I am not quite certain, from the wording of the resolution, that it covers the import of wool and tweeds. I would like the Minister to explain.
CUSTOMS RESOLUTIONS. - RESOLUTION No. 6.—PERSONAL CLOTHING AND WEARING APPAREL.
(1) That with the exceptions hereinafter mentioned, a customs duty of an amount equal to fifteen per cent. of the value of the article shall be charged, levied, and paid on all personal clothing and wearing apparel, whether completely or partially manufactured, and all component parts of personal clothing or wearing apparel, and all accessories of personal clothing or wearing apparel imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 25th day of April, 1925.
(2) That the duty mentioned in this Resolution shall not be charged or levied
(a) on boots or shoes (including slippers, goloshes, sandals and clogs), nor on any component parts or accessories thereof, nor
(b) on any accessory of personal clothing or wearing apparel imported separately from the clothing or apparel and made wholly or mainly of non-textile materials, nor
(c) on any article of a surgical or medical character and intended to be worn because of or as a preventive against or remedy for any physical ailment or defect.
(3) That whenever the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied that any article of personal clothing or wearing apparel is imported for use exclusively in a stage play or other dramatic or musical representation or performance, they may, subject to compliance with such conditions as they may think fit to impose, permit such article to be imported without payment of the duty mentioned in this Resolution.
(4) That whenever the Revenue Commissioners are satisfied that any partially manufactured article of personal clothing or wearing apparel is imported for further manufacture and subsequent exportation, they may, subject to compliance with such conditions as they may think fit to impose, permit such article to be imported without payment of the duty mentioned in this Resolution.
(5) That for the purposes of this Resolution the expression "wearing apparel" shall include pocket handkerchiefs and umbrellas.
This resolution proposes a duty on personal clothing and wearing apparel. Deputies will see that we exclude from the scope of the duty boots and shoes, which we keep as a separate duty, and not incorporating it in this particular one. We also except certain articles like studs, whether diamond or articles of horn and bone, from the tax. We exempt medical articles of any sort, and particular types of stockings and belts. We are also admitting clothing required for theatrical purposes. We are giving power to admit any partially manufactured article that is to undergo a further process of manufacture and be re-exported. The last section includes articles which would otherwise be border-line articles, and if charged might possibly be liable to dispute. At a later stage, I am willing to hear any arguments from Deputies as to whether these two particular things should be included within the scope of the tax or excluded. This is a tax that we believe will immediately give very considerable employment. It embraces a very wide range of articles. Many of them are actually manufactured to a greater or lesser extent in the Saorstát at present. Others perhaps are not manufactured here, but they are of the type of goods that could be easily manufactured here. As I have already said, the equipment required for carrying on many of these apparel industries is not elaborate, though in many cases it may be moderately so. We believe that the extension of employment as a result of this tax will be very great and rapid. I have had estimates as carefully prepared as they could be, but I hardly like to give them, because it is difficult to foresee the effects of a tax, but I have no hesitation in saying that thousands of people will be employed. I believe that this is the sort of industry that should be carried on here as efficiently as it can be carried on anywhere else. There are industries that we could never cause to take root here. There are industries dependent on very heavy consumption of coal, for instance. There are industries that could only be carried on in a country that has iron mines and coal fields, but these are a type of industry that could very well be carried on here. Most of them, when the Shannon scheme gets going, would be independent of the use of coal. In any case they are the type of industry that could be carried on here. We think it desirable to go over the whole range of them. Some branches of the industry may develop rapidly, take root strongly, and become quite independent of any protection that may be given them. Others may not develop, and the time will arrive, as in the case of all these tariffs, when a reconsideration will have to take place, when we may split the tariff, remitting part of it, continuing part of it, or reducing it. Meantime we cannot see that any of these branches should be selected and others left out. Some of these, which perhaps employ less people than others, are the very ones which might have the best prospects for the future.
In the resolution, as circulated, the date is wrong: it should be "on the 24th day of April."
"On and after the 24th day of April."
