Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 25 Apr 1924

Vol. 7 No. 1

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE. FINANCIAL RESOLUTIONS. - RESOLUTION No. 3.—CUSTOMS.

Mr. BLYTHE

I beg to propose Resolution No. 3, which is as follows:—

(1) That a Customs duty at the rate of three and three-fifths pence on the pound shall be charged, levied, and paid on all sugar confectionery imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 26th day of April, 1924, in addition to any duty which may be chargeable in respect of any spirits contained in such sugar confectionery, but in lieu of any duty which might otherwise be chargeable on any other ingredient contained in such sugar confectionery.

(2) In this resolution the expression "sugar confectionery" means confectionery made from or containing sugar or other sweetening matter and not containing cocoa or spirits, and includes breads, cakes, cake mixtures, puddings and powders (other than medicinal powders) sweetened with sugar or any other sweetening matter except saccharin, and not containing cocoa, and also sweetmeats, caramel, jams, marmalades, and jellies not containing cocoa or saccharin, and also peels and fruits candied, crystallised or otherwise, preserved with sugar or any other sweetening matter except saccharin, and not containing cocoa.

(3) The provisions of Section 8 of the Finance Act, 1919, shall apply to the duty mentioned in this resolution, with the substitution of the expression "Saorstát Eireann" for the expression "Great Britain and Ireland," and as though sugar confectionery as defined in this resolution were included in the Second Schedule to that Act in the list of goods to which five-sixths of the full rate is made applicable as a preferential rate.

This is really in substitution for and not an increase in the sugar and cocoa duties which we previously levied.

Mr. JOHNSON

I would like the Minister to make a statement as to what effect this resolution has upon sugar and confectionery. Is it an increase all round, or is it an increase on some articles, and to what extent is it an increase?

Mr. BLYTHE

Allowing for the dutiable charge on raw materials used by the home manufacturer the preference would range from a halfpenny a pound in the case of some sweets, sugar, and confectionery up to 1¾d. in other cases, according to the quantity of sugar employed in the manufacture. The amount of protection given depends entirely on the quantity of sugar used. In the case of sweets of that sort constituted almost entirely of sugar, the amount will be small, not more than a halfpenny. In other sweets it comes up to 1¾d.

Mr. WILSON

Will the Minister explain this fact in connection with jam, marmalade and similar industries— what effect will it have on the price of the pound of jam? Will it be 3d. per pound more? That is a most important thing to know.

Mr. BLYTHE

It will not be 3d.— about a penny. Of course, it does not affect the home-made jam.

Captain REDMOND

I think when the Minister mentioned this proposal in his opening statement he said that he regarded confectionery as a luxury. Now, he may regard it as a luxury. Personally, I regard it as a luxury. But I do think that, for young children, confectionery is not a luxury, but almost a necessity. Sweets, having sugar in their composition, are a very essential portion of a child's food. I regret, personally, that when the Minister was considering the reduction which he has brought about, and which I am very glad to see in the duty on tea, that he did not make some reduction in the sugar duty as well. I think it would have been better even if he could have divided the amount of reduction between tea and sugar instead of having it all upon tea. Now, in this resolution which we are discussing, certain kinds of confectionery are to be protected. I do not know, and the Minister has not informed us, as to the extent of the importation into Ireland of the various forms of confectionery. Neither has he informed us in answer to Deputy Johnson's question as to the estimated revenue which will be derived from this extra duty on these forms of confectionery. I think that as far as I know it is fair he should inform the Committee upon these points. As far as I am concerned, I would be inclined to oppose this resolution on the ground that confectionery is to my mind not a luxury for the growing youth of the country, and I would be in favour of a smaller reduction in the tea duty, with some reduction, at any rate, in the sugar duty.

Mr. BLYTHE

The question of a reduction in the sugar duty was, of course, considered. But a reduction of a farthing a lb in the duty on sugar would cost the Revenue £200,000. Now, a farthing reduction in the lb would be unlikely to be passed on to the consumer, and, especially, as sugar is a commodity in which there is a good deal of speculation and fluctuation of prices. Even if we had made it a halfpenny in the lb. it would be to lose an amount of revenue greater than we expected, and it is even then doubtful if the consumer would benefit very much. The amount of revenue involved in sugar is really too large to give any reduction in the present circumstances. In the case of boiled sweets the actual protection given to the Irish manufacturer will be only a halfpenny in the lb., so that really, speaking of children who eat sweets there should certainly be no increase in the prices of ordinary boiled sweets. In fact, I anticipate this duty would enable the confectionery industry here to expand so as to supply the needs of the country. The amount of revenue obtained during the coming year from this tax is estimated at £40,000. That would depend upon the degree to which the Irish manufacturer will respond to the stimulus. There may be a rapid increase in the manufacturing confectionery here, and the revenue may be less than that.

Mr. JOHNSON

I am not satisfied that the Minister has given the Dáil sufficient information. He speaks of a halfpenny in the lb. in boiled sweets as a protection. I take it that that means that while there is a certain duty charged upon sugar, there will be a certain higher duty charged upon manufactured boiled sweets. To that extent there is protection upon the boiled sweets to the extent of a halfpenny or so. Then we have in paragraph (2) "The expression ‘sugar confectionery' means confectionery made from or containing sugar or other sweetening matter and not containing cocoa or spirits, and includes breads, cakes, cake mixtures, puddings and powders (other than medicinal powders) sweetened with sugar or any other sweetening matter except saccharin, and not containing cocoa, and also sweetmeats, caramel, jams, marmalades, jellies," and so on. I do not know whether the Minister has at his command an analyst, but I suppose if he has, he would find that the analyst would tell him that the proportion of water in a lb. of certain jams is very high, and the proportion of sugar in that lb. of jam would be already taxed at the sugar rate. Then I take it we have three and the three-fifth pence additional.

