These amendments might be discussed together. During the Second Reading and Committee Stages of this Bill a question arose on more than one occasion concerning the rate of import duty levied upon second-hand clothing. I agreed to have an amendment introduced on this Stage that would enable the Dáil to discuss the matter, and if it were so inclined, to amend the Bill so as to reduce the duty payable upon imported second-hand clothing. Under the Bill as introduced, second-hand clothing was liable to pay the full rate of duty. A duty was levied at the rate of 60 per cent., with a preferential rate of 40 per cent., but in view of the fact that it was not possible to get a certificate of origin in respect of second-hand clothing, the preferential rate did not apply and duty at the full rate had to be paid. I am now moving to reduce the rate of duty to 25 per cent. When this matter was before the Dáil I mentioned the difficulties and dangers associated with any differential rate on second-hand clothing. The amendment in the form I am moving it meets some of these difficulties. We saw the possibility of a differential rate being used for the purpose of evading the main duty and thus defeating the object we had in view of promoting the ready-made clothing industry here. We saw also the administrative difficulty that would arise in respect of such a differential rate, particularly the possibilities of evasion which were there and which Deputies know are availed of, particularly by persons travelling home from Great Britain to this country who buy new clothing and wear it coming in here on the boat and thus escape paying duty. However, we think the form of words devised here, that the lower rate shall apply only in respect of clothing which has been "substantially worn or otherwise used outside Saorstát Eireann by a person other than the importer or members of his family or household." meets that difficulty. I move the amendment, and I think it meets whatever case has been made in the Dáil. It is proposed also in amendment 3 that there shall be no preferential rate in respect of this duty, so that the difficulties associated with the certificate of origin cannot arise.
Public Business. - Finance (Customs Duties) (No. 2) Bill, 1932.—Report.
This first Government amendment cannot pass without certain comment. We embarked upon the new financial policy with an assurance from the Minister for Industry and Commerce that tariffs were not calculated to raise the cost of living. I never accepted that assurance quite fully. I think this Government amendment marks finally the admission by the Government that the tariff policy is calculated to raise the cost of living and to raise the cost of those commodities upon which a tariff is levied. I think that is a very important stage to have reached. It cannot be passed either without drawing the attention of the House again to the fact that we seem to be in considerable doubt as to how best this policy is to be prosecuted. I observed here on the last day when this matter arose that the Labour Party had divided themselves into two camps on the head of this amendment. It was maintained then very forcibly and effectively by Deputy Curran that the adoption of this amendment meant grave injury to the Irish ready-made clothing trade. It was maintained by his colleague, Deputy Murphy, that unless the tariff on second-hand clothes were reduced it would result in grave hardship to the poorer sections of the community. To reconcile these two approaches to this amendment is somewhat difficult when you find them both coming from the same Party.
I think there is a great deal to be said for this amendment but, at the same time, I hope the Minister has moved his amendment with a full realisation of what it involves. There is no doubt whatever that Deputy Curran is perfectly right in saying that this amendment means that there will be brought into competition with the ready-made clothing manufacturers of this country a grade of clothing closely analogous to the cheap products of continental manufacturers. I believe, on the other hand, that on the whole a very strong case can be made from Deputy Murphy's point of view to the effect that the tariff on this second-hand clothing means that the price will be made prohibitive for the people who buy it, who are the poorest people in the country. I wonder has Deputy Murphy looked into the question carefully and, if he has, has he drafted his amendment to meet the situation?
I believe that the reason why second-hand clothes have become prohibitively expensive since last Christmas is not the change of duty but the change of revenue practice. The Revenue Commissioners have recently refused to accept the pro forma invoice issued to the rag merchants of Glasgow and have determined that these pro forma invoices will be reviewed by the revenue officials at the port of entry, and they have valued these rags at their valuation and not the valuation set out in the invoice. The result has been that where these discarded clothes were coming in at twopence or threepence per garment the revenue officials now assess them at from one shilling to two shillings, and the result has been that from the tariff point of view a twopenny garment has six or seven times the pro forma value of the garment. I believe that is the reason why the clothing has become so much dearer recently. I believe that if Deputy Murphy had looked into the question more closely he would agree with me. I do not know whether it is the intention of the Minister to revise that practice or not.