Perhaps the Minister would inform us whether this resolution covers the import of manufactured woollens, such as tweeds, cloths and other things. If so, I think that there is a want in the specified articles. We know very well that the woollen mills of the country, which some years ago reached a high state of finish and production, are suffering at the present day from mass production on the other side. I know of nothing in the rural areas, where these mills are situated, which would give so much employment as they would, and add to the prosperity of their neighbourhood. I think it is only fair that a trade which was deliberately killed by Act of Parliament should now receive the assistance of legislation in restoring it to its real position. From many points of view, the woollen trade is specially suited to this country. Woollen manufactures of all shades, and particularly the woollen tweeds and cloths made in our mills, are specially suited to this country. I think the Minister would do well if he made the wording of this resolution read so that the effect of the resolution would mean a tariff upon imported tweeds and woollens.
I do not propose at this stage to anticipate the general argument as to the effect of these new duties on the cost of living. This will arise in the general discussion; but I want to be quite clear in my mind, and perhaps it would help to clear up the minds of some Deputies also, as to whether the words "personal clothing and wearing apparel" cover every article of clothing of every kind whatever. In other words, would everything I wear now, if imported, be taxed, except my collar-stud? I take it, from the wording of the resolution, that it would. I take it that it includes hats, pocket handkerchiefs and umbrellas. It is just as well that that should be understood by the public, that every article of clothing, whether manufactured in the Saorstát or not, or to whatever extent it may be manufactured here, if brought into the Saorstát from Great Britain or from Northern Ireland even, by a man who had been for a week's holidays there——
There will be the ordinary administrative concessions to travellers. That is, people will be allowed to bring in a certain quantity to wear.
I understand; it will be administered in the same way as in France, Italy and other countries. But setting that aside, the fact is that the tax will be imposed on anything imported, at any rate by parcels post. It is just as well that that should be known, because it is really a very extensive scheme. A great many were under the impression that these taxes would apply only to ready-made suits. It is quite clear that we are up against very much larger and wider things than that. I do not want to labour the point now, or to delay the passage of this resolution, but it is a matter into which we must look closely and get fuller information before the Report Stage.
This is a resolution which takes away the good effects of the Minister's Budget. He reduced the tax on sugar and tea. He loses revenue on these two items and he claps it on clothes.
Fifteen hundred and fifty against five.
The total importation under the head of this tax, plus boots, amounts to £7,153,000. Fifteen per cent. on that makes the bulk of the reduction which under this well-beloved Budget, which was commended to-day, is the sum that we are going to lose on clothes. If there is any tax which will operate against the poor this is the one. We know, from whatever cause it arises, we cannot get our clothes made at a reasonable price, and it is a boon to the people that they are able to buy ready-made clothes and by that means clothe themselves for a couple of pounds. The Minister has not expressed an opinion as to the capability of the manufacturers in this country to make hats. Why tax hats? There is no hat factory that I know of in this country. There is no use in taxing hats. Was he after revenue? Then we have clothes, overcoats, hosiery, collars and shirts of all kinds. Without exaggeration, I believe that this tax will do away with the good effect which the Budget would otherwise have given to the poor. It will be outside the range of possibility for the poor man at the present time if this duty is imposed to get a suit of clothes, and we will be all on the farms——
A DEPUTY
Naked.
We will be in the position of the man who used to go about in the hat his father wore; we will not be able to buy a new hat because they will be too dear. There is 15 per cent. on your hat, 15 per cent. on your boots, 15 per cent. on your shirt, and so on. It is no laughing matter; it is a matter that concerns us very vitally, and I think we are very well justified in opposing this resolution.
I agree altogether with this tax, from the Labour point of view and from the farmers' point of view. We have listened to the farmers for the last four or five years grumbling about the price of wool, and now when they are getting an opportunity of having their wool spun in their own mills and by their own sons and daughters, if they like, they are still grumbling. There was an old saying that you could not please the farmers.
An old saying?
Yes, but it is being renewed here. The Minister for Finance has been complimented by Deputy Wilson on performing the hat trick. Deputy Wilson says we cannot make hats in this country.
We can talk through them.
We can wear them. We have in the County of Cork, that has been shouted about so much this evening, and where we are the pioneers of the beet industry, a number of woollen mills idle and half-idle. There will not be a copy of the Examiner left in Cork to-morrow when the working men there hear that the Minister for Finance is giving an opportunity of setting the old mill-wheels going again. Of all the taxes that the Minister is imposing this is about the second best; he forgot one, and that was on manufactured flour, leaving the wheat to come in. But I for one compliment him, and I compliment Deputy O'Doherty on drawing special attention to the fact that not alone will the Minister have the blessing of the tailors of the country but of the tweed-makers, the weavers, and everyone engaged in this industry. This is a tax to which we have been looking forward for years, a real Home Rule tax, a real Republican tax, if you like, because it shows to the world that we are free to impose our own taxes, even against England.
