the conditions we are concerned with here. The case is less likely even than a normal case to be accepted because this industry is recognised as being one which in its present form is not viable. It is the very kind of industry visualised as being a target for free trade, an industry which was set up not even because people wanted to manufacture cars and sought a tariff but because they were forced to do so by the Government telling them they would not be allowed to import cars unless they examined them here.

This is artificial in its origin and in its economic character because in regard to most other industries here they have shown some concern. We all know that many of those industries could not survive under Free Trade conditions. This matter here is one which imposes substantial additional costs of a very arbitrary nature on the consumer as I will point out in a moment. They are not following any reasonable pattern and under Free Trade conditions this industry would disappear. I have no reason to believe that exceptions would be made in this case. If the Minister has such reason which he may have received in any discussions he may have had with the Community, he should give that here. I have no example of this being done in comparable circumstances but if the Minister knows of such I should be glad to hear them.

We are told here by the Minister that they have a period of 25 years in mind. The Minister has not made any statement in the other House about any assurances he may have got. If the Minister can give such assurance he should do so now and if he cannot, then he is failing in his duty in regard to the workers in this industry. It is wrong that they should be deceived into believing they are safe for another 25 years. It is wrong that they should be led into thinking that this can be postponed or that, in fact, a decision can be put off completely because of this spurious assurance that they can obtain semi-permanent employment in this uneconomic activity.

The whole tenor of the Government's speeches and the Government's policy in other spheres has been to secure the adaptation of industry under free trade conditions and to secure that where existing operations in industries are not going to survive, alternative employment is provided and the industry itself is geared to another kind of activity which would be economic. It seems that what has happened here is that the firm concerned are being allowed to proceed on exactly the same lines as they have done in the past. As a result of the CIO report efforts should have been made to persuade those firms to undertake alternative manufacturing activities. However, those people were not interested in this and were not interested in the livelihood of their workers. They said: "We are distributors and we are going on assembling as we have been doing. We are not going to get involved in some other activities. When free trade comes along we will be prepared to take over some other activity." The duty of the Government was to persuade those people to change their minds and take steps to introduce alternative activities, to phase out the industry and re-employ the workers in other kinds of activities for which they could be re-trained if necessary or could undertake without much retraining.

The Government, instead of this, gave in to the pressure put on them by those people. They took the easy way out, that is the safe way out, for the next few years. The workers concerned may certainly be misled into thinking the Government have done them a good turn by preserving their present employment in its present form. Workers are shortsighted in this respect The unions are also shortsighted. They are only concerned with immediate employment and are not so concerned with what happens ultimately.

The assemblers have got the right to import any cars needed over and above the 1965 production. They can bring in cars for shorter lines which are uneconomic to produce here. The workers are satisfied because their employment has been preserved and they have been misled into thinking it will be preserved for 25 years, which if we join the EEC will not be the case. The trade unions also are satisfied but I do not think that we in this House can be satisfied with this solution. It is dangerous to postpone this matter because it is by no means certain if we join the EEC it will be possible to establish some alternative employment for the 3,000 workers involved. The very fact of creating alternative employment was so difficult that the Government found themselves unable to persuade the employers to change their minds. Instead it has been put off until the last moment when the real state of those workers will be much worse.

It is irresponsible to do this. I would quite accept that the Government in introducing a Bill of this kind were doing so to ease transition. If the Minister had told us that was so and that he was anxious to establish viable employment for those people, I would be satisfied. If I was told that he was undertaking steps to ensure alternative employment was provided over the next few years and that if that was done this system would be phased out and that he was in a position to say at this stage by the time we join the EEC the employment of those workers would be safeguarded by being re-employed, I would be quite satisfied. If the Minister had done so I would be prepared to congratulate him.

Ever since the NIEC report there has been continual suspicion in the minds of the people concerned with this problem that it would be evaded like this. It has been the concern of all of us who have been concerned with this problem that this is what would happen. It is out of character with the rest of what the Government are trying to do. Much good work has been done in the field of adaptation in the industrial sector. We must regret that this record has been marred in this instance by adopting this procedure. I want to make clear that it is not the actual arrangement I fault. It is in fact that it is regarded by the Government as permanent and that it is stated by them to be so. This is dishonest and misleading and it is something which this House and the Dáil will eventually hold the Minister and the Government responsible for when we join the EEC and face the problems which will be left to us by the legacy of this Bill and the Government's attitude to it.

I do not think the workers concerned will readily forgive the Government for not having tackled this problem in the way in which it was recommended it should be tackled. I said earlier that the old system of pricing in this industry is arbitrary. I think if the Minister were serious about his price control mechanism, which is not very effective because it is a mechanism which is almost impracticable to operate under normal conditions; it is an emergency type of arrangement to meet an emergency type of situation and it cannot continue to work certainly under normal conditions, he would have used that mechanism to explore and investigate the price situation in this industry.