I must say that on this matter I have an open mind. I find it very difficult to make up my mind as to whether the tariff should be reduced, to the detriment of the clothing factories, or whether it should be maintained, to the grave hardship of the poor people depending on these clothes. It is very difficult to find out on which side the balance falls, but I think that before the Minister introduced an amendment of this kind he should have informed the House of his views on the revenue practice of valuing these garments. I feel sure he is aware of that practice and aware that it is a practice that has been introduced very recently. I do not think Deputy Murphy is aware of it, but I think the Minister undoubtedly is. I believe that if the Revenue Commissioners are not to be defrauded that practice must continue, but if that practice continues I submit that this amendment is a blind. It achieves practically nothing. The root of the matter of the increased cost of second-hand clothes, to which Deputy Murphy has referred, is the alteration in revenue practice, not the increased duties, because I am informed by persons engaged in this trade, who have made representations to me that the average cost of garments coming in is from 2d. to 4d. The difference between 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. on a twopenny article is very small, but if the revenue officials open the parcel and revalue an article at 1s. 6d., then the difference is substantial. Unless the Minister proposes to revise the revenue practice and virtually abolishes all taxation on incoming second-hand clothes, I submit that this amendment as set down here really achieves nothing, except as a grand gesture to the poor and lowly which saves Deputy Murphy's face and achieves the Minister's purpose at the same time.
In normal circumstances, I dislike intensely encouraging the trade in second-hand clothing. I think there is something morally wrong, something culturally wrong, and something nationally wrong with a system which enables one section of the community to sell its cast-off clothing to a less fortunate section. Personally, I dislike intensely the social system which condemns our poor and needy people to buy the cast-off clothing of the more wealthy elements in the community. To that extent, in normal circumstances, I would be utterly and unalterably opposed to anything which savoured of encouraging a system of condemning the poor to wear the cast-off clothing of the rich.
But unfortunately in this and other countries we have such a social and economic system that poverty and misery are the destiny of the poor people. Even in this House you will find Deputies to tell us that poverty and want are the inexorable destiny of the poor. Consequently, until such time as you have a proper social system, until such time as this House is prepared to enact the legislation and to devise a social system which will give to all the people in the community the decent standard of life to which these people are entitled, we must look at these matters not so much from the point of view of doctrinaire principles as from the point of view of the needs of our poor and destitute people. That brings me to the point of saying that there are to-day within our country unfortunately a very large number of people who are compelled to depend on second-hand clothing. There are many people in the country to-day, especially in the South and along the Western seaboard, who would be unclad were it not for the possibility of buying second-hand clothing cheaply from the second-hand clothing dealers. So long as these people are compelled through sheer economic necessity to depend on the purchase of clothing in that manner, I think it is the duty of the House to ensure that people in such straitened domestic and financial circumstances should be enabled to get their clothing at the cheapest possible price. Although I dislike the trade in second-hand clothing, I dislike also, perhaps more intensely in existing circumstances, the idea of imposing an additional burden upon people who are unable to bear any additional burden. It is because I desire to save these people from the additional burden of high tariffs upon imported second-hand clothing that I support, in a kind of qualified way, the amendment introduced by the Minister.
On the Committee Stage of the Bill, I asked the Minister to give special and sympathetic consideration to the case of charitable organisations outside this country who export clothing to charitable organisations within this country. There are to-day a number of organisations in Great Britain and elsewhere who send in clothing to charitable organisations here. That clothing is not for sale but for distribution among poor and needy people here. The imposition of a tax upon that kind of clothing, not imported for sale, but imported as a gift for needy people, is an indefensible kind of taxation, in my opinion. I suggested to the Minister then that these organisations might be registered or might be licensed with a view to permitting the free importation of clothing as between one such organisation outside the country to another such organisation within the country. I notice the Minister has made no provision for cases of that kind in the amendments which he has submitted and I should be glad to hear from the Minister the reasons why it is not possible to meet this eminently reasonable request.
Perhaps there may be administrative difficulties, but I cannot foresee any difficulties arising which would be so great as to make it utterly impossible for the Department to devise amendments which would cover the main portions of that traffic between the more important organisations concerned in this country and outside this country. I refer in particular to clothing which is imported from the Headquarters of the British Legion by branches of the British Legion here. That clothing does a good deal to supply the needs of poor members of the Legion here and anything which would permit of the continuance of these benefits for needy Irish ex-servicemen here would be of great advantage to them and, as far as this country is concerned, it could not be said to be an attack on home industries because these things are not coming in in any sense in competition with home industries. They are coming in as a gift to people who are in very necessitous circumstances. I hope the Minister will give us some indication that even at this late stage it is not altogether impossible to meet cases such as I mentioned on the Committee Stage and such as I bring to his notice again now on the Report Stage.