Mr. BLYTHE

No; in substitution.

Mr. JOHNSON

In substitution to the sugar tax?

Mr. BLYTHE

Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON

Will the Minister tell us what the nett increase upon jams, marmalades, and so on would be as a result of this duty? Do I understand him aright in saying that it is reckoned at about 1d. per lb. of jam?

Mr. BLYTHE

Yes.

Mr. JOHNSON

And that it is contemplated by him to bring in a revenue of £40,000?

Mr. BLYTHE

Yes.

Mr. WILSON

Is the Minister aware that he is giving 2½d. a week in the lb. off tea and he is taking 1d. on each lb. of jam consumed in the poor man's house? Because this will mean that the price of jams and marmalade will be 1d. more. The price of jams and marmalades is controlled by the importations of the British stuffs, so that the local manufacturer will merely increase his price 1d. So that when the Minister is giving 2½d. off the tea he is adding 1d. per lb. on to the jams and marmalade consumed in the poor man's house.

Mr. BLYTHE

I anticipate it will not have that result. I believe that in this particular matter we will either have the people coming in, or the people who are already here expanding the manufactures, so that will avoid or prevent an increase in the price of jam. I believe, as a matter of fact, that there will be outside firms setting up here to manufacture jam in this country.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

Will the Minister give a guarantee to introduce legislation so that the price of jam and confectionery will not be raised beyond their present level?

Mr. BLYTHE

No; but Deputies will be able to judge better what course should be taken next year if anything like that happens.

Captain REDMOND

Would a better form of protection not have been to have reduced the sugar duty slightly so as to encourage the home manufacturer of confectionery and jam?

Major COOPER

I would like to ask the Minister whether "peels and fruits candied, crystallised or otherwise preserved with sugar" are liable to a further duty as well as the sugar duty? Are they going to be doubly taxed?

Mr. BLYTHE

No. There is no intention to have double taxation.

Mr. LYONS

When the last Budget was introduced sugar was 7d. per lb. retail. Since then it has been increased by 1d. per lb. Is it not likely now that the consumer will be charged a further penny? Could the Minister not assist the workers by giving them a reduction of a penny or 2d. per lb. on sugar?

Mr. BLYTHE

It would cost two million pounds to make a reduction of 2d. per lb.

Mr. LYONS

It might cost the Exchequer £2,000,000, but it would mean treble strength to the workers and their children. The reduction of the duty on tea will save a worker only about 2½d. per week, because 1 lb. of tea is all that a workman will buy in the week, while he would buy from 12 to 14 lbs. of sugar per week—that is where there is a large family.

Mr. JOHNSON

A family of 15 or 16.

Mr. LYONS

Probably. I know that in my house we purchase about 15 lbs. of sugar per week. It is essential that some reduction should be made in the price of sugar. I intend to vote against this resolution unless we get some guarantee that there will be some such reduction, even if it was only 1d. per lb., although it may cost the Exchequer £300,000 or £400,000. Last year we were told that the Government was only in its infancy. Now that it has grown to manhood it is time that it should show its strength by reducing the cost of living.

Mr. GOOD

There is a question I would like to ask the Minister. Possibly it arises on this Resolution more than any other, as sugar is one of the important items in the manufacture of this article. I am referring to coffee essence. I do not see any reference to it in this Resolution. Whether it is intended to deal with it otherwise I do not know. I might remind Deputies that this matter has been before the Dáil on several occasions. The position is that while this product can be imported into and purchased in Great Britain and in the Six Counties, it cannot be imported into the Free State, and is not obtainable. I mean such a product as Camp Coffee. As many Deputies are aware, this is a product of which in pre-Treaty days there was a considerable consumption. When it was prohibited the matter was brought before the Fiscal Committee. That Committee inquired very fully into the matter and recommended that it should be admitted under a tax. That seemed a fair and reasonable recommendation. The matter was brought before the Minister on a previous occasion, and I think it will be the view of the Dáil that the recommendation of the Fiscal Committee is one that should be adopted rather than exclude this particular commodity entirely. I would be glad to know if the Minister has had time to give any attention to the matter, and if he will see how this grievance can be remedied.

Mr. BLYTHE

The Deputy is under a misapprehension when he says that coffee essence can be imported into the Six Counties or Great Britain. It cannot. We simply took over the prohibition that the British had imposed. Camp coffee apparently is made in Great Britain, and can be sold anywhere in Great Britain and in the Six Counties. It is not made here and, consequently, it cannot be sold here. On the other hand, there are coffee essences made here which could not be exported to Great Britain. They would be prohibited. It seems to me that there is no reason for removing this prohibition. It would involve loss of revenue and trouble, and would give a set back to an industry which has developed here as a result of the prohibition—the making of coffee essences. The taxation of coffee essences presents difficulties, and it is largely because of these difficulties that the prohibition was first put in force in Great Britain. I expect that certain individuals have suffered as a result of the prohibition, but we would have other and more numerous individuals suffering probably by the removal of the prohibition at present.

Mr. GOOD

As far as my information goes, this commodity can be obtained quite freely and easily in the Six Counties.

Mr. BLYTHE

Yes.

Mr. GOOD

I understood the Minister to say that it was not obtainable in the Six Counties.

Mr. BLYTHE

That coffee essence was not imported into the Six Counties from outside Great Britain—that is, from outside the Customs entity in which the Six Counties are.