The Minister is aware, or he should be, of an interesting study carried out by Doctor Nevin of the Economic Research Institute. He may have carried it out privately and not under the Institute. It concerns prices here and in Great Britain and the discrepancies between the different cases here which are of an order of magnitude which are not applicable to any known factor nor are those mentioned by the Minister in his speech. He mentioned the case where cars had to be taken to pieces and where their price discrepancy was very great but not of the order of magnitude of price discrepancy shown in the particular article, which unfortunately, was not published. It would have been an eye opener for people to see how in some cases they are getting extremely good value and how in some cases they are getting across here at a price which really is the British price plus the revenue duty charge here on assembled parts but in other cases are paying half as much again. I myself did a very minor study of a similar kind in relation to French cars five years ago and what I discovered in relation to the three main makes at that time showed a very similar picture. The Renault Dauphine showed the Irish price 20 per cent above the French price. In the case of the other French makes the difference in price was 50 per cent and 80 per cent respectively. This is not readily explained by any considerations which the Minister mentioned, and the whole question of this price relationship needs to be looked into. If we are going to give people this statutory monopoly and this right to make profits at the expense of the Irish people, then there should be a requirement that they should justify their prices.

The Minister has shown genuine concern about prices in some instances and has even gone too far in his enthusiasm to tackle the problem. He should show more concern here where he is conferring on firms in this industry a statutory monopoly and saying that we may not buy in this country a car from abroad and pay the duty on it, as we can do under the free trade arrangement for almost any commodity, and will be able to do without paying duty in the case of British goods in relation to other commodities in a few years time, but he says that we cannot do this, but must pay whatever price the Irish assembler wishes to charge us.

I want to say—and this is an important qualification in making this point about different price levels—that some of these differences are not the fault of the Irish assembler. There is evidence that in some instances they are charged for goods of different makes very different prices by the firm in France or Britain or wherever it may be. The Minister has a duty to investigate and make sure that when that happens there is justification for these price differences. Why should we be put into the position of being exploited by the British manufacturer in conjunction with the Irish assembler? The Minister has a duty to investigate the charges made to the Irish assembler and the prices at which he is getting parts, which may be quite different from those at which they are sold to other countries.

There are extraordinary variations in the prices at which CKD parts are sold by manufacturers to different countries. There is an element of exploitation of us in this country by foreign manufacturers in addition to whatever exploitation there might be by Irish assemblers. Where we are conferring a statutory monopoly at the expense of the Irish people the Minister has a duty, which he has not got in other cases where there is a free market system, to use the price control mechanism to investigate these differences and to publish the results of the investigation so that the Irish people may know whether they are being exploited by the British manufacturers or by the Irish assemblers. We are having at the moment in a current case some insight into how the assemblers work and it does not give us reason for great confidence in the efficiency of the industry in all respects.

The Minister has said that anybody can start up assembling without any difficulty and that this would not confer a monopoly on the existing assemblers. I should like an assurance that where an English manufacturer is unhappy over the present arrangements and wishes to change them he can, in fact, do so, and that the Bill has not conferred a monopoly in respect of existing makes on existing assemblers as distinct from merely leaving it open for new makes to be assembled by new assemblers. This is quite important. Is the present position something which the British manufacturers are aware of, and is it the position that if at some stage they wish to change the assemblers because they are not satisfied with the efficiency of the work of the present assembler that this can be done and that a new assembler will get the same licence for the importation of assembled cars as the previous assembler had? The Minister did not specifically mention this though it may be implied in what he said, and I would like a specific assurance on it.

Those are the points which I wanted to make. I should like to reiterate my concern at the lack of any real foresight and at this easy assumption that the problem can be solved with the EEC. I have some knowledge of how it works, and while I cannot claim to know everything about it, everything I have seen in Brussels, everything I know about it, and everything I have read about the EEC suggests that this is a most unlikely concession for us to get. We will get certain concessions in certain spheres regarding the industrial grants system and, perhaps, also in regard to export tax relief continuing to 1980 or 1983, or Shannon concessions, and concessions in regard to problems of dumping, which are very difficult ones. But the concession required by this Bill is so much against the entire philosophy and practice of the Community that unless the Minister has specific assurances of some kind or evidence which I have not got of this being allowed, I think he has no right to suggest that it is pessimistic to think that this cannot be continued under the EEC, and no right to suggest to Irish workers that he is preserving their employment permanently by this Bill or doing anything to postpone the evil day when they must lose their employment, or to suggest that it can be preserved by postponing the time when this problem has to be tackled.

Mr. O'Quigley

As is not unusual in this House, when Senator FitzGerald has spoken on Bills of this kind he has thrown quite a great deal of light on them.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

And heat.

Mr. O'Quigley

Generated, perhaps, necessary heat. In my view it may be of some relevance to say that when I read this Bill I thought that it was a very curious measure. It is extraordinarily difficult at times for Members of the Oireachtas to follow Bills of this kind, when what happens in the case of many Departments does not happen in the case of most Bills produced by the Department of Industry and Commerce. That Department never affords to the Houses of the Oireachtas the courtesy—or seldom does so—of an explanatory memorandum. It is a great pity that they do not.