I wish to re-echo the remarks of Deputy Norton. I certainly deplore the necessity which exists in this country for any class to be compelled to accept or to wear cast-off clothing, but while a state of affairs exists at the present time, such a necessity must be catered for, particularly when we bear in mind that high tariffs have been imposed on imports of ready-made clothing. These tariffs make the poor people go for the cheaper second-hand article. I therefore support the amendment moved by the Minister, and I should be very glad if the tax could have been taken off altogether. I also support Deputy Norton in the appeal which he has made in regard to parcels of second-hand clothing, which are sent from charitable organisations outside this country to similar organisations within the country. These are a very valuable source of relief, and the people who receive them would be in a very bad way if they were unable to get such help. With regard to second-hand clothing imported for sale, and which is purchased by the very poor, it would be appalling to think of the results if they were not even to have that very slight form of relief. They purchase this clothing at fairs, and while I recognise the need for discipline from a board of health point of view, still at the same time these people would be in a very bad way if the clothes were not available.
I opposed this on a previous stage, and I desire to make my position clear, as my name has been mentioned by Deputy Dillon. I quite agree that gifts of second-hand clothing or parcels coming from one individual to another should be exempt, but I am rather disappointed at the amendment moved by the Minister. I think that he should have prohibited the importation of second-hand clothing altogether. This clothing is sold at the fairs throughout Ireland. I fail to see why any Deputy should encourage the wearing of cast-off clothing by people in Ireland. I hold that the people in Ireland are entitled to get ready-made clothing here which is made within the State. They can get that clothing as cheaply as this cast-off clothing which is brought across from England. I am sorry that any Deputy in the House takes up that attitude. Why should we ask our fellow-workmen to wear clothing that is cast off by other people? We do not know what is on them. You are liable to get any class of disease from them. I say that this country is able to make ready-made clothes just as cheaply, and the Minister should see that the people of Ireland should get proper material.
We hear a lot about poverty in County Cork, but the people are just as poor in the county I represent, County Dublin. We have heard about County Cork and County Limerick where these clothes are sold in the middle of the streets. I have been in Cork and Galway and have seen them selling them there, but I say you will get ready-made clothing as cheaply as you will get this second-hand clothing in these places and the Government should prohibit its importation altogether. I am surprised that any Deputy should ask any of the Irish people to wear the cast-off clothes of English people. Of course, I shall be satisfied if the House decides otherwise, but personally I would not ask any person to wear second-hand clothing. It is all right where such clothing is given to poor friends or is given to the ex-servicemen through the charitable institutions. I think the selling of such clothes at fairs should be prohibited altogether. I do not agree even with the amendment because as a man of the working class and as an Irishman I fail to see why you should ask anyone to wear second-hand clothing.
The Deputy has made a statement that people can buy ready-made clothing as cheaply as they can buy second-hand clothing. I should like him to state where they can do that.
I said that you will get ready-made clothing which is made in this country as cheaply as you will get the second-hand clothing which I saw sold in Cork and Galway.
The Galway people must be great fools, then.
You will get a trousers at 2/6 and goodness knows that is cheap enough.
It strikes me that there is something in this amendment that cuts across the economic nationalism propounded by our Minister for Industry and Commerce. I think he told us, and I mentioned it the last day in the House, that one of the guarantees he had given us in connection with the increased tariff on clothing was the fact that we are now able to produce ready-to-wear garments made in Ireland that would compete with any kind of cheap shoddy brought in here. If that is so, I do not see that there is any necessity for his giving any sort of preferential treatment to second-hand clothing. I may tell the Minister and the House that I am directly interested in the second-hand clothing trade, and I think if he can guarantee, as he stated originally, that factories here can turn out new goods to compete with the shoddy foreign goods, there is no necessity whatever for giving any preferential treatment to the second-hand clothing.
There is one element that needs protection in this country, one element that has been hit very hard by the second-hand clothing trade and that is the drapers in our small towns. If you go to the fairs mentioned by Deputy Brasier you will see hawkers there in very large numbers with these second-hand clothes displayed outside the drapers' shops, to the detriment of the shopkeepers and the loss of trade to the town. These drapers form the bulk of the tax-paying community in these towns. It is in that interest, although it hits myself directly, that I would oppose very strongly any consideration whatever in regard to second-hand clothing. In regard to the clothes that come in as gifts for distribution some special machinery could easily be instituted for the distribution of them and the reception of them without paying any duty. I think this matter of the second-hand clothing trade is a question that should be very carefully looked into. Deputy Dillon mentioned something about articles costing from 2d. to 4d. That puts the famous epic of the Minister about the 1s. 8d. trousers into the shade. I do not think Deputy Dillon's figures in regard to the cost of second-hand clothing are quite correct. Sometimes you get a class of second-hand clothing that is very good, a class known as misfits. The clothing is of a very good standard; it may have been worn once or twice but it is practically new. On the whole, I think it is detrimental to the policy that the Minister has laid down to give this consideration to the second-hand clothing trade.