Mr. GOOD

As I understand it, this particular Camp Coffee can be obtained quite easily in the Six Counties, and when those who are accustomed to use it cross the border they cannot obtain it at all. That, to my mind, is a grievance. I do not think that the answer of the Minister is satisfactory. His idea is that there are small manufacturers of this commodity in the Free State. I understand that the number of people engaged in the manufacture of somewhat similar commodities in the Free State amounts to the large total of 19, so that the industry could not be looked upon as a very important one in the Free State. This is a specialty which has been manufactured for a considerable period, and has been used by a very large number of people. I have heard from a great many sources that it is a very distinct grievance that people have not been able to obtain this Camp Coffee. The matter was inquired into very fully by the Fiscal Committee, who recommended that it should be admitted into the Free State under a tax. That is a proposal that the Minister ought to consider favourably. Possibly he was not in possession of the information which I am in possession of, that the total number of hands engaged in the industry at the moment in the Free State is nineteen. That being so, possibly he will reconsider the matter.

Mr. GOREY

I do not know if the Minister has considered this Resolution in all its bearings. Sugar and tea are consumed by the rich as well as the poor, but imported jam is almost altogether consumed by the working-people of the country. The best jam is home-made jam, but it is only people of a certain position who can afford it. They have the fruit, as a rule, and buy sugar, with which they make high-class jam. Imported jam is largely, if not exclusively, used by poor people. They are not able to buy butter, so that jam is one of the principal foods used at breakfast and supper. It is proposed to take 2½d. per lb. off the tea, but the duty on jam is being increased by one penny per pound. I would like to know how many pounds of jam would be used in the ordinary home where one pound of tea is used. Taking the two items together, I do not think the proposal means any boon to the workingman. I think it is the reverse, and that this is throwing dust in his eyes. That may not be the intention, but I think it will be the result. I would like the Minister to consider all the implications of the Resolution, as I do not think it will mean what it appears on the surface.

Mr. WILSON

Perhaps the Minister will accept an amendment to exclude the words "jams and marmalades" in sub-section (2). That would meet the case.

Mr. BLYTHE

I do not think so. I have no reason to believe that the result will mean any increase in the price of jam. I believe there will be a very big increase in the production of jam and also in employment. It is one of these industries that can be started on a comparatively small amount of capital. It does not require a very expensive plant. I believe the resolution will not mean an increase of a penny per lb. in the price of jam. It will mean an additional penny tax on imported jam, but not a penny increase in the retail price. It is one of these cases where the industry can expand rapidly, and I believe that it will certainly extend and give a considerable amount of employment. As a matter of fact, I believe that we will have outside firms coming in to hold their market here, as was the case with cigarettes.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

In view of the Minister's certainty that there will not be an increase in the price of jam, it would be quite easy to arrange that there will be no increase. I think the opposite, that there will be an increase in the price. The whole history of trade in the past confirms the belief that there will be an increase, at least, equal to the total amount of the duty. I am in agreement with Deputy Gorey as to the inadvisability of taxing jam at all. It is really a staple article of food, and one that is very important for the poor people. I am pretty certain that the actual tax taken off tea will be more than imposed on the people by the tax on jam.

Mr. JOHNSON

I am not satisfied with the way this discussion is proceeding. We are expected to discuss details of these various Resolutions and then go on to the general question. After all, nearly every question that is raised with regard to the new duties, at any rate, will have to be discussed in respect to the general principle. I feel that the Minister is not helping the Dáil sufficiently in his explanation of the effects of these Resolutions as they come forward. If we are to deal with the Resolutions separately, before coming to the final Resolution, which involves the general discussion, then I think we should ask the Minister to give us a full exposition of the effect of the various Resolutions he is proposing. I would like to know, for instance, why there is a different date fixed for the imposition of the new duties. The duty on confectionery is to begin on the 26th April. The other new duties come on at later stages in May. The effect of this duty upon prices is very likely to be an immediate one. The expectation of the Minister that it will not mean an increase in the prices of confectionery, will, I think, in the immediate result, not be fulfilled unless shopkeepers and traders generally here are very different to what they are in most other countries.

Mr. BLYTHE

I am not really thinking of the effect for a month or two, but over the year.

Mr. JOHNSON

I expect there will be a definite increase of a penny per lb. within a fortnight on all jams. If the Reports of the Fiscal Committee are to be considered the expectation that Irish manufacturers will be able to increase their output quickly enough to meet demands, without increasing prices, will be very long delayed. This is again a case where I think the Minister could give us more information. If there is to be an increase of a penny per lb., say for six months, in the price of jams, the greater part of the advantage arising from the reduction in tea will be swallowed up, certainly for six months, without considering the increased price of boots.

I will forestall what I have to say on the main question by saying that the whole effect of these new duties seems to me to be to impose an unfair burden upon the poor. That is only in accordance with the general state of the Minister's mind, I think, as recent developments show. We have had the Ministry's policy expressing itself in a demand for a general reduction in wages. The effect of his new finance policy is going to be to add to the burden of prices on workers in towns. Those who do not make their own jams, for instance, are for some months, at any rate, to be charged an extra penny per lb. for jams and confectionery.

And assuming 2 lbs. a week, which is quite moderate, I think, for a very small family, you have 8/8 in the year, against a tea duty reduction of 10/10. You have only got 2/2 then, of an advantage to meet an increased cost of boots for the family of, probably, 13/- or 15/- per year. This is a very rough calculation, but it seems to me that without taking into account any possible increase in the price of soaps and the like, the effect of these various proposed new taxes will inevitably be an immediate increase in the costs upon the poor, without any assurance of the protective effect having value for the working people. However, I do not want to anticipate the general discussion, but I want to ask the Minister if he is prepared, in introducing every new Resolution, to give a statement of the effects of the new taxes, the amount of revenue that is expected, the probable increase in prices that it may involve, and generally to explain the resolution. After all, in some of these motions we are asked to pass, we are referred to certain previous taxes, and it is not easy to understand the effect of them without some explanation. I think it would facilitate the discussions at a later stage if we had a statement of the kind I am asking for, at the initiation of Resolutions.