At any rate, it became fairly clear from reading the Bill that it was designed or constructed so as to hide the purpose for which it was intended. It is an extraordinary business, but, of course this is the kind of procedure that we are adapting that we should be getting rid of, that in order to effect what the Minister wants to do, that is, to enable motor assemblers in this country to continue in the business and to get certain concessions that they would not be entitled to, the Minister has to give a direction to the Revenue Commissioners to compile a register, as if the register could not be compiled in his own Department, and then the Minister will give a direction to amend the register and this has to be given to the Revenue Commissioners, and the Minister can give a direction to cancel a registration.

We have all this kind of outmoded procedure, and I do not know why the register cannot be kept in the Department of Industry and Commerce or by the motor assemblers. If the Revenue Commissioners for customs purposes want to find out who is entitled to import these under the concessions provided, why could they not be sent a duplicate of every registration by the Department of Industry and Commerce? It would never do to do that kind of thing. However, this is the Civil Service procedure, and until we have some kind of Government that is prepared to put a bit of new life into the Civil Service we will be saddled with this kind of rigmarole on Bills of this kind. It is a pity that we do not have something in the nature of a political retreat from time to time like religious retreats and do a bit of contemplation about our political lives. If the public were to take stock of this present Government now in 1968 and compare all the things that were promised them in 1965, with the performance, there would certainly be a very long confession to so-called clerics. It would be a long confession and it would be mainly sins of omission, and some sins of commission too, I have no doubt.

Mr. Colley

Like the various Acts we brought in that we did not even promise.

Mr. O'Quigley

There will be a great long confession of sins of omission and commission. I recollect the former Taoiseach, Deputy Lemass, going around the country in 1965 promising the people of Ireland the youngest government in Europe and all that was implied in that. Put against that their miserable, lame performance in this Bill. I think that the Government owe an apology to the people.

Mr. Dolan

The Senator expressed himself differently on other occasions.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Would the Senator care to read out the policy of the first Coalition Government?

Mr. Rooney

Their record in agriculture, housing and industry has not been reached.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Go out to the Spring Show now.

Mr. O'Quigley

There never was such a shortage of credit in the days of the inter-Party Government as there was in 1967.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I should like to know what this has to do with the Bill.

Mr. O'Quigley

I am talking about the youngest Government in Europe.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

What has that to do with the Bill?

Mr. O'Quigley

If the Leader of the House will restrain himself and bear with me, I will explain.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I find it hard to do that.

Mr. O'Quigley

I understood that the youngest government in Europe were to introduce dynamic policies to prepare us for free trade.

Mr. Dolan

A school bus on every road for our children for a start off.

Mr. Rooney

A Fine Gael policy.

Mr. O'Quigley

It is long since that was done. What do we now find? We find a situation in which no attempt whatever is made to prepare the motor assembly industry for this free trade. There is no preparation as far as I can see for the re-employment of the redundant employees in the motor assembly industry but they are being told by the Minister that if the Bill is passed their future is assured for apparently 35 years. That is not to my mind the preparing of this country for free trade and I do not think the Minister will suggest that the Bill is in any sense a preparation of this country or the motor assembly industry for free trade. It is merely a stop-gap, a temporary measure designed to prevent workers in the motor assembly industry from being disemployed in consequence of the full application of the Free Trade Area Agreement between Great Britain and this country. This is the way we will go on. I saw what happened when we had competition in relation to the importation of motor tyres. There was a great squawk. New arrangements were made but the old system prevailed. When I tried to get four radial three-ply tyres from Dunlops last year, I could not buy them in the city of Dublin. They were not to be had and they would not have them for a month and that was for an ordinary make of car. If we are to have a monopoly and to continue a monopoly in the motor assembly industry in this country we ought to do two things. One, as Senator FitzGerald said, should be to investigate the prices of cars and see whether prices ought not be lower than they are. I think everybody will accept that the margin of profit on motor cars is quite scandalous and that this huge profit can be made at the expense of the unwary who do not have the capacity to bargain and do not know anything about trade and so on. This should not be permitted. It is a matter which the Minister for Industry and Commerce should investigate.

There is an equally important matter which should be provided for in the Bill. If we are going to make the Irish purchaser of imported motor cars pay higher than he ought to, we should insist on a proper standard of production and assembly from the motor manufacturers in this country. I have no doubt that some people opposite will say that I am decrying the Irish manufacturers and you are trying to stab Irish industry in the back. We all know that the standard of assembly of motor cars in this country falls very short of what it ought to be and the same applies to the assembly of motor cars in Britain. Our Irish workers are no worse than English workers but a great deal better.

Mr. Colley

I am glad the Senator made that point because it is true.

Mr. O'Quigley

It is true. I want to make the point that the standard of assembly could be a great deal higher. In that context, why, when he was making his bargain with the motor assemblers did the Minister not insist on some body being set up to lay down a standard and investigate low standards in high priced and medium priced cars? Every day somebody buys a new car, signs away his rights in a fraudulent document presented to him by the garage man and he gets no satisfaction from the garage man and the motor assemblers.

The public should be alerted and it should be the duty of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to alert the public to the fraudulent document handed to the purchasers of motor cars which is headed "Guarantee". If they sign when they read the guarantee they think they will be entitled to free service for the first 2,000 miles or six months, whichever is the shorter. In fact, what people are doing is signing away the implied warranties of maintenance and quality and to which there is no six months' bar.

