Dáil Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 25 Apr 1928

Vol. 23 No. 4

No. 5.—CUSTOMS.

Mr. BLYTHE

I move:—

"(1) That a customs duty of an amount equal to thirty-three and one-third per cent. of the value of the article shall be charged, levied and paid on all empty glass bottles and empty glass jars of the kind hereinafter mentioned of a capacity of not less than five fluid ounces and imported into Saorstát Eireann on or after the 26th day of April, 1928, that is to say:—

(a) all empty bottles of a kind ordinarily used for bottling table waters as defined by sub-section (2) of Section 7 of the Finance Act, 1916, spirits (excluding perfumed spirits and medicinal spirits), wine, beer or cider, and

(b) all empty glass jars of a kind ordinarily used for containing jams, marmalades, or jellies.

(2) That, if it appears to the satisfaction of the Minister for Finance, in consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, that bottles and jars of the kinds specified in paragraph (1) of this resolution made of white glass and suitable for the requirements of traders in Saorstát Eireann are not manufactured in Saorstát Eireann the Revenue Commissioners may, by licence, authorise, subject to such conditions as they shall think fit to prescribe and as shall appear in the licence, the importation without payment of duty of empty glass bottles and jars of the kinds specified in the said paragraph (1) which, in the opinion of the Commissioners, are made of white glass."

No. 5 is a resolution with reference to glass bottles. When the tax on bottles was first imposed it was imposed so as to apply only to dark coloured bottles, and for the first year in which it was in operation only what are called black bottles were taxed. Then the people who were in control of the factory represented to us that they could make all classes of bottles. We felt it was very desirable that the scope and basis of the industry should extend. At that time we had not the machinery of the Tariff Commission. All sorts of investigation that might lead to taxation were conducted privately, so that the full details might not leak out and large quantities of goods be brought in. The result was that we believed that the factory here could make all classes of bottles and could make them economically. It has since been found that really the range of bottles that can be made by the factory here is comparatively limited, and those who have been running the factory have represented to us that because there is a tariff they feel called upon to attempt to supply bottles which it would be better for them if they did not make at all. It means an upset to their business and it means taking people off other work and that though they charge the full thirty-three and a third more than imported bottles can be got at, still it is an uneconomic proposition for them. At first we declined to touch the matter without investigation by the Tariff Commission. Then the owners of the factory came to us and represented that there was a matter here about which there could be no difference of opinion and that they were desirous of having something done in this Budget, that an investigation by the Tariff Commission would be taking the Tariff Commission off work that would be more useful for them to be doing, and that a considerable amount of delay would result. On that representation I agreed to introduce a motion in the Dáil. The meaning of it is, as I have stated, that glass jars will be taxed, that dark-coloured bottles of the wine, spirit and mineral-water type will be taxed, that white-coloured bottles of the same type will be liable to tax, but that it will be left to the Revenue Commissioners at the same time to allow in a reasonable quantity of bottles free of duty. It means that if the factory is in a position in six months, fifteen months, two years, or any particular time, to supply bottles of this kind made of white glass it will be the duty of the Revenue Commissioners to cease to issue any further licences and to charge the duty that has been laid down for the white-glass bottles. There is no doubt at all that this particular tax has been rather unfortunate.

As a matter of fact, it was our experience in connection with this particular bottle tax that caused me at any rate to be keen on setting up the Tariff Commission so as to have an investigation of all the facts relating to any case where a tariff was desired. Medicine bottles in large variety have not been obtainable from this factory. People carrying on certain sorts of bottling have been unable to carry it on because they could not get the type of bottle that was needed popularly from this factory. Generally speaking, the position was that we made the scope of the tariff wider than we ought to have made it, and that we did not really help the factory by making it so wide. We did not really help it and we did impose a degree of hardship on people connected with trades and industries using bottles. I think it is really highly desirable in the present circumstances to reduce the scope of the duty in the way we propose to reduce it.

Mr. MacENTEE

With the first part of the resolution we are largely in agreement. With regard to the second part I think it is a matter, without actually taking a vote at this particular stage, that we should have an opportunity of discussing very much more fully later on, and I presume we will be able to do that on the Report Stage. What strikes me is that this amendment is being made on the suggestion of the Irish Glass Bottle Company, and I feel that the Minister has not at all considered that that particular concern is not the only interest involved in this matter. The class of bottles I think it is proposed to exempt are bottles, the demand for which in this country is so small that a factory would never be able to turn them out by machinery on a competitive basis. They are the types of bottles that are made by hand. There exists in Ringsend and Irishtown the Irish Glass Bottle Makers' Protection Association and some time ago they approached myself and other Deputies representing the constituency and they suggested that they were in a position to make these bottles by hand. They said they put before the Minister for Industry and Commerce and, I suppose, the Minister for Finance, pretty full proposals in this matter, stating the capital cost involved, the production which they were prepared to guarantee, and the types of bottles they were prepared to manufacture. They said that every one of these bottles were manufactured previously in this country.