Mr. GOREY

I propose an amendment to this Resolution, that in the case of jams the date be changed from the 26th April to the 26th August, and I do so for the reason that the raw material to make jam will not be available until that time, and, therefore, it will not affect any Irish produce. The jams that will be consumed between now and then are already in stock, and, therefore, it cannot be an encouragement to this industry.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

I wonder how we would get that amendment?

Mr. JOHNSON

I suggest it would require a new Resolution to delete jams and marmalades.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

That would be the simpler way.

Mr. BLYTHE

I do not know whether Deputy Gorey adverts to the fact that if we do that we will have such a quantity of jam in the country that people would be eating stale jam at increased prices.

Mr. BAXTER

It seems to me that the Minister is very reluctant to state that he will take action to see that the cost of jams will not increase if this resolution is passed. What occurs to us is that the few people in this country who are interested in jams or marmalades, or who are now in the industry, will have protection from this on. They have bought in their supplies and have them in stock. The Minister expressed a pious wish that there will not be an increase in prices, but he is not prepared to say that he will see that there will not be. There can be no justification for an increase in prices until the new crop has been purchased by these people. I think if the Minister is reluctant to accept the amendment, the least he can do is to say that he will see that there shall not be any increase in the price of the article that has been or is being manufactured from the crop that has been purchased.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

Deputy Gorey moves an amendment to delete the word "jams" in paragraph 2? I take it that is the amendment?

Mr. GOREY

Yes.

Major COOPER

Before we vote on this I should very much like Deputy Gorey to tell me what is the raw material of jam. It is one of the greatest mysteries we have.

Mr. WILSON

Turnips.

Mr. GOREY

Mangolds and turnips.

Major COOPER

Will Deputy Gorey say that they will be riper in August than they are now? My impression is that this is the moment when they are ripe. The same thing applies to marmalade; this is the time when oranges are ripe. I am opposed to the resolution and I will vote against it, but I do not think that, unless Deputy Gorey can give me a more specific definition of what jams are made of, based, if possible, on his own experience, that I will be able to vote for his amendment.

Captain REDMOND

The old saying used to be: "We had jam yesterday, and we have jam to-morrow, but never jam to-day." As far as I can make out in this case we will have an increase, hic et nunc, immediately after this Resolution passes, in the price of jams. But I am afraid I will not be able to support Deputy Gorey, because I would be in favour of deleting the whole Resolution. I think it is not only a question of jams, but also a question of sweets of the nature described in this Resolution. As I said previously, sweets, to a certain class of people and to those of certain ages, are not a luxury, and, as my friend behind me remarks, the people that this Resolution will affect have no votes, and therefore it is going to be passed over their heads without their being consulted in the matter, or as Deputy Magennis says, over their mouths. Joking apart, I do think that it is a serious thing to propose that there should be a considerable reduction in tea—and, goodness knows, there is enough tea, if not too much, drunk in the country—and no reduction in sugar. Sugar is as essential as, if not more so than, tea. It really comes to this. Taking, as Deputy Johnson did, a wide survey of the whole of the Minister's proposals, the father of a family will say to his child one of these fine days: “Now, my dear, which would you prefer that I get you, a pair of new boots or sweets?” because where the family of the poor man will gain on the swings they will lose on the round-abouts. I do suggest, not only in regard to jams but also in regard to all the items contained in this Resolution, that the Committee should not assent to the Resolution being passed in its present form.

Mr. GOREY

I will not follow Deputy Redmond into the nursery, though probably I have as much acquaintance with it as he has, but in connection with Deputy Cooper's remarks about my defining what are the constituents of jam, I will be charitable enough to take it at its face value. We have strawberry jam, plum jam, and there are several other jams. There may be little additions that Deputy Cooper might know more about than I do. But I do stand over this particular item of jam, because to my mind—and I am sure of what I am talking about—it is one of the articles which affect all the poor in the community. Others are more or less luxuries, but jams are one of the things they do use, and for that reason I stand over this amendment.

Mr. JOHNSON

I think there is a good deal in what Deputy Gorey says, unless the Minister is looking for revenue in this matter. If the Minister is counting on revenue out of the sale of jams and sweetmeats, then I can understand it, but if he is imposing this tax for protective purposes it will not have any protective value until later in the year, certainly in regard to jams and marmalade. There can be no immediate value from a protective point of view in the case of confectionery. I differ from Deputy Gorey and others in their general view of this. I think on the whole it is probably quite satisfactory to have a protective duty on confectionery and jams. There is far too much confectionery imported, and too little manufactured here, but the protective value could be obtained if the Minister would agree to a reduction in the sugar duty, where that duty is being used in manufacturing. The Minister dissents from that.

Mr. BLYTHE

It is the difficulties of administration.

Mr. JOHNSON

I am not sure about that. He ought to know better than I do, but one does know there is a practice of rebates for sugar used in manufacture, and I think possibly in regard to manufacture of this kind, the kind of sugar that is used, or the saccharine, could be comparatively easily checked, and if it is the Minister's intention that there should not be an increase in the retail prices of sweetmeats of this kind, then the way to get the protective value out of his duty is to reduce the duty on sugar which enters into these manufactures. In the Fiscal Report, which the Minister has not taken very much notice of—I am surprised Deputy Milroy is not here to congratulate him—there is a paragraph touching confectionery which says, in the end: "These witnesses asked for a protective tariff to secure them in the possession of an Irish trade, and expressed their willingness, in the event of such a tariff being granted, to submit to a public and official fixing of the prices of their products." I think that is one of the paragraphs the Minister ought to take notice of. If those interested in the trade are quite prepared to submit and have expressed their willingness to submit to a public and official fixing of the prices of their products, the Minister ought to take advantage of that, and there should be some means of preventing the present stocks being increased immediately. Further, I think also the Minister is quite capable of regulating the importation of confectionery as between now and August, if he were to assent to Deputy Gorey's suggestion of postponing this duty, certainly the duty in respect of jams, until the fruit year begins.

