It is with considerable amazement that I learned from the Minister's speech to-day that it is proposed to continue the duty at the very high figure imposed on musical instruments. I am aware that the Minister has been supplied with a good deal of material from the small number of persons engaged in this business, in which they point out the very great disadvantage under which they labour as a result of the rate of duty charged. I am rather loath to speak of this matter, as it affects my personal business, but I think it is also one of general interest on which strong representations should be made to the Dáil, with a view to getting the Minister to reconsider the attitude he has taken up with regard to the duty.
The Minister said that the articles to which the duty applies were luxuries. Undoubtedly music is a luxury. It is a luxury in so far as life could go on without it, but we are a civilised people, I hope, and no one will deny that music is one of the amenities of life in modern civilisation. Surely it is not the intention of the Minister to withdraw from the ordinary affairs of life those things which make it sweeter and pleasanter. While music can be considered a luxury, in the sense that it is not an entire essential of life, I think it can be maintained that it is essential for the ordinary, easy progress of life and for the amenities of life in the ordinary everyday affairs of the people. I think its influence in this country has been for good. The fact, if I may mention it, that our national emblem, up to recently, was a musical instrument, shows that it has some standing in tradition in this respect. I only mention this because I think even the Minister will not deny that music has become an essential of life to the Irish people.
In addition music has become an essential part of the education in the country. If it has not, why does the Minister provide the Minister for Education in the Saorstát with money for the teaching and carrying on of musical programmes in the schools? Money is provided by the Dáil and administered by the Department of Education for teaching music to our children. It seems to me a rather stupid proceeding to provide money for the musical education of the people while making it almost impossible for them to secure the means by which they can put into practice the teaching they have obtained.
I do not think it can be argued, even by the Minister, that this duty of 33? per cent. on musical instruments is in any sense a protective duty. Deputy Cooper mentioned that drums were made in the Minister's constituency. I say, if they are, they are not made in sufficient quantities to be a menace to the drum makers of England. They are only a drop in the ocean of the number of musical instruments of that kind that are imported. Even if the duty was protective, I hold it is so exorbitant and high that it fails to serve its purpose. The manufacture of musical instruments such as pianos, band instruments, gramophones, melodeons, that we find throughout the country, has become a very highly specialised industry requiring tradition and long training. As Deputy Cooper said, that training has been handed down in families. In time we could build up a musical manufacturing industry in this country, but it would be a growth of years. I hold, and I venture to think that I have some expert knowledge in this matter, that 33? per cent. ad valorem duty in the meantime is not a help, but rather a hindrance to the growth of that industry.
I had occasion to give evidence before the Fiscal Commission that was set up by the Minister some few years ago, and I think if the Minister had perused the evidence, he would have been interested, and would have found sufficient data to convince him that it was not possible by a tariff such as has been erected against musical instruments to assist the manufacture of musical instruments in this country in a hurry. That can only be done in the progress of years, and by slow growth. A smaller duty would serve the purpose equally well. This duty is an inheritance of our Government from the English Government. It was put on in England, Deputy Heffernan suggested, to help to save shipping space. I understand it was put on to help industries that existed in England, and to prevent dumping by foreign manufacturers, because at that time the currency of the Continent had more or less collapsed, and the manufacturers were able to get instruments into England, and sell them in England at prices with which the English manufacturers could not compete. That, I think, was the origin of the McKenna duties.
They served their purpose in so far as they gave the English musical instrument manufacturers a breathing space, or time to reorganise their industry. At the present moment, when the German currency has been stabilised, and is now on the dollar basis, and when the English pound sterling is not up to full standard, on the basis of the Rentenmark the German musical instrument manufacturers cannot compete with the English manufacturers on their own ground. Therefore the English statesmen, with a good deal of wisdom, have removed those duties from England. Owing to the large circulation of the English daily papers in this country, our public read, from day to day, advertisements of low-priced musical instruments which they cannot obtain in this country, owing to the high import duties. The duty itself is thirty-three and one-third per cent. ad valorem. It is not a protective duty and is certainly an unfair one. I do not think it is fair to ask the struggling father of a family, who is trying to educate his children in the better and more artistic side of life and is perhaps giving them some musical education, to purchase musical instruments and pay one-third of the very high cost of those instruments as a tax to the revenue. I do not think it is fair, and it is certainly putting an undue burden on one portion of the population. I think if we are going to have any musical education in the country or any development of musical knowledge—the Government have not been behind in this particular matter in so far as they have, under their own auspices, one of the finest musical combinations probably in the world—and if we are going to develop it on proper lines, it would not be too much to ask the Minister to reduce the duty, which is a heavy incubus on the sale of manufactured musical instruments, from thirty-three and one-third per cent. I think it is too heavy a burden to ask a man to bear. Were musical instruments all instruments which could be bought at a few shillings the thirty-three and a third per cent. might not be a big consideration, but in view of the fact that the very cheapest piano manufactured costs a dealer anything around £40 to £50, and that on that he has to pay one-third ad valorem duty, which must necessarily be handed on to the purchaser—probably with a little addition in respect of his capital investment—it is asking the purchaser, the hard-working father of a family or the father of a family who puts his children to music as a profession, too much to pay this heavy amount as a tax to the revenue. That is the point of view of the ordinary member of the public.