On a point of information or understanding, is this resolution dealing with tweeds or with manufactured clothing? Why is the Deputy not put on the right road and not be allowed to ramble about?
The Deputy was put on the right road when Deputy O'Doherty asked a question a short time ago, and I think that unless I am a little deaf the Minister for Finance told him that tweed was included.
Oh, no.
Well, I am sorry if I am wrong. It should be. At the same time I compliment the Minister for Finance on imposing a tax on imported manufactured apparel. There are houses, and you need not go outside Dublin to find them, where you can give your measure and get a suit of clothes, and not a chilling is spent for Irish labour on these clothes, except for the taking of the measurements. The imposition of this tax would cure that evil. For that reason I am very much disappointed that the Minister did not include tweeds, but for other reasons there are some things left on which to compliment the Minister in connection with this tax.
I am afraid this tax is very likely to increase the cost of living. I do not know whether the Minister has inquired into it at all from that point of view, but certainly a casual glance at the proposal would lead one to that conclusion. I question if it will not do more injury than good in that connection. That is a matter on which I would like some information, and doubtless the Minister will give us that information. But to the exemptions in the last clause I think that it will be necessary to make an addition. I do not know whether the Minister is aware of it or not, but in the preparation of the costumes referred to in this resolution a great many are copied from what are known as French models. The same is true of hats. If these models are to be excluded—in other words, if they are to be taxed—I am afraid you will not help the industry, and I would suggest to the Minister that amongst the items which the Revenue Commissioners might include on the exempted list of taxed articles would be models, either of costumes or of hats. It is obvious, without taking up the time of the Dáil in discussing a matter of this kind, that if we do not get these models the products of this particular industry in this country will fall very much behind the standard of other countries, because we will not have the ideas to copy. I would, therefore, suggest that the last clause should be extended so as to include models—that is, items that would be used exclusively for models, which I think should be admitted tax free.
This is one of the resolutions to which I take particular exception, and to any Deputy who would stand up on behalf of Labour to support it I would say that he does not represent Labour; I say to him deliberately that he misrepresents Labour. This resolution may act, as the Minister has said, to the benefit perhaps of a thousand people, and possibly to more than that, but what will it mean to more than a million of our people? One cannot read it and realise what it means without feeling that the Minister is making one vast mistake in his Budget. Ready-made clothing imported and cloths and tweed manufactured in the country are two different things. The cloth turned out by woollen mills is not proposed to be dealt with by this resolution at all. Unmanufactured articles are not proposed to be dealt with, and Deputies would need to keep that in their heads. It is the very poor who have, of necessity, to buy this class of clothing. Men like the Minister and some Deputies, including myself, can afford to go to a good tailor, have a few tries on, and get good material. But what is the position of the very poor, perhaps two and a half out of our three and a half million people? When the tax was put on boots last year I considered that this one was likely to follow, and happening to be in London last October I went into one of the biggest houses in the Strand and I got a suit of clothes turned out in about a week. I had two tries on and I got it for five guineas. The two previous suits I had made in Dublin cost from eight to ten guineas, and they were inferior to this one, which I am now wearing. That will give a fair idea of what people may expect from this resolution. It is an iniquity; it is an injustice that is sought to be perpetrated not on the rich man but on the very poor. These are articles that are of particular necessity to the poor and to the poor alone. It may be a boon to Labour, and it may be a boon to the tailors, the few of them that are left in the country. How many suits of clothes are worn by the poor man and his family? What will this mean to the family budget of a man with five or six of a family?
I ask the Deputies and the Minister to consider this resolution seriously. This resolution is going to bolster up inefficiency and small output. The tailoring trade in this country would not be in the position it is in if the people engaged in it gave anything like value or output for money. The trade in ready-made clothing has grown out of all proportions, not on account of the cheapness of the articles, but because the people engaged in the trade will not approach it in a businesslike or proper manner. I challenge any Minister to stand in any constituency and put this resolution to the test. I challenge any Labour Deputy or any other Deputy to do it.
The arguments Deputy Gorey put so strongly are absolutely fallacious. We have heard that kind of argument used before against every step which the Government took to put on duties that will protect native industries and help to set them going again.