I think it is undoubtedly a likely consequence of the passing of this Resolution that for the six months during which the Irish manufacturers will be preparing to deal with the preserving of fruits we shall have a tax placed on the consumers of jams, and those who buy jams to avoid the buying of butter, which is very, very important. As a matter of fact, in the cheaper sweets that is what happens—syrups, treacles, jams and the like are bought by the poor people to avoid having to buy butter, and these are the people who will be hit by this tax, and for this next six months, which is going to be a poverty-stricken six months from all signs, the very people who are obliged to pay the extra charges for jams are not to get any advantage, and no one is to get any advantage but the Exchequer—neither the manufacturers, for they will not be making jams, and therefore will not be protected, nor any other person except the Exchequer. The Exchequer, for six months at all events, is the only factor which is to be benefited by the imposition of this duty on jams. It is the poor people, the poorest as a matter of fact, who will have to pay. I think it is unfortunate that in this general Resolution jams should have been included, and that the whole effect of the Resolution is to be spoiled, and an extra burden placed on the poor by virtue of the duty coming into operation immediately before any protective value can be got out of it, and before the new manufacturers who would come in are to have the chance of preparing for protection, and so keep down the prices in accordance with the Minister's expectations. I hope he will consider this matter of jams and marmalade.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

I am in opposition to this Resolution, and I support Deputy Captain Redmond's ideas, but not for the same reason. I think this is the wrong kind of protection, and I am of the opinion that if protection is to be introduced at all it must be introduced to deal with those kinds of manufactures which are difficult to build up, which require a good deal of technical skill and nursing in their infant stages. We have it on the statement of the Minister that confectionery and jam manufacturing does not require very much plant, is not an expensive form of manufacturing, and does not require much technical skill.

If that is the case, we have had for years past a large supply of the main raw material, fruit. I know for a fact that our fruit has been going to waste down in the country, apples, plums and pears rotting on the trees. Why have not the Irish manufacturers got busy to get these cheap fruits? Why have not they been able to compete with English manufacturers, who have no special advantages whatever? They have to import their sugar, and also very often their fruit. Is it because of inefficiency? In my opinion, that explains why the Irish manufacturers are not able to compete, not because of any special advantages which English manufacturers have, but because Irish manufacturers have not shown business aptitude or efficiency. What the Minister is really going to do now is to give a bounty to inefficiency. Certain manufacturers of confectionery in this country have been able to compete in the foreign market. Why cannot the others do the same thing? What one firm can do why could not other firms do? I think if we are to allow the principle of Protection, which I think is a wrong principle at the present time, it certainly should not be applied to industries of this type. They are exactly the wrong type of industries to apply it to.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

This is an amendment to exclude the word "jam."

Mr. SEARS

I differ with Deputy Heffernan in the statements he has made comparing the Irish manufacturer of jam with the British manufacturer of jam. He says the Irishman's want of success is due to the Irishman's lack of business, to deficiency, I dare say, in Irish managership, and to lack of energy in the Irish worker. That is a style of argument that is very fallacious. I think if Deputy Heffernan turned his attention to another important point he might see that it has a greater bearing on the case. He forgets the large market the British manufacturer has. There are large industrial centres around him; there is a large population of wage-earners earning good wages—a splendid market for a jam manufacturer. This attitude of pouring contempt and derision on the Irish manufacturer is very unfair, if you do not take into consideration the different markets. It reminds me of a story that is a bit humorous, but perhaps has some point in it, about a British tourist travelling in Connemara. He met a woman who was carrying some milk to the town in a very poor can on a very poor cart. He said to her: "Why, goodness, woman, in London they have very nice little milk carts and better class of tin cans than you have. They convey the milk in an altogether better style, and they get a better price, too. I am surprised at your turn-out altogether." She was so disgusted with him that she drove off saying: "I dare say if I had it in Hell I would get a better price for it than if I had it in London." It is the market that Deputy Heffernan— that was an unintentional compliment, but I think his argument deserved it— referred to. He has omitted the point about the market.

Unless we in this country aim at preserving the Irish market for ourselves, we will never get anywhere. If you go into any shop in Dublin to-day, you will find the proprietor of the shop and the assistant holding Deputy Heffernan's views about jam. I went into a shop in Harold's Cross the other day for jam; I asked the assistant had he Irish jam. "I would not keep the damned stuff," said he. That was his attitude. I could point to a pot of Irish jam behind him on the shelf, perhaps as good jam as he was selling. The Englishman has a larger market. He is able to concentrate on his home market, and when he has that captured he is able to dump in Ireland, and the Irish manufacturer gets no chance. Owing to the Deputy Heffernan attitude all over the country, the maker of Irish jams has to go over to England. We are exporting our jam makers over to England to work there for us, instead of keeping them at home.

Mr. GOREY

I must object to the tone and the misleading arguments used by Deputy Sears. He has attacked Deputy Heffernan for the theories he advanced. The facts are that the English manufacturer of those articles has to come over here to Ireland, or has to send agents over to the Irish gardeners and Irish hedgegrowers to procure the raw material that is at the door of the potential Irish manufacturer if he wanted to manufacture it. He has to pay the cost of collection in Ireland. He has to pay the railway freight to England, which is no small matter, and he has to send back the manufactured article. In addition to that, Deputy Sears wants some extraordinary form of protection for those poor innocent Irish manufacturers, who have no enterprise or very little business ability evidently. Otherwise they would be able to build up a trade. The Irish manufacturer has the custom. He has the raw material, and what is to prevent him being successful?