I had the experience of buying a new car and in six to 12 months three sets of shock absorbers had to be fitted. I was told that they were a bad set of shock absorbers. I was not signing away any rights I had but this is the kind of thing the Department of Industry and Commerce should alert the public to. If they did we would have a higher standard of performance by the motor assemblers. In any event, if we are to grant a monopoly to anybody, be they manufacturers of motor cars or anything else, the Department of Industry and Commerce has a duty to see that a corresponding standard of performance is maintained by those people who are given the monopoly. It is most unfair that the public should be constantly called on to swell the profits of Irish manufacturers and receive no help whatever from the appropriate or relevant Department of State.

Mr. Colley

Would the Senator explain what he means by a monopoly in this context?

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

You must buy your car here.

Mr. O'Quigley

The only car you can buy in this country is one that is manufactured here. Otherwise you will have to pay a very high duty.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

You can buy other goods from outside if you are prepared to pay the duty on them but you cannot do that in the case of cars.

Mr. O'Quigley

That is what I mean when I use the word "monopoly".

Mr. Colley

But there is competition between the motor car assemblers, the same as there is in other lines of goods.

Mr. O'Quigley

There is great competition between the petrol companies, but at the same time they all charge the consumer the same price. There is great advertising at the moment about the tiger and there is great competition amongst them, but still we all have to pay the same price for petrol.

Mr. Yeats

Some petrols are cheaper. You do not go to the right garages.

Mr. O'Quigley

There is this kind of show competition between the petrol companies but they all charge the same price. There is also that show competition between the motor car assemblers but they, too, also charge the same price and we have to put up with the same inefficiency. This is where the Minister should protect the public and he should invite the public, where they have grounds for complaint, to report to his Department instances where they cannot get satisfaction from the assemblers. In the long run such a procedure would be good for the workers and the manufacturers. It would be good for them to know that a high standard was being set for them and that they would have to live up to it.

The details of the Bill are very curious because I notice that the Minister is empowered to give a direction to the Revenue Commissioners to open a register and to put somebody on it. After that solemn direction has been duly complied with, the person on the register can then import motor vehicles in their knocked down condition. I would like to know from the Minister will that register be open to public inspection or will it be a private, secret, Revenue document which only the elect can see? The Minister says that he has got an assurance which he considers satisfactory, and in section 4 of the Bill we have the provision that where the Minister is of the opinion that the registered person has not complied with this assurance, he can then direct the Revenue Commissioners to cancel the registration of the person concerned.

I object most vehemently to this kind of situation which arises when a Minister is empowered to give licences. It will be clear from what I have been saying that I hold no brief for the motor assemblers but I always object to the idea of a Minister—I do not say this particular Minister—having the power to put pressure on a manufacturer, and the Minister can put pressure under this section because he can decide whether the manufacturer shall stay in the business or not. If the registration of a motor vehicle importer is to be cancelled, it should be done by somebody other than the Minister. It can lead to abuse if a Minister is in a position to put pressure on an industrialist and the industrialist always knows and feels that he must stay in the good books of the Minister. That is an undesirable and unhealthy state of affairs.

If a registration is to be cancelled, it should be cancelled on the complaint of the Minister but by somebody independent and outside of the Minister. There does not have to be anything in the nature of a public inquiry or investigation but somebody quite independent of the Minister should be the person to decide whether an importer is to remain on the register. It would be in ease of the Minister in this and in similar Bills if he did not have to do the actual direction of cancelling somebody's registration, but, if it were found after official investigation that matters were not as they should be and that the assurances given were not complied with, the Minister would pass to somebody else the determination as to whether or not the assurance which had been given had been complied with. I would urge the Minister to consider his own position in that regard under the Bill and whether he ought not to establish some other person, even in the half-hearted way in which that was done in the Livestock Marts Bill, of unhappy memory, of 1967.

Mr. McDonald

As regards section 2 and section 6, are we to take it that an individual will be free to import for his own use a car that is not assembled here? Would a motor enthusiast, even if not registered, be free to approach the Minister to bring in a specific type of vehicle for his own use and not necessarily for sale?

A matter that has been interesting me for some time is the extremely high price the Irish public are charged for spare parts. Perhaps the Minister might apply his mind to this and see if anything could be done to reduce this extremely high cost to the Irish motorist. I read somewhere recently that the average life of a car in this country is seven years as compared with five years in Britain. One of the reasons for this difference is that rural people who buy secondhand cars cannot afford to pay the extremely high rate of tax on the high-powered cars and therefore the bigger cars arrive on the scrapheap much earlier than the smaller ones. It would be in the interests of the national economy if the Minister gave some consideration to giving taxation concessions to cars which reach an average life of seven years and over, provided they are otherwise mechanically sound.