I am talking about the manufactured article, not the unmanufactured.
I am going to deal with that. It may interest Deputies to know that already in Dublin and other parts of the country these ready-made clothing manufacturers have taken premises and set up the machinery and organisation to deal with this ready-made trade. The very fact of this duty being put on will ensure that these factories will be increased and extended.
How did they know it was coming?
By intelligent anticipation. As a matter of fact, I have an offer of an option by one of these firms on a small factory site on which my workshops are situated, and they withheld the completion pending the introduction of the Budget. If the duty goes on they are going to procure the premises and start work. I took the trouble of going through the factory that they now have established, and I saw the ready-made clothing for the workingman that Deputy Gorey is talking about made there.
That is different from the piano tune the Deputy was playing some time ago.
The price of these clothes when completed will compare favourably with those imported from Leeds and Bradford. It may interest the Deputy further to know that 90 per cent. of the material to be made up that I saw in the factory was Irish-made. If this duty is imposed it will make it essential for those who desire to supply the ready-made trade to set up factories here, and the fact that they can get the kind of cloth they require for the ordinary cheap ready-made suit will make it imperative for them to get material of Irish manufacture. Deputy Gorey was very worried about the workingman, and he said that this was a tax on him and not on the well-to-do. He must not have eyes to see or he would know that in this city, or any other city in the Saorstát, the well-dressed young men to-day are wearing ready-to-wear suits. The whole tailoring trade of this country is passing from the working tailor to the ready-to-wear firms.
Why?
Deputy Gorey was very emphatic, and was heard in silence. He might extend the same courtesy to other Deputies.
I will tell Deputy Gorey why.
Perhaps the Deputy will tell me why.
Through you, sir, I will inform Deputy Gorey. It is just the economic argument, that a country with a big population can manufacture in large quantities by well-organised team work, and can supply an article at a cheaper rate than a country with a smaller population at its door. It is a fact that 50 per cent. of the well-dressed young business men, professional classes, and others of that type, wearing well-made and well-cut clothes, are to-day buying them ready-to-wear, because the average working tailor cannot, by the methods of his trade, manufacture a suit at the same price, or anything like the same price, as can a factory with well-organised team work, where the work is specialised and each part of the suit is made by a special team. That is a fair argument, and a reasonable view.
I hold that this tax will certainly bring about the establishment and extension of factories for the making of ready-to-wear suits, both for the workingman and for the professional and business classes. It is the very best step the Minister could have taken to ensure an increase of employment. I say that very seriously. I do not wear ready-to-wear suits myself, because I think I should be patriotic enough to give orders to a tailor. But really it is a fact that the average man to-day can buy a suit of ready-to-wear clothes at considerably less price than he can get it made by a tailor, for the reason I have stated. If this tax is put on it will enable factories here to organise team work and establish the effective organisation required to turn out that kind of suit for all classes. I regret something was not done on the lines that Deputy O'Doherty mentioned to deal with the material itself, but perhaps that may come from the bigger development of the factory work.
Notwithstanding Deputy Gorey's denunciation, I welcome this Resolution. The argument that Deputy Gorey used, which will probably influence a few people, was used without any examination of the facts. Deputy Gorey says that the effect of this tax will be to raise the cost of living. Deputy Good also uses that argument. It is quite possible that there may be a rise in the price of wearing apparel in the first few months, perhaps for the first few years. I am not going to deny it. But I take this proposed tax with the tea and sugar reductions, and amongst my numerous papers I just happened to find certain figures which I used in the discussion last year.
It is your Budget.
In the discussion last year I argued that it would be possible to abolish the duty on tea and sugar and replace it by a duty of 25 per cent. on wearing apparel, and that the position of the working man with a family, as far as taxation is concerned, would be about the same. I based that argument on statistics supplied in a report by a committee on the cost of living in Ireland. That committee made the closest possible inquiry into the incidence of family budgets and the purchases of the average family in town and country throughout the Saorstát. From that I find that the percentage of the average income of the working-class family, including a country as well as a town family, spent on clothing, was 17.48 per cent. If we take the percentage of the average family's income spent on tea and sugar we have 3.80 per cent. on tea and 3.24 per cent. on sugar. I reckon that the abolition of the tax on tea and the reduction of the tax on sugar, on an income of 100/- weekly, will represent a reduction of 6/-, while the increased cost of this tax of 15 per cent. on wearing apparel, provided it is all passed on to the consumer, and that no benefit is given from the increased output here, would only cost 1/9. That is to say, there is a net benefit for the working-man's family on this Budget of 4/3 weekly. That is a rough calculation, but I will endeavour to check it before to-morrow. I think it is not far wrong. Perhaps the Minister would be able to confirm the figures or otherwise.