Mr. SEARS

He has not the custom, because the Irish people will not buy the jam.

Mr. GOREY

Tell that to somebody. I do not think the Deputy is quite fair. I think he is actually trying to mislead the Dáil and the public. I do not know that he has succeeded in misleading anybody. He certainly has not succeeded in misleading anybody on these Benches.

Mr. D'ALTON

I am afraid I am not in agreement with Deputy Gorey's amendment. He refers to the question of the poor and the workers—that fruit is necessary for them in the form of jam supposed to be fruit. It is largely oranges they have got in marmalade, and the other jams we know are largely made from agricultural produce. I do not think the workers of Ireland use fruit as largely as Deputy Gorey would wish them to do.

Mr. LYONS

Not on the wages they get.

Mr. D'ALTON

They manage to get butter in County Tipperary; they get along very well with it, and they get along very well with the farmers there too. I cannot agree with Deputy Johnson's views. If, as he wishes, the tax does not come into force until the fruit season comes on, you will have foreign jam stocked in Ireland, and the Irish manufacturers will not feel like going into a market that has already been fairly well flooded. I certainly think that the penny in the lb. cost to the Irish worker who uses those jams will be of great assistance to people engaged in the industry. The additional work provided in order to supply the home market and, perhaps, afterwards for exportation, I think, would more than counter-balance any hardship imposed on the workers generally. As one interested in the workers, that certainly is my feeling. Deputy Heffernan says he is against all Protection, but the Irish farmer found that Protection was necessary when he took steps to brand his butter, and to put it in a proper place on the market. The same thing applies to Irish bacon.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

Surely the branding of butter is not Protection?

Mr. D'ALTON

It is a form of Protection, because if you did not protect it against the foreign butter by having it branded as Irish butter, it would be driven out of the market.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

We are perfectly willing to have the home-manufactured jam branded also.

Mr. D'ALTON

Yes, but that may not be sufficient. Deputy Heffernan referred to the fact that a large amount of fruit is going to waste in his own county. It is quite true that a very large amount of apples are grown in the Suir Valley and that they are going to waste, and I think it would be a pity if the Minister for Finance did not give some incentive to the people who grow this large amount of apples and pears and rhubarb, going to waste, to preserve and manufacture it. We know all about the large amount of strawberry jam that is sent into this country, and that a great deal of it consists of Swedish turnips. It consists of very little strawberries and a good deal of turnips. It is turnips and chemicals, pretty well like a good deal of the cider. In all the jams made I can assure Deputies that there is a very large amount of Swedish turnips used. Swedish turnips are grown in Ireland, so I do not see what injury it would be to the Irish farmers to insist on home-made jam if there is a large percentage of Swedish turnips in it, which would mean a large market for these turnips. I think it would be a great pity if everything that would help to foster any industry, even at a small cost to the worker, was not done, or was prevented from being done.

Mr. GOREY

On a point of explanation——

Mr. D'ALTON

Excuse me; the Deputy can reply if I have said anything with which he disagrees. I think it would be a great pity to exclude so much benefit from the workers of Ireland as would follow from the development of this industry at a very small cost to them.

Mr. GOREY

I did not refer to continuous exclusion. I referred to the next six months, when the raw material which Deputy D'Alton recommends is not available.

Mr. HEFFERNAN

On a point of information, Deputy D'Alton and others might be interested to know that there is a very important industry in England engaged in the manufacture of strawberry pips out of wood to mix with the turnips for strawberry jam.

Mr. D'ALTON

If Deputy Gorey could arrange that all imported jams would not be stopped, but that the market should not be flooded, and that Irish manufacturers should have the fruit ready for the Irish industry, then I am with Deputy Gorey.

Mr. JOHNSON

This question of the regulation of imports to prevent the flooding of the markets, preliminary to the operation of the tax in six months' time, is surely a simple one, when the Government is already preparing to regulate imports by taxation. If that is the only difficulty it is not a great one. There can easily be regulation of the quantities imported so that the market would not be flooded preparatory to the manufacturers being ready to put their supplies on the market. I take from the January report of imports that there was £21,000 worth of confectionery, £8,000 worth of fruit in thin syrup, £15,800 worth of fruit in sugar and jam, £9,000 worth of condensed milk sweetened, and £23,000 worth of other articles of food containing sugar. All those, I assume, would be brought in under this Resolution. Perhaps the Minister would say whether I am right in assuming that condensed milk would come into the category of confectionery. If so, and I think it would under this Resolution——

Mr. BLYTHE

That is not intended, and I do not think it would.

Mr. JOHNSON

Under this Resolution the "sugar confectionery" means confectionery made from or containing sugar or other sweetening matter, and condensed milk is separated milk containing sugar as a rule; sometimes it is whole milk condensed with sugar forming three-fourths of its bulk, and this Resolution would undoubtedly bring in condensed milk.

Mr. BLYTHE

Oh, no.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The amendment only brings in jam.