With greater reluctance I pass on to the point of view of those who are handling those instruments as a matter of trade. I am reluctant to let my personal interests interfere with my public duties. I have submitted to the Minister a memorandum covering those points, and I had hoped he would have given it more favourable consideration. It has to be remembered that the largest part of the musical instruments imported into Ireland comes from the Continent. Before the war the dealer could purchase at all times on very favourable credit terms. He could purchase any of his requirements on a three or a six months' bill, which gave him an opportunity to dispose of the goods before he was called upon to pay for them. The largest distributing houses which were spread over England and Ireland educated the public into this credit system whereby musical instruments of high value were sold on long deferred methods of payment enabling the wage-earning and the smaller salaried class to procure musical instruments. That has all gone by the board. Owing to the financial conditions in Europe to-day you cannot buy even from the largest or wealthiest of the manufacturers of musical instruments on any other terms except cash with order or cash against documents, which means that you must pay at the port on arrival. You have to pay the invoice price to your bankers or the exporter's bankers before you release the musical instruments. From no source outside England can he buy musical instruments on any other basis, and England is not by any means the largest source of supply for us. Added to this, the purchaser has to pay one-third on the invoice price, not on the invoice price alone, but the invoice price plus the carriage and plus all port dues. On that the ad valorem duty is struck. It does not need a great deal of knowledge of business to realise that you cannot change the public mind very quickly. The public were trained to this method of purchasing by long terms of credit. They cannot be easily changed, especially in view of the fact that the first cost of musical instruments to the dealer has risen by more than 100 per cent. on the pre-war value. Consequently the purchaser has to pay a much higher price and has to look for credit terms to enable him to purchase. It does not need a great deal of business knowledge to realise how difficult it is for any trader to carry on under those conditions. I put it to the Minister that the musical trade in the Saorstát is not so extensive that it can be wisely embarrassed in business. The total number of musical instrument dealers of any standing in the country could be counted on the fingers of one hand easily. The trade submitted to the Minister here figures showing the actual reduction in the number of instruments imported and consequently in the number they sold. These showed that they had gone down by half. I think that should be sufficient to induce the Minister to consider his decision in this matter. The difficulties have become so enormous that practically every house in the trade—some of them have offered the Minister to submit their books for inspection— have found business becoming more and more difficult because they cannot capitalise owing to the enormous increase in first cost, and in the credit terms used in the disposal of the instruments. I put this to the Minister in the sense of an appeal—that it is an injustice to the small number of traders involved.
I would point out to the Minister that this is a trade of some repute and standing, that the business places of those engaged in it are located in the best parts of the cities and towns, that they pay very high rates and taxes and, in the sense of appeal, I would say to the Minister that their views, when put reasonably before him, should receive his consideration. They are prepared to submit any evidence required in order to support their arguments. They should not be crushed out of business, which is really what will happen owing to the way in which they are embarrassed and owing to the difficulty of financing their business.
I would put another point of view to the Minister—the point of view dealing with revenue. I venture to say that the total revenue obtained from this tax is not of sufficient importance to justify the Minister in its rigorous continuance. The total revenue obtained from all duties under this comprehensive resolution will amount to £370,000. Of that, we are informed by the Minister that he expects that motors will bring in £300,000, leaving a net balance to cover all the other items in the resolution of £70,000. I may not have those figures correctly, but, if I am wrong, the Minister will set me right. I put it to the Minister that the small proportion of that £70,000 represented by duty on musical instruments does not justify him in continuing the embarrassingly high duties which at present obtain. I hold, further, that if the duty were reduced to a reasonable figure—I understand the trade are prepared to accept, say, 20 per cent. ad valorem—the increased sales which would take place, in meeting the demand that is there, would safeguard the revenue against loss. Rather would he gain in collectible revenue by the change. At present the people cannot rise to the level of the retail charges. I would ask him to compare the figures, in round numbers, of importation last year, as compared with that of the previous year. I think he will find that there is a reduction of not less than one-third. At least it is the experience of those in the trade—I have had figures sent me —that sales of new instruments have gone down by, at least, one-third. Whatever increase in trade they have is in second-hand instruments, which pay no duty. If the duty were reduced the revenue would not be less, and it would probably be more than it is under this prohibitive duty of 33? per cent. With regard to the question of values, it is true to say that the lowest-priced German piano has gone up since the 1st January of last year by £8, and in some cases by £9—that is the very lowest-priced German piano—on which a duty of £3 or more is payable. That makes a difference of £11 or £12. The Minister may have examined the figures in money values and, with this increased price, that would give him a wrong impression.
I suggest that he should rather examine the figures relating to the number of instruments imported. The effect of this duty is to make the traders' position practically impossible. I can say sincerely, from my own experience —and I venture to hope that my words will have some attention paid to them— that the trade has been practically brought to a standstill. The purchase of new musical instruments of high value—by that, I mean pianos—has practically stopped because of this high duty. The trade does not comprise many people but it employs a number of highly-skilled persons, and pays high wages and high rates. I would, in the sense of appeal, ask the Minister to give some consideration to this question and to give those interested in the trade some hope that he will reconsider and reduce the duties to a reasonable figure, at least to 20 per cent. Although the traders have already paid duty on their present valuable stocks, they are prepared to drop that in order to get business moving again. Those engaged in the trade are, of course, affected by the general economic condition of the country, and I would ask the Minister to give their position as serious consideration as possible and reduce the duty of 20 per cent. approximately.