On the other side what is the position? This is an industry that obviously ought to be a native one. It is a natural growth out of a domestic industry, out of home production, and the making-up of the raw material into clothing. Deputy Gorey and other Deputies have spoken rather of suits. Wearing apparel is not merely men's clothing. It includes shirts, stockings, vests, and all the paraphernalia of a lady's outfit. Before the Finance Bill becomes law we might be able to find out something about the number of people employed in factories or engaged in these varied occupations. It is not merely tailors that are in question. There are shirt-makers, handkerchief-makers, as well as other industries which have hitherto been almost monopolised by the North of Ireland, so far as the demand in the Saorstát is concerned. You have dressmaking, shirt-making, handkerchief-making, hosiery and other industries which supply every man and woman, as well as children, with ordinary requirements which have hitherto been imported. Naturally, and of necessity, in my opinion, these articles should be produced in the Saorstát.
One of our great troubles in this city, particularly, and in Cork, Limerick and other places, is the absence of occupation for young women. This proposal will meet that want to a very great extent. During the war, Limerick Clothing Factory employed 300 or 400 people, chiefly girls. To-day they are employing 30. There are two or three factories in Dublin which at one time employed a large number of women at machines making boys' clothing. They are now practically idle. A firm producing men's clothing, doing a very large proportion of the trade of the city and also in Cork, imports every article. It produces not ready-made clothing, but made-to-measure clothing. That firm promised about two years ago that, when they had established a certain number of branches, they would establish a factory here. They have not yet established the factory, but this proposal will induce them to do so. In my opinion, it will compel them to do so.
Deputy Gorey's ideal is the £5 5s. London suit. I want to suggest that this is the way to get the £5 5s. London suit made in Dublin. You are going to develop here exactly the same kind of business that has brought about the £5 5s. London suit. The old craft tailor may not get any benefit out of this proposal. I do not think he will, but he will have to adapt himself to the new demand. He will readily adapt himself, I think, when he sees that there is a very great increase in the demand for clothing made to measure, even though it may be made to measure in a factory or by what is known as the division-of-labour method.
Deputy Good spoke of exempting French models from the duty. I think there really should be no need for that as from one model perhaps 100 or 200 copies are made. A duty of 15 per cent. on a model is not going to do very much harm to anyone. As far as that particular kind of wearing apparel is concerned, I want to suggest that it will not make any difference whatever —not a half-penny worth of difference —to the wearer in this country. I do not believe that ladies' clothing of the fashionable kind—what we might call luxury clothing—is affected at all by the cost of production. It is always sold at the highest price that can be got for it.
took the Chair.
Is the Deputy speaking with any authority on this subject?
If Deputy Good's wife were to go into a shop for a lady's hat, the price would be £5 5s. If my wife or someone else went into that shop, for the same hat, it would depend on her appearance whether the price would be three, five, or seven guineas. I suggest that a duty of 15 per cent. is not going to make any difference whatever until that particular article comes into the ruck, and the French model influence has passed by. I believe the effect of this duty undoubtedly will be to develop a very great industry, one that is badly wanted in our towns and cities. Again, it may, when electricity is cheap, develop a rural industry. That in itself would be very valuable. Probably there is no group of commodities which would give more employment, without raising prices very much, that would be more beneficial than those affected by this particular proposal.
I am glad, notwithstanding the possibility that it may mean to the mother of a large family quite an appreciable rise in the price of clothing in the year, of the amount of employment that will be given, and that the chances of the girls of that family getting employment, will be very much greater. Such increase is more than set off by the reduction made in tea and sugar duties. I hope and expect that we shall see the benefit of this particular tax more quickly than that of any other tax suggested either this year or last year, that we shall see factories developing and business growing, always with the possibility of being able to meet the mass production of Leeds, Leicester, Northampton and other places on much more nearly level terms. I welcome the proposal and I think that notwithstanding the possibility of an increase in the price of clothing in the first instance, that it is a desirable tax, and that the effect will entirely be good.