Mr. JOHNSON

True, I am trying to show that jam and condensed milk will be in the same category so far as the Resolution is concerned, and that the effect of the Resolution as a whole, with jam included, will be to impose a tax upon the people which would be less if jams were omitted. The Minister gives us an assurance that condensed milk, at any rate, will not be involved in this new duty. I take it only the old sugar duty will apply. The articles which are to be affected by this duty are all kinds of confectionery, including breads, cakes, cake mixtures, puddings and powders sweetened with sugar, also sweetened commodities such as caramels, jams, also peels and fruits candied, crystallised, or otherwise preserved with sugar. That, of course, allows Messrs. Jacob and Co., who protested against protective duties, to be protected, and I think it is very good for them, and I am quite in agreement with that portion of the Resolution because it does not affect the poor man and the poor woman and their families to any appreciable extent. Children who buy sweets are paying in taxes one halfpenny in the pound as additional tax, but when we are dealing with jam we are dealing with an article which, in many cases in the city of Dublin you will find is the only relish that is used in the family. It is bread and jam, bread and jam two or three times a day for four or five children of the family. Four or five or six two-pound jars will be bought every week. Now, the additional tax of 1d. per pound may very easily, in many families, mean an additional tax of eightpence or a shilling per week.

The Minister gives us a confident assurance that the ultimate effect of this new duty, in so far as it affects jams, will be very little on the price. I am inclined to agree that it will not be very great. But there will be a period of at least six months, during which the imposition will be felt very seriously. And, as I said already, the manufacturers are not going to get any benefit. The shopkeepers may get the benefit, but the Treasury will get the benefit of it at the expense of the poor. I would like the Minister to consider, seriously, the possibility of his meeting the case made by Deputy Gorey that, for the period during which the new works may be prepared, during which the new season's fruit is growing and ripening, that there should be some check put upon the rates of import, and that this tax will not begin to operate. So far as jams are concerned, I think that would go far to meet the case I am making; that for the present and for a period of six months the effect of this duty will be to impose too heavy a burden upon the poorest of the people.

Mr. HEWAT

We are on the subject of jams, and I think that in the discussion that has taken place we seem to be inclined to give a very unenviable advertisement to Irish jam. We have heard, in the course of the discussion, that Irish jam contains no fruit, but rather that it contains Swedish turnips, wooden pips, and things of that kind. Possibly if the debate goes on long enough we will learn that Irish jam has no sugar. As regards the amendment proposed by Deputy Gorey, I do not know whether he is going on with it or not, but it seems to me that the effect of it would be to flood the country with jam to save the increase in the taxation that was foreshadowed for last August. That is the only effect it would have, and I do not think that is very desirable from the revenue point of view. As regards the main Resolution, the Minister for Finance is bowing more or less to a storm when he puts in the forefront of his budgetary Estimates the question of Protection. As a Free Trader I rather welcome the experiment, for this reason that I do not think that the demand, as expressed by Deputy Sears, will be met until some form of Protection is instituted, and we see the results.

In other words, I welcome the Budget and the question of Protection within the Budget, on the lines of giving a certain amount of rope which will hang the people who put the proposition forward. I do not wish to be so sanguinary as to say that I actually want to hang the Minister for Finance, because I think we could ill do without him, but in the comparatively mild form in which Protection is instituted, I think it will give us a little experience that will be very helpful in the future.

On this question of jam, the Minister for Finance bases his whole argument on the extension of jam manufacture within the Saorstát. That may arise, and may have the effect that he anticipates, in which case his remedy will have been a quite efficient one, but on the other hand it is quite on the cards that the consumer will have to pay the extra money for his jam. From the view-point that I approach this subject, even though he has not to pay exactly the penny per pound, I do believe that he will have to pay more. This is a question of Free Trade versus Protection. That arises, to a large extent— almost altogether. The question has to be settled, and therefore I welcome the introduction of it in this way.

Mr. SEARS

In regard to Deputy Johnson's argument against the increased cost to the workers' Budget if the tax is imposed, that argument, although it is raised on this amendment for an adjournment of the tax for six months, applies equally to all Protection. I submit he should consider the opposite argument, which is that if the tax is imposed, instead of having the jam made by foreign artisans, you will have it made by Irish artisans, and that is the important point that should be considered. I do not see why we should defer this tax for six months. There is no lack of material. Deputy Hewat said that if it is deferred for six months there will be no revenue. Quite so. Neither will there be any Protection, because you are giving the foreign dumper six months in which to flood the country. The Irish manufacturer will have to get additional machinery, he will have to make other preparations, and he wants the encouragement of that Protection from the present moment. Deputy Hewat kindly offered us certain rope, but he need not be afraid as to whom the rope will hang. It will hang the dumper and not the home manufacturer. Experience in every country in the world shows that wherever people were sensible enough to use their fiscal powers to protect their home market, they never dropped those powers afterwards, and Ireland is not an exception to that great rule. There is no argument advanced to show that it is.

Mr. LYONS

I would like to know if Deputy Gorey means to delete the word "jams," or is it the intention that this tax should be postponed for six months?

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The present amendment is to delete the word "jams."

Mr. LYONS

I would be in favour of Deputy Gorey's amendment if he proposed to delete Part 2 of Finance Resolution No. 3. I am rather at a loss to know whether Deputy Gorey's amendment covers marmalades and all sweetmeats.

AN CEANN COMHAIRLE

The amendment proposes to delete the word "jams."

Mr. LYONS

But marmalades and sweetmeats are also used to a very large extent as well as jams. I have been listening to the arguments put forward this afternoon by members of the Farmers' Party in support of this amendment, and there is no mistake they have proved themselves excellent advocates, at least this afternoon, of the working man.

Mr. WILSON

Hear, hear.

Mr. LYONS

If they are defeated on this amendment I wonder will they think of increasing the workers' wages by a few shillings a week in order that the workers may be able to pay the extra penny on the jam and in this way help to swell the Exchequer of the Saorstát? I am sure that is one of the last things that members of the Farmers' Party would think of doing. I suggest that the Minister for Finance should take into account in his Budget an answer he gave in reply to a question of mine about a fortnight ago when he told me he could not anticipate the coming Budget with regard to the price of liquor and that consequently the other part of the question did not arise. At that time he must have taken into account the increase that he was going to place on the workers, on the common individual who is the prime supporter of jam manufacturers in this country. Several Deputies have explained that the working man cannot possibly afford to buy butter and consequently the next best thing he can obtain is jam.