I was interested recently in the big trade in the importation of buses for the school free-transport scheme. Many buses are being imported and I do not think such imports come under the Bill. What will be the position in the future in relation to this type of vehicle? Will it be as bad as it is at the moment or will there be an arrangement whereby people can import these vehicles on a percentage scale of duty? There is need to look into the existing situation. CIE manufacture their own vehicles and run them until there is little life left in them, but people in private business must import them either from Northern Ireland or Britain and are charged high rates. This seems to be unjust when one considers the important service they are giving to the public. When the Bill is passed, will the position in this respect change or has the Minister in mind the introduction of a Bill which will deal with the categories not included in this measure? There are a few other points which are more appropriate to Committee Stage and I shall leave them until then.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

I want to make just two points. I do not really understand how this Bill is intended to work out. The Minister has told us generally that the Bill will be for the benefit of workers in the motor assembly trade and he said that the principal objective of the Government in seeking to have these arrangements concluded is to provide an assured future for the industry, and in particular for the workers in it. That has been done the Minister said, but I am not quite sure how. One of the basic requirements, as I understand it, for registration of these assemblers who are now to be allowed to import fully made-up cars—one of the guarantees they have to give—is that they will maintain the level of their assembly operations, which means. I take it, that they will assemble as many cars as they used to do.

As well, they will have the right to import more cars, fully built-up. As well as that, some firms that are not assemblers will be allowed to import fully made-up cars. My question is where is the market to come from? I had been prepared to assume that there will be an ever-increasing market, or at any rate that the market will increase a bit more, but how will it absorb not only the present level of assembled cars but also the additional level of cars imported by these same assemblers, fully made-up, plus fully made-up cars imported by distributors who are not assemblers? I fear that the very large number of cars which will be on the market in the circumstances will not be taken up by the public, with the result, as I see it, that in fact if the Minister thinks these assemblers will really be able to maintain the level of their assembly operations, he is deceiving himself. I do not think they will be.

Furthermore, why is it the Minister thinks apparently that the same number of workers will be required by an assembly firm which will in fact, I think, be assembling fewer cars—how does he think the distribution of already fully made-up imported cars will absorb the same labour force by those no longer assembling them? In other words, it would seem that this is a well-intentioned Bill but one which in practice will not achieve the aims that the Minister has in mind.

Mr. Murphy

We had better face the facts presented by this Bill. What we have here is a device to try to meet one of the bad effects of the Free Trade Area Agreement with Britain. What we are doing here is entering into an arrangement with motor assemblers which will allow them to bring in fully-assembled vehicles at a lower rate of duty than would otherwise be the case, providing they maintain the existing level of assembly within the country.

The Bill is welcome in so far as it goes but it seems to me to be a rather negative approach to the problem. What we are doing is trying to provide a device which will maintain the existing level of employment in an industry which should in fact be expanding, because I think we all accept that more and more cars will go on the roads and if we did not have this Free Trade Agreement, we would have the situation that more and more people would be finding employment in the motor assembly industry in this country.

Instead, we are putting a maximum to that: we are saying that employment in the motor assembly industry will not increase as it would have done if the Agreement had not been signed by the Government. In so far as it goes, the measure is welcome but I think we should realise that it is a rather negative device, because even though the Minister said that the period is generally understood to be not less than 25 years, if I live that long I shall be very surprised to find that this arrangement will have continued 25 years and that the motor assemblers or their successors have stood by this arrangement and that the number of people now employed in motor assembly will still be in employment in it 25 years from now. Frankly, I do not believe it.

I do not know what the answer is because, as I have said, it is one of the ill effects flowing from the Agreement with Britain. We in the Labour Party opposed that Agreement. We warned that it would lead to unemployment. Now we are to have for this industry a rather complicated arrangement entered into which puts a ceiling effect on employment in an industry which otherwise would be expanding and providing more employment for our people at home.

These remarks may appear to be critical. In spite of that, I would like to congratulate the Minister on getting this arrangement. I suppose it was the best he could do in the circumstances in which he is placed but I hope he will keep a very wary eye on the position and will see to it that no other arrangements are entered into which would in future years take from the value of the agreement he has made, because of course the agreement as it stands at the moment is to the benefit of the motor assemblers. They are getting a concession which they would not otherwise get until seven or eight years from now. They are getting an advantage and I hope the Minister will see to it that, having got that immediate advantage, they will stand by their part of the bargain and we will see no closures of motor assembly firms here with thousands of workers thrown out of employment maybe in two or three years time.

Mr. Rooney

Protection is the main theme of the Minister's statement. That protection is no doubt a result of the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement. We remember that when that Agreement was announced, it was pointed out that the first industry to bear the brunt of it would be the motor industry and that the motor industry could just get ready to go out of business. We now have this Bill brought in to provide protection for that industry. There is nothing in the Minister's statement to show that the Minister is just as anxious to ensure that Irish motorists will be protected so far as the standard of assembly and the prices charged are concerned. Most of us are shocked when we read a catalogue of prices of British assembled cars which are also assembled here and compare the prices in England with those here. The Irish motor assemblers say the reason is that they are compelled to use parts which are manufactured in Ireland and that if they were not compelled to do this, they would be in a position to offer the cars at a price comparable with the price in Britain.