Coupled with the Minister's statement that it is not proposed to put a tax on tweeds or woollen fabrics such as that before us, we have his statement that in the proposals before us we have the final word on any effort at protection on his part until such time as there may be a general election. I think, taken together, this perhaps raises a very serious question for our woollen manufacturers. It would warrant some time during our discussion on this Budget that we should have a pretty full statement from the Government point of view on the state of our woollen industry. Some of us recently have seen evidence, at any rate as far as the homespun industry is concerned, that things are very bad. Very little homespun tweed is being made at present. I do not know in what position the ordinary mill industries are, but we are told here to-day that there is to be no protection given to our woollen industries. We are also practically told that the present Government will not propose to reconsider the matter until the Budget, say, of 1928, because the life of the present Dáil has not yet half run.
I take it the Dáil will be able to save the country a general election until it runs out its full term. You would not have a Budget in which you would deal again with your woollen industry until 1928. I think that is perhaps a serious matter from the point of view of our textile manufacturers. On the general objection raised here to protective tariffs, we are, apparently, to have a couple of years at any rate in which we are to judge the effect. Personally I do not see that anybody would gain very much from a general election which would be fought out on the question of protection. I think the matter of protection in the country is one on which you can have a very common understanding if the thing is gone into systematically. We do not want to split up into parties on it.
Deputy Johnson pointed out with regard to this resolution that it bears particularly on the domestic life of our people. I think, just as the Minister to-day has faced the position of a free breakfast table, that all parties in the country will have to face at some time or another, and in the near future, a policy of what we may call the Irish home, that is, whether we shall definitely set so to protect the industries that will provide the necessities for our homes that we will have a nucleus of organised industry in the country, so organised as to provide the necessities for the fabric of the Irish home, including furniture, crockery ware, and everything else like that. Those people who are out against protective tariffs will, I hope, take advantage of the couple of years before them, according to the Minister for Finance, in order to take a sensible and wide view of the situation.
I take exception to the tariffs imposed by this Resolution. It is very hard to segregate a question of this kind without entering into the general question of tariffs on all articles. It is stated by the Minister, and it was stated by him last year, that the Government were trying an experiment in Protection. I maintained last year, and I maintain now, that there is no such thing possible as an experiment in Protection. Once you have started Protection you are committed to it. It seems to me that there is no possible going back from it. You give Protection to boot manufacturers and ready-made clothing manufacturers. They build their factories and get their operatives trained, and get going, depending on this protective tariff. Without that protective tariff they could not exist, and would never have existed. Does anyone think that these people would invest their capital or take a chance of building up an industry if after a period of two or three years they were to be told that this tariff was to be taken off and that they would have to stand on their own legs? That is not possible, and will not take place. The men who establish those factories understand, if they have not been actually told, that the tariff is going to be permanent. We are told that the Government contemplates nothing in the nature of general tariffs. They are getting close to it. They have put protective duties on the majority of the essentials of life in this country, and two years does not take long to pass. There is no doubt in my mind that the intention is to continue this policy of imposing tariffs until we have a tariff on every article imported into the country. We have it stated by Deputy Mulcahy that that is the ambition of those advocating tariffs. With that ideal I am not in agreement. I think it is a wrong ideal, and running contrary to the trend of modern development. It is almost impossible for any country to be self-dependent at the present time. It is impossible for a country like Ireland, with her limited resources and her one-sided possibilities, to develop into a complete self-supporting nation—a nation, as some Deputy said, surrounded by a wall of brass.
In my opinion every country is dependent, to a certain extent, on other countries at the present time. I am rather surprised that Labour Deputies should advocate protection, because the whole tendency of organised labour is to see that articles are produced in countries which are best suited for their production, and that labour devotes its attention to the best type of production and to the best type of article which can be most economically manufactured in a country, and that it imports articles which can be more economically manufactured elsewhere. We are told that the cost of living will not go up. We are told that the cost of our tea, sugar, and coffee will more than counterbalance the increased cost of living which will result from those tariffs and, in particular, the tariff imposed on ready-made clothing. I am willing to acknowledge that, and that the cost, in so far as the reduction in the duty of tea and sugar is concerned, may more than counterbalance the tariff placed on those articles of which I am talking. I maintain that the Minister, instead of balancing the duty on tea, sugar, and coffee with the duty on clothing and other things, should have made a greater effort to reduce taxation, and that his efforts would be better used to that effect than in changing over from one article to another.