What would be the result if we passed this resolution? According to the Minister's speech it will mean that all bottles can come in here duty free until such time as the Irish Glass Bottle Company are in a position to manufacture these particular bottles. I feel the relations between the Irish Glass Bottle Company and the bottle-makers in Ringsend are such that the Glass Bottle Company would prefer to see the remaining representatives of this industry crushed out rather than avail of their services to enable the Company to put on the market the type of bottle referred to in the resolution. At any rate, I am afraid the Company is not concerned to keep alive the hand-made bottle industry. I make that statement with a good deal of reserve, and it is only the result of my own investigations. I feel the Company is concerned to justify itself as a machine factory, and it is not concerned to keep alive the hand-made bottle industries. As against that you have the definite statement of the bottle-makers who were engaged in the industry up to a very recent date. It is not such a long time since one of the bottle-making works in Ringsend closed down. That firm was working up to the time prohibition was introduced in America, and it was because there was no further demand from America for the type of bottle they produced that the works closed down. If the industry is started again it must have a protective tariff. The bottles which can be made by hand are used here in such small quantities that it would not be profitable to make them by machinery. The Glass Bottle Company would not attempt to make them by machinery.

If we accepted the Minister's suggestion now we should like to have a guarantee from him in regard to the Glass Bottle Company, which is going to be handed a virtual monopoly— and it is a question we should seriously consider as to whether that would be advisable or not. But if one can judge the Minister's intention, it would appear that he would like the Glass Bottle Company to have a monopoly of the glass bottle manufacture in this country. That may not be desirable; I think it is not, but if they are going to have a monopoly, then, before we accept the resolution, we ought to have a guarantee from the Minister that everything possible will be done to preserve the hand bottle-making industry in Irishtown and Ringsend.

Mr. LEMASS

There are some points that I would like to draw attention to. I am very glad, in the first place, that the Government has accepted the idea of licensing all imports. I think it is not so very long ago that the idea of regulating the importation of any article by licence to correspond with the amount produced at home was rejected by the Government and criticised by them. Now, however, that they have adopted the Fianna Fáil policy on the matter, we hope that they will see fit to extend it to other industries.

A very serious criticism of the Government's action arises from the fact that while they have refused consistently to consider imposing protective tariffs on any imported articles without full and adequate consideration by the Tariff Commission, they can be induced, apparently, to take off a tariff without recourse to the Tariff Commission. That, in itself, is an indication of what, I think, we had occasion to draw attention to before—to the fact that the Government's attitude appears to be definitely anti-protectionist. They took the view that where a tariff is to be imposed they should put as many difficulties in the way as possible and only if the applicants for the tariff succeeded in surmounting these difficulties will what they ask be given. But when it is a case of taking off a tariff, all these difficulties can be removed and an arrangement can be arrived at between Ministers and individuals without recourse to the Tariff Commission to secure what the individuals require.

I would like, also, to supplement Deputy MacEntee's remarks. The fact that these bottles are not being made in this country can, I think, be shown to be largely the fault of the Irish Glass Bottle Company. I am aware the glass bottle makers of Ringsend were prepared to take over the Irishtown factory and operate it for the purpose of making there by hand the bottles which the Irish Glass Bottle Company were unable to produce. The factory, however, is the property of the Irish Glass Bottle Company, and the price they were asking for the place was far in excess of what even an individual like myself, who has no particular knowledge of these matters, would believe to be justifiable. Any person who knows the factory is aware that it is no better than a heap of ruins, yet a ridiculous price was asked by the Irish Glass Bottle Company largely to prevent the premises being secured for the purpose of making bottles.