On the basis of the retail price of certain British assembled cars and the price of similar cars assembled here and the difference in the price, let us examine the argument the Irish assemblers put forward concerning the inclusion of Irish manufactured parts in the assembly of these cars. When we see the difference, let us then tot up the difference between the cost of similar parts in the British cars and the parts put in in Ireland. We find that there is still a difference that needs to be explained. It must be remembered also that in England there is a purchase tax which there does not operate here. That is a very big part of the retail price of a car in England and still the price of an Irish assembled car is higher. Let us have an explanation of that difference.

It may be argued, for instance, that we have no steel industries here to provide the necessary steel for the manufacture and assembly of cars and that we have not other necessary basic raw materials. If we take the wholesale prices of those parts which are obtainable in Britain and originated there, we should only add to that the cost of transport because when we compare the rates of pay—I depend on Senator Murphy and the other trade union members to keep me right on this—I believe that those engaged in the motor assembly business in England are paid higher wages than those engaged in it here. If that is so, the difference in the labour costs of assembling a car here, taking it that an Irish worker can give the same output per hour, per day or per week as an English worker, we see that transport should be the only difference between the retail price of a car in this country and the price in Britain.

For that reason we should ask the Minister also if he has discussed with these motor assemblers whether they have ever considered the possibility of going into the export business. There are industries in this country importing raw materials, processing them and doing very well in the export market. Is the motor trade in a position in which they are unable to import the parts, assemble the cars here and compete in the export market? Other industries are doing it. Is there any hope at all that the motor industry will be in a position to go into the export business, because if not, it is obvious that the industry itself must go down unless Irish motorists are compelled to pay exorbitant prices for Irish assembled cars compared with similar makes assembled in Britain.

That is a point which I feel should have been mentioned in the Minister's speech, the possibility of getting motor assemblers to realise that with the small population of Ireland and the number they hope to keep engaged in that industry, particularly having regard to modern techniques and working methods which are offset to some extent of course by a shorter working week, they would need to go into the export business. When I mention a shorter working week, I know that in fact this point was brought up after the Free Trade Agreement. It was pointed out that the way to keep the Irish assembly workers in the business was to reduce the working week, that that might have the effect because of course the output would be lower. It is obvious that in our present set-up it should be possible for our Irish motor assemblers to produce more cars than the Irish people are capable of using. The only prospect then for those assemblers to keep in business at a competitive price is to go into the export market. There is no mention of that and apparently there seems to be no prospect of it.

I would like to have the Minister's views on this because I feel that just providing protection is only subsidising or throwing a sop to the industry to keep them going. I believe it is not a practicable proposition. I believe that there will be big changes in the next 25 years and that the provision of a protection period of not less than 25 years will hardly have any effect even in ten years' time. We must move with the times and with the changes in methods.

Minister for Industry and Commerce (Mr. Colley)

I am not aware of any industry, in this country or anywhere else, whether motor vehicles or otherwise, which is purely assembling, which would compete on an export market. An industry which is manufacturing and is not perhaps importing raw materials in my opinion has not a hope of competing on any export market. Therefore, the suggestion made by Senator Rooney that the future of this industry depends on its ability to export is in my opinion not well founded. There are, as distinct from that, some firms in this country which are manufacturing parts of cars. Indeed, some are exporting at the moment and others are developing export markets. That, of course, will carry on under free trade conditions. Some of them I know are going to expand. This is quite separate from the problem we are dealing with here.

Before I get to the basic points involved in the debate there are a few relevant small points I might get out of the way. There was a reference to school buses. The position is that buses carrying more than 16 people, inclusive of the driver, are not covered by this Bill which means that the regulations, which have applied heretofore, will continue to apply to those larger buses. The position will be as it has been up to now.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington could not see how this scheme could work, having regard to I think he said the level of assembly, plus the import of fully built-up vehicles, plus the import of fully built-up vehicles by non-assemblers. I think he is looking at this from the wrong end. The basic thing is the maintenance of the existing level of assembly. An assembler who was importing so many cars that his level of assembly dropped would put himself in jeopardy in that he might be removed from the register provided for in the Bill, which would put him out of business altogether as regards imports of fully built-up vehicles.

The pressure on him, in any event, will be to maintain his level of assembly. The importation of fully-built-up vehicles can only arise over and above that in connection with the growth in the market. If there should be any drop what has to drop first is the importation of fully built-up vehicles. The basic thing is the maintenance of assembly.

At the moment the market is quite buoyant. As far as I know, most of the assemblers are working at full stretch with maximum overtime. They are allowed to import fully built-up vehicles but even working at that pitch imports are working at about five per cent. Most imports of fully built-up vehicles by the non-assemblers, as I said on the Bill, would be quite small in relation to the market and would not affect the issue at all. The important fact in this connection is the ratio between the cars assembled and the cars fully built-up by assemblers. Their position is that they must maintain assembly. If there is to be any cutting down in the number of cars operated by them it must be in the importation of fully assembled cars.

Dr. Sheehy Skeffington

What about the non-assemblers?

Mr. Colley

There is a very small number involved here. It is a continuation of something which existed in the past. The numbers involved are very small. There has always been a practice whereby tourists, to whom I referred, and people changing residence and that kind of case, may import fully built-up cars without paying the duty. Somebody made some reference to this importation by individuals. The position will continue as before. Each case is individually examined and decided on its merits.