I am looking at this largely from the point of view of the agriculturist. I have always believed that those engaged in an industry like agriculture, which has to export its surplus products, cannot benefit in any way from tariffs. Their prices are fixed by conditions existing outside the country. The conditions inside the country have no real effect on their prices. They have to sell their articles in an open market, and they have to continue to buy their requirements in a closed market. They have to buy supplies, which are protected, and some of which are getting considerable advantage from protection. We get pious recognition here, and in other places, of the prominence of agriculture in the economic life of this country. But that is all we get. What advantage is agriculture getting directly under this Budget?
£600,000.
In what?
Agricultural Grant.
Is not everybody getting that relief by way of income tax? We were told by the Minister that the farmers are getting practically nothing off income tax.
Because they do not pay income tax.
As far as I understand, they have not got anything under this Budget.
The Agricultural Grant is larger.
That is not a Budget matter. That is only putting right a matter which has long been wrong—the over-taxation of the agriculturist as compared with others who live in the rural districts. I do not regard that as an ordinary budget matter at all. I regard it as putting right what has been wrong for years and recognising, at least, some arguments which we have put forward here. The Ministers know the conditions that exist in the rural districts. They know the hardships that exist. They know that the people of some parts of the country were almost in a state of semi-starvation. Now, they are going to increase the cost of these people's clothing. The fact of the matter is that, as the people are in some cases going without boots at present, they will be going next year without clothes, because you are balancing the advantage of abolition of the tea tax by a tariff on clothing. Is there any indication that the small farmer and agricultural labourer are able to exist decently with the present high cost of living? There is not. The efforts of the Government should, in my opinion, be directed to reducing the present extremely high cost of living, which bears hardest on those who reside in the rural districts, rather than to the imposition of tariffs on necessary articles. Deputy McCullough made an extraordinary statement. He said that works were already being got ready in anticipation of the employment that would be given when the tariff proposals became known.
On a point of order, that was not my statement. The Deputy has not given a correct rendering of my statement.
Then I would like to hear what the Deputy did say.
Would it be in order for the Deputy to repeat his speech? I suggest that Deputy McCullough should not be allowed to do so.
I have no intention of doing so.
I will not pursue the argument then. I take it that Deputy McCullough did not state what I thought he stated. We will see, however, what appears in the Official Report. If he did not say what I said, there is no use in going on with the matter.
The Deputy stated it for me when I was speaking.
Certain Deputies have referred to the advantage the woollen industry would derive from this tariff. I think it should be obvious to everybody that the woollen industry will not derive any advantage. There is nothing in this Budget to prevent all ready-made clothing being of foreign material, with foreign thread, foreign buttons and all the other articles that are necessary. I think it should not go out from the Dáil that the industry of woollen manufacture in Ireland will derive any benefit from the tariffs that have been proposed in this Budget.
Do you know anything about blankets?
Blankets are not used in making clothes, as a rule.
The tariff in this Budget includes blankets.
They are not used for making suits of clothes.
Deputy O'Doherty asked about the inclusion of woollens in this tariff. The difficulty is, that if there was a tariff on woollens, either all making-up and all tailoring would be wiped out in this country, or, on top of the tariff on woollens, we would have to put a higher tariff on the clothes made out of them. Instead of having a 15 per cent. tariff on, say, ready-mades, which we have been dealing with, we would have to have a 30 per cent. tariff. It was felt that we could not really face the imposition of a two-tier tariff of that sort. It would raise far too sharply the cost of particular articles. We tried, so far as we could, to meet the case of the woollen industry by another tax, which I will deal with subsequently. Perhaps I could also deal with the whole matter then.
I would not say that the imposition of a tariff on articles like these is bolstering up inefficiency. As a matter of fact, I believe that we will have people who have experience of the trade elsewhere opening factories here, and that we will have efficient factories. I think people from outside who open factories here and who know how to do their share of the business, have no cause of complaint about the workers employed by them. I have not heard that the people connected with the tobacco factories or that Fords had any cause of complaint about their workers. If we have people who know the business—who can run it properly—opening factories here, they will not, I think, become inefficient because of coming here, and they will not have very serious cause of complaint about the inefficiency of the workers.