As regards the principle of the Resolution, that the tariff on imported bottles should be regulated to correspond with the volume of home production, we have no objection, but the wording of the Resolution implies that these bottles now proposed to be exempted must actually be manufactured in the country before the duty can be reimposed. If it could be brought to the notice of the Ministry, for example, that by the re-imposition of the duty the manufacture of these bottles would be made possible, we think a provision should be included, altering the terms of the Resolution to read: "suitable for the requirements of traders in Saorstát Eireann are not manufactured or about to be manufactured." Some such provision should be included so as to make it possible to reimpose the duty if it becomes obvious that the manufacture of the bottles in the Saorstát is again a feasible proposition. However, we will, no doubt, have an opportunity of discussing the whole position in relation to the manufacture of glass bottles here on another occasion. I merely want to say that I think that the facility which the Government have given to the remission of the duty in this case might also have been given to the other applicants that want duties imposed upon particular articles in which they were interested. We will have an opportunity of criticising the Budget later on in detail. I do not want to go into it more fully now. One of our criticisms is not so much what is in the Budget as what is not in it in relation to protection for Irish industry.

Mr. DERRIG

I should like to know from the Minister whether the jars or bottles used for exporting honey from this country will be exempt from duty? I understand that such bottles have to be imported. Representations have already been made to the Minister about this matter. I would like to know whether these bottles or jars would be exempt from taxation by this resolution?

Mr. BLYTHE

I believe that the articles for honey would not be regarded as jam jars——

Mr. DERRIG

And that they would not be exempt?

Mr. BLYTHE

They would be exempt and would not be dutiable.

Mr. BRADY

We have gone into this matter with the men who made the bottles by hand and they certainly put up a very strong case. The explanation they gave as to why the machine cannot produce certain bottles economically is that when the furnace is started it must continue to produce until the linings are completely worn out. The machine-fed moulds are very expensive—£10 each. It would not pay the Company to change from one form of bottle to another, whereas with the hand-made method they can, at a moment's notice, change the type of bottle, and in that way they can turn out almost any particular class or type of bottle. I have before me a list of 23 different kinds of bottle that they can produce. The other people cannot take orders for these bottles for the reason that they could not change over from one form to the other. I would appeal to the Minister to investigate this subject, because it is one that affects the people of Ringsend very much. They have been making bottles for a considerable time, and now these bottles have been imported into the country. If something could be done in this way it would relieve unemployment in Ringsend very much. An eight-hole furnace gives employment to five men per hole. This would certainly be a matter that would be well worth investigation, and I hope the Minister will look into it, and so relieve the distress resulting from unemployment in Ringsend.

Mr. BLYTHE

This is a matter which the Minister for Industry and Commerce, who has been in touch with it, would be better able to discuss than I am. He is better informed on this matter. I do notice, however, that a tariff has been on for a considerable time and that no bottles of this kind have been produced. It is rather suggested that the Bottle Company simply want to wipe out the hand bottle makers altogether. I do not think there is any foundation for that. The Company, as a matter of fact, is in the hands of Receivers at the present time. The idea of the Receivers is simply to do anything they can to make some money for the Company and if they could be convinced that there was money for the Company in any sort of bottle-making that they could carry on, my belief is that they would undertake it. Certainly, that is what I have gathered from them and I see no reason to doubt it. The people there in charge of the Company now are not the people who were there when the tariff was put on. They are new people. There might have been some reason for suspecting the people who were responsible for putting in the machinery wanting to justify the machinery and that sort of thing and saying that the old system of hand-making was obsolete. But the people in charge of the bottle factory now have nothing to do with the people who put in the machinery and there is no reason why they should prefer using the machinery exclusively to using it in conjunction with hand manufacture. Deputy MacEntee accepted the allegations of the glass bottle hand makers with some reserve. I think he was right in that. I also accept with reserve the counter allegations that there were all sorts of sabotage amongst the workers. I know that feeling was not particularly good there. If there had not been any change in the ownership, I would not be inclined to take the word of the management against the hand workers just as I would not be particularly inclined to take the word of the hand workers against the management. But I am more inclined to take, as being absolutely impartial, the words of the new people who are now in control of the factory. Deputy MacEntee said something about a monoply in the glass bottle industry being undesirable. I am afraid that there is no way out of something like a monopoly. There is no room for more than one factory being carried on usefully at the moment——

Mr. MacENTEE

By machinery?

Mr. BLYTHE

Yes, modern machinery. I am never in favour of getting back to non-machine methods whatever people may say as to their artistic value. The superior quality of the goods is got more cheaply by the machine processes, as a rule. I do not want to go back on the advantages of using machinery. On the whole, I feel nothing can happen from maintaining the duties except maintaining the inconveniences that are felt by the bottle owners and the hardships and losses that were inflicted. Consequently, while I do recognise that Deputy Lemass to some extent scores a point in saying we took off this duty without letting the applications go before the Tariff Commission, I wish to say that if the people in charge of the industry had any objection we would not, no matter what representations had been made to us, have agreed to alter the duty without its having gone before the Tariff Commission.

Resolution agreed to.