Somebody made the criticism that no explanatory memorandum was issued with this Bill. All I can say in that regard is that there has been a very full public announcement explaining the details of the scheme and I do not think the issue of an explanatory memorandum would have been very much more effective in explaining what was involved here.

Quite a lot was said about the price at which Irish assembled cars are sold as compared with British cars. Senator Rooney spoke at some length about this. I do not think he referred to the two major items which should be considered in any examination of this. The first one is that the completely CKD aggregates coming into this duty are subject to revenue duty which up to last year was 20 per cent and is now 17½ per cent. In addition, the cost to the assemblers of the CKD parts is a very important point as compared with the cost of those parts to the British manufacturer. There is a very substantial difference. Those are two major points which must be taken into account. Reference was made to assemblers being obliged to use certain parts made here. Frankly, I did not hear that explanation before although I could believe it was made. I believe it is a very small point. If it adds to the cost, I believe the amount involved is very small.

Mr. Rooney

It is the usual excuse.

Mr. Colley

The amount involved is very small. Senator FitzGerald in referring to the cost of the CKD referred to the fact that they are sold at different prices in different countries. This is true. Apart from freight cost also relevant is the state of the knocked-down car when it comes. This affects very much the cost both to the manufacturer and the price he is going to charge. Apparently it makes quite a difference to him and it does not follow if we will be able to supply 50 per cent of the knocked-down that this should be 50 per cent of the cost of a completely built-up one. This does not follow at all. In fact, it would be very much dearer. It would be 80 per cent because of the increased cost to the manufacturer in its disruption of the assembly line.

Mr. Rooney

It is far from the knocked-down price.

Mr. Colley

What comes in here?

Mr. Rooney

It is not completely knocked-down.

Mr. Colley

Sometimes it is cheaper for the manufacturer to do it that way rather than knock it down. The degree to which this is done differs. It differs in different countries depending on the assembly.

Senator Murphy suggested that if we had not negotiated the Free Trade Area Agreement there would be more employment in this country. This is a possibility, but there is one thing about which we can be certain—if we had not concluded that Agreement a great number of people in other industries would be out of employment. The growth of our industries, particularly our export industries, and the increases in employment in them in many cases is directly due and in other cases indirectly due to the opperation of the Free Trade Area Agreement. The whole movement involved in getting into free trade, and which was unavoidable to us as we looked around the world, and was incorporated in this Free Trade Area Agreement, and our industries have been cushioned to a great extent against immediate free trade conditions in entering into that Agreement, in accepting that free trade was inevitable and that the best thing to do was to control the onset of it rather than to let it happen by chance, which was the basic thinking behind it. It was generally recognised that we would have to pay a certain price, and one of the items in the price we were expected to have to pay was the disappearance of the motor assembly industry and of the jobs of many thousands of workers engaged in it, but in fact we have succeeded in concluding the Agreement and getting the benefits of it and in retaining the assembly industry and the jobs involved.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Temporarily.

Mr. Colley

I am coming to that, but I am dealing now with the contention made by Senator Murphy that if we had not made the Agreement, we would be better off. This is not true. We would be far worse off; there would be no hope for the industry in the long-term or the short-term, and many more workers would be out of employment.

Now on the question of the length of this scheme and the implications for us of membership of the EEC, I think that Senator FitzGerald must accept that it is not in our national interest to start putting objections into the mouths of the people who will negotiate on behalf of the EEC with us, and that it is not reasonable to expect me to state our position on this in detail, that is, the position which we would take up in the negotiations. As I have said, on other occasions in connection with this matter, one cannot of course be absolutely certain what the results of this will be because it will depend upon the negotiations and one cannot spell out in detail beforehand one's stand in such negotiations, but I think it is not unreasonable that we should have regard to the general philosophy of the EEC——

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Yes.

Mr. Colley

——as it is operated in practice, and there are two items in this regard which I think are very important. One is the point I have mentioned in the Dáil and which I think Senator FitzGerald quoted, and that is, that the EEC, particularly the EEC Commission, is very anxious to ensure that membership does not result in serious injury to the economy of one of its members, and it has on occasions gone to considerable length to avoid that kind of injury.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Giving 18 months maximum period to the French refrigerator industry, for example.

Mr. Colley

That is a different situation from what we are talking about, as I think the Senator appreciates. I would ask Senator FitzGerald if he is aware of the situation arising within the EEC at present and that has been there since the beginning despite the general philosophy behind it —is he aware of the position that obtains in regard to capital goods industries, particularly those with advanced technologies? Does he think that there is free trade in those goods? Does he not know that there is no such thing operating, and that all the member Governments who have such industries give particular preferences to their own industries, and for very good reasons that it is accepted that the Commission knows that this is so, and deplores it in theory because it is contrary to the philosophy of the EEC but accepts that it must happen in practice?