I am sure every Deputy on the Labour benches and on the Farmers' benches, not forgetting some of the Deputies on the Government benches, know very well in their heart and soul that the working men of the present time cannot afford even to buy jam with the wages advocated by the Minister for Local Government in the case of the County Councils—30/- per week to support a wife and six or seven children, while paying 1d. a lb extra for a lb. of jam.

Mr. HEWAT

You are in conflict with Deputy Johnson there.

Mr. LYONS

If I am, I can assure you that what I say is correct. At the same time, I did not mean what I said to be in contradiction of Deputy Johnson. It was, I think, Deputy Johnson who mentioned confectionery as being a luxury for the worker. I am sure Deputy Johnson will agree that it is not unreasonable that the worker should be in a position to have such a wonderful luxury as a piece of currant cake or seed cake for tea. Take a 7lb. seed cake for the worker, and it means 1d. a lb. extra. Seven lbs. of jam at 1d. a lb. extra means another 7d. That is 1/2 extra. Then we cry out and tell the people that we are going to reduce the cost of living, that we are going to see that when the wages of the worker come down, so shall the cost of living come down. The wages of the worker have come down more than the worker can afford, and surely the cost of living should come down. The Minister for Finance should see that the cost of these necessary commodities should be reduced by reducing the duty.

I am not in favour of the amendment as it stands—to delete the word "jam." I intend to vote against Finance Resolution No. 3. But to delete the word "jam" is not going to benefit very much the person who consumes jam. As regards the fruit which we are told is going to loss each year, I am surprised that these large quantities of apples and plums should be allowed to go to loss. There is such an industrious body as the Farmers' Union in existence and surely the least they could do, in that part of the country where fruit is so plentiful, would be to start a co-operative jam factory to give employment. I do not agree with the amendment as it stands, but I will vote against the Resolution because I think the Minister for Finance is only getting in the thin end of the wedge. He has reduced the old age pensions; when Minister for Local Government he sent out circulars reducing the wages of the workers, and now he is going further to crucify the worker by taxing the little luxuries he was able to get.

Mr. BLYTHE

There is no possible means of checking the flow of imports, except we get legislation to do it. That would occupy sufficient time to enable a good deal of the damage to be done. I think that it is almost certain that whatever little the consumer might suffer owing to having this tax put on immediately, he would probably lose more if it were deferred. I think that when we are putting on the tax the thing to do is to let manufacturers, either home manufacturers or outside manufacturers who have come in here, have a clear field and know that the market is not going to be flooded against them when ready to produce. If we do allow flooding to take place, there is no doubt we will not have the same rush to get extended capacity for production. We will not have the same employment given during the year. It is quite possible we may not have output capacity to supply the entire country, and consequently have a great deal more jam paying tax for the remainder of the year than would be the case if the tax were put on at the moment. I think there is not a really good case for postponing the tax. The disadvantages of postponing are considerable, and it is not reasonable to talk about six months. There will be a great deal of the small fruits from which jam is made ripe in three months, not to speak of six months. The period during which any possible extra burthen might be borne will certainly be a good deal less than what was suggested by the various speakers. If there is any hardship, it is simply one of the transitional hardships, and if we tried to avoid it we would probably not lessen the total extra charge, if there is an extra charge to be put on it.

Mr. LYONS

Will any steps be taken during the coming six months to protect the people in general against profiteering, in cases where traders or small manufacturers have a large quantity of jam in their possession? Will they be entitled, as soon as this Resolution is passed this evening, to charge the extra penny, or will they be brought into court and prosecuted if they do.

Mr. BLYTHE

There is no legislation that would enable that to be done.

Amendment put.

The Committee divided: Tá, 17; Níl, 40.

Tá

• Pádraig F. Baxter.
• John Conlan.
• Seán de Faoite.
• Connor Hogan.
• Tomás Mac Eoin.
• Risteárd Mac Liam.
• Patrick McKenna.
• Patrick J. Mulvany.
• Tomás de Nógla.
• Tadhg S. O Donnabháin.
• Seán O Duinnín.
• Donchadh S. O Guaire.
• Mícheál R. O hIfearnáin.
• Seán O Laidhin.
• Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
• Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
• Patrick K. Hogan (Luimneach).

Níl

• Earnán Altún.
• Earnán de Blaghd.
• Séamus Breathnach.
• Seoirse de Bhulbh.
• John J. Cole.
• Louis J. D'Alton.
• Patrick J. Egan.
• Desmond Fitzgerald.
• John Good.
• William Hewat.
• Seosamh Mac a' Bhrighde.
• Alasdair Mac Cába.
• Domhnall Mac Cárthaigh.
• Eoin Mac Neill.
• Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
• Liam Mac Sioghaird.
• Liam Mag Aonghusa.
• Pádraig S. Mag Ualghairg.
• John T. Nolan.
• Peadar O hAodha.
• Criostóir O Broin.
• Seán O Bruadair.
• Próinsias O Cathail.
• Partholán O Conchubhair.
• Séamus O Cruadhlaoich.
• Séamus N. O Dóláin.
• Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
• Eamon S. O Dúgáin.
• Aindriú O Láimhín.
• Séamus O Leadáin.
• Fionán O Loingsigh.
• Pádraig O Máille.
• James O'Mara.
• Séamus O Murchadha.
• Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).
• Seán M. O Súilleabháin.
• Seán Príomhdháil.
• Patrick W. Shaw.
• Liam Thrift.
• Patrick McGilligan.

Resolution put and agreed to.

The Amendment was declared lost.