We were asked, why not exclude hats. There is no hat factory, so far as I know, but you do not want to exclude an article that is, to some extent, a substitute for some other article made. There are certainly caps made, and you do not want to discourage the wearing of the democratic cap and put everybody into hats. Apart from that, people have been making inquiries for some time about the possibility of hat manufacture here. We know that there is a distinct possibility of a hat factory being started here, even apart from this tariff altogether. We believe that the manufacture of felt hats will be undertaken as a result of this tariff.
Deputy Johnson has dealt with the effect on the cost of living. I have not the calculations here, but I think that he is not very far out. I think there is nothing I need add to what Deputy McCullough and Deputy Johnson have said about the matter. We will have a very great amount of employment given here, employment that will be spread over the country. I believe that this duty will cost nothing like a 15 per cent. increase to the people of the country. In the case of many articles Irish manufacturers are already carrying on in a small way fairly well and are not charging 15 per cent. above the British prices or anything like it, because if they were they could not carry on at all. The experience we have had, so far, in other matters is, that manu facturers have been glad of the opportunity which the tariffs gave them, and that they have not tried to screw out excessive profits, but rather that they have tried to expand their industries and put them firmly on their feet. I have said that, in the case of boots, we know that there has been no increase: we know in fact, that there has been, in fact, an actual decrease. In the case of jams, we know that there has been a decrease in the price of the Irish jams and that the price of the foreign-made jams has gone up. In addition to that, in the case of certain jams at any rate, there is a general acknowledgment that the quality of the Irish goods has gone up. The Irish manufacturer has seized the opportunity of getting on his feet and of making his industry big here. He has taken the opportunity in the right spirit, and I believe that we will have many people doing that in this instance, too, and that there is no danger of an increase to the people to the full extent of the 15 per cent. in the article manufactured.
Question put.
The Committee divided. Tá, 49; Níl, 14.
Tá
- Earnán de Blaghd.
- Thomas Bolger.
- Seán Buitléir.
- Seoirse de Bhulbh.
- Próinsias Bulfin.
- Séamus de Búrca.
- Louis J. D'Alton.
- John Daly.
- Máighréad Ní Choileain Bean
- Uí Dhrisceóil.
- Patrick J. Egan.
- Thomas Hennessy.
- Donnchadh Mac Con Uladh.
- Liam Mac Cosgair.
- Séamus Mac Cosgair.
- Maolmhuire Mac Eochadha.
- Tomás Mac Eoin.
- Pádraig Mac Fadáin.
- Patrick McGilligan.
- Seoirse Mac Niocaill.
- Liam Mac Sioghaird.
- Martin M. Nally.
- Tomás de Nógla.
- John T. Nolan.
- Peadar O hAodha.
- Ailfrid O Broin.
- Criostóir O Broin.
- Seán O Bruadair.
- Tomás O Conaill.
- Conchubhar O Conghaile.
- Máirtín O Conalláin.
- Liam O Daimhín.
- Eoghan O Dochartaigh.
- Séamus O Dóláin.
- Eamon O Dubhghaill.
- Peadar O Dubhghaill.
- Pádraig O Dubhthaigh.
- Eamon O Dúgáin.
- Aindriú O Láimhín.
- Fionán O Loingsigh.
- Risteárd O Maolchatha.
- Domhnall O Muirgheasa.
- Tadhg O Murchadha.
- Séamus O Murchadha.
- Pádraig O hOgáin (An Clár).
- Máirtín O Rodaigh.
- Seán O Súilleabháin.
- Andrew O'Shaughnessy.
- Mícheál O Tighearnaigh.
- Seán Priomhdhail.
Níl
- Pádraig Baxter.
- John J. Cole.
- John Conlan.
- Seán de Faoite.
- Connor Hogan.
- Patrick McKenna.
- Risteárd Mac Liam.
- Patrick J. Mulvany.
- James Sproule Myles.
- Tadhg O Donnabháin.
- Mícheál O Dubhghaill.
- Donnchadh O Guaire.
- Mícheál O hIfearnáin.
- Nicholas Wall.
Tellers:—Tá: Séamus O Dóláin, Liam Mac Sioghaird. Níl: Donnchadh O Guaire, Mícheál O h-Ifearnáin
Motion declared carried.
I ask the leave of the Committee to say one word. I ask the Committee not to take as accurate the calculation that I gave. I find that, in going over the calculation, it is quite wrong, and I wish to withdraw it.
You should have said that before the division.