As I say, I do not want to go into too much detail about the position we would intend to take on this, but it is important that we should realise that the EEC, whatever its basic philosophy may be, is a human institution and does not adhere in practice to all its tenets and probably never will. I do not suppose that any human institution ever will. To the extent that it does not, it is necessary for us to avail of such opportunities in our negotiations with the EEC, and it is my belief—as I have said one cannot of course speak with certainty in this matter—from my knowledge of the situation that it should be possible for us in our negotiations with the EEC to retain fundamentally the structure of this scheme and whatever changes there might be—some, I would hope, fairly minor—in the way of concessions to EEC countries in it, the major portions of the scheme I believe could be and can be retained.

Again I would make the point I made in Dáil Éireann that this agreement on the face of it is completely contrary to the Free Trade Area Agreement and yet we have concluded such an agreement. It is also true that it would be contrary to the principles of the EEC, but because it is so does not mean that we cannot carry it into our negotiations and carry it in substantially the same form as it will be now with us into the EEC. I think it unfortunate from two points of view if we should give any other impression —one from the point of view of our negotiations, whenever they may come, and the other from the point of view of the people involved in the industry.

There is some misconception, judging from a number of statements I have heard from Senators, about this, and apparently the general belief is that this scheme may have been brought in for the benefit of the assemblers. The position to my knowledge is that certainly the majority of the assemblers, if not all of them, would make more money if we did not have this scheme, if the assembly industry disappeared and if they were depending solely on importing fully built-up vehicles. That being so, I think it is unfair to suggest that they went along with this scheme in their own interests, or to say, as one Senator said, that they had no interest except their profits, that they were not interested in anything else such as maintaining employment, because, remember, whatever pressure the Government might wish to bring to bear in a situation like this, without the full cooperation of all the parties concerned it could not have been done. The fact that it was done indicates that that full co-operation was forthcoming, and as far as I know, I believe that the majority of the assemblers at least stood to make more money by not agreeing to this scheme.

Senator O'Quigley seemed to be, as was suggested, wandering somewhat from the terms of the Bill, but at some stage he was talking about the youngest Cabinet in Europe and about this Bill being an example of the miserable performance of this Government. All I can say about that is that I am very glad that this matter was not left in the hands of a Fine Gael Government, because we can see from what was said here this evening what would have happened. Thousands of workers would have been thrown out of their jobs because it was believed that we could not do anything of this kind and negotiate with the EEC or because it was contrary to the Free Trade Area Agreement. This Government succeeded in concluding the agreement and in avoiding the major difficulty which was arising out of the Free Trade Area Agreement, this Government that Senator O'Quigley has such searbhas on. All I can say is I am glad it was not a Government of his Party who were handling this situation for the workers in that industry. What would happen to them? I hope they realise the attitude of the Fine Gael Party in this matter, that they have indicated they disapprove of this whole approach. I do not wish to misrepresent what was said. I could very easily do so but it is not misrepresenting the attitude of the Fine Gael Party as disclosed here tonight to say that they are opposed to this approach to the situation that arises for the motor assemblers.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

As a temporary measure; you are getting temporary employment. I said that specifically.

Mr. Colley

Anybody can make an airy-fairy statement about alternative employment. I am talking about the problems in real life, about people working in an assembly industry.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

You are talking about seeking alternative employment for them.

Mr. Colley

Since Senator O'Quigley chose to speak as he did, I think I am entitled to draw the attitude of the Fine Gael Party to the attention of all those whose livelihoods depend on this industry. I will do what little I can to draw their attention to that attitude.

Mr. O'Quigley

Misrepresent.

Mr. Colley

I could easily misrepresent.

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

The Minister is doing so.

Mr. Colley

I am not.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Read the speeches you made on the Free Trade Area Agreement in this House. Go back to the debates.

Mr. Colley

One of the points made by Senator O'Quigley was that this Bill provided for the keeping of a register by the Revenue Commissioners and he apparently regarded this as another example of the tired kind of government being produced by Fianna Fáil. It is all right to say that at a crossroads down in Limerick but we could do better than that in this House. The fact of the matter is that the practical operation of this Bill, in so far as built-up vehicles are concerned, is at the ports where the customs men are operating. The most effective and efficient thing is to have it operated through the Revenue Commissioners and the customs men who are on the spot and not have it referred to the Department of Industry and Commerce all the time.

This is the kind of thing Senator O'Quigley would say at a crossroad down in Limerick. I do not know if he was there recently but maybe he is getting into form for next weekend. In so far as I had any part in this, though I do not claim to be the originator of the scheme, we have every right to be proud of what we have achieved and we are proud of it. We have set out to get the benefits of the Free Trade Area Agreement and at the same time to avoid one of the major difficulties arising out of it. We have succeeded in doing that and in doing so we have secured jobs for thousands of these workers, and we have, I believe, secured them——

Mr. Garret FitzGerald

Temporarily.

Mr. Colley

——in the long term. I do not think that Senator Garret FitzGerald is doing any good for the assembly industry, for the workers in it or indeed for our position in negotiating with the EEC by the attitude he is taking. He is quite entitled to question this, as to whether it will be long term or not, but I do not think he is entitled to put forward arguments which take from the negotiations on the EEC and which undermine confidence in this industry. There is no justification for that. So far as one can judge matters of this nature, the jobs of the people in the motor assembly industry in this country are assured for a generation to come.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 15th May, 1968.