I want to say, at the beginning, I am sorry that this amendment is being discussed in the absence of the Deputy who put down the original amendment on Committee Stage. I presume an agreement has been made with that particular Deputy. Otherwise I think it would be a breach of Parliamentary Order to have a Bill, which was set down for Thursday, and appearing for that day, to be taken to-day, in the absence of the mover of the amendment which brought this in as the Minister's alternative. This amendment has to be considered in relation to the tax upon woven fabrics and made-up clothing. We had an amazing and an amusing performance from Deputy Norton to-day. He objects to the people of this country, as if they were peculiar in this matter, having to buy the second-hand clothing or cast-off clothing of anybody. Is there not a second-hand clothing trade in nearly every country in the world?
I am not concerned with that.
The Deputy is not concerned with that, but the point is that he deplores, as if it were peculiar to this country, the fact that the people should be, economically, in such a position that they have to buy second-hand clothing. It may be deplorable, but people here are worse off than the people in every other country in that particular matter. The Deputy, however, should be reconciled by thinking that second-hand political clothing is not included, or he would find himself arrayed in the second-hand cast off toggery which he now parades as homespun. This tax has to be considered in relation to other taxes. If what Deputy O'Neill pointed out were true there would be a good case to be made for this amendment, but it is not so. We are told that the reason why a tax on second-hand clothing is equitable is because people can get made up new clothing as cheaply. That I deny. I had an amendment, upon the last stage of this Bill, with regard to woven tissue, reducing the duty to a very low rate for a very low grade of stuff. I proposed that amendment and made my case upon it on the fact that when the woollen manufacturers previously made application to the Tariff Commission for a tariff they stated they were not going to engage in the manufacture of a cloth below a certain value. The Tariff Commission put up to them the proposal that they should, if they did not individually proceed to manufacture this material, there should, at least, be a co-operative effort made to run a factory for this low - grade stuff. That recommendation of the Tariff Commission was made because, in the first instance, the argument of the applicants was that they were not going to defame their reputation for good material by engaging in the manufacture of this rather shoddy material, and in the second place they made an elaborate argument that they were not going to do so, because it was of a more expert type of manufacture for which they had not the skilled hands or machinery and it would not pay them to put up a factory of that type. At any rate it issued from the report of the Commission that these people, giving evidence on oath, had sworn that they were not going to engage in the manufacture of this type of stuff, and I do not think the situation has changed.
I am not certain that some manufacturers may not have dropped into the Minister's office, and finding him in an accommodating humour, and making all sorts of promises, have been able to induce him to raise the tariff to whatever height they desire. They promised him, I have no doubt, that at some time, in this country, a factory would be established for the manufacture of this material, when they would guarantee that the poor man would get a suit cheaply. But as long as that is not done the poor man will not get the ready-made suit of clothes cheaply, as promised. In these circumstances we have this amendment brought forward raising the tariff to 45 per cent. We still have the operative 20 per cent. tariff under a preferential rate on the very cheapest clothes which are coming into the country. But the very cheapest clothing is not likely to be manufactured in this country in considerable quantities for a very long time to come. And you are going to continue to pay 20 per cent. on the raw material that goes to the making up of them. The people in the making trade are charged upon every item of their manufacture. They are charged on the raw material, and they will have to lay out a considerable amount more money at the Custom House in addition to what they have already paid. They will find their capital shorter than ever before, and they will find their credit more restricted by reason of the taxes on the banks. In these circumstances, ready-made clothing will go up in price because most of the raw material has to be purchased more dearly, and the finished product that comes from these materials will cost more. And we will have this as a concession, that we will have 25 per cent. on second-hand clothing raised to 45 per cent. with whatever preferential rate there is.
Another matter that I think the rush procedure that we have drifted into entitles us to raise is, that when this was discussed on the Committee Stage, the general feeling of the House was that the reduction of the duty was not good enough. Certainly the mover of the amendment, Deputy Tadhg Murphy, showed no disposition to accept a reduction, although it was phrased at a considerable reduction. Now we have an amendment sent round in such time that any amendment of that would be impossible, and the House finds itself in the position that it must either vote for this inadequate reduction, or let the old tax stand. In these circumstances the only choice to be made is that something is better than nothing, but certainly not much better than the original amendment.
Deputy Norton expressed great concern for those charitable organisations that get in second-hand clothing. He mentioned the British Legion. Surely, as the Deputy knows, there are a great many other associations beside that. Why confine this to people who are merely poor when the plea is poverty because of a common organisation? Why not put forward the plea for poor people who are not in any of those charitable organisations? The Deputy could secure the necessary amendment if he liked. He could secure an amendment by which there would be no tax on clothing consigned to the charitable organisations about which he speaks. In justice to the Deputy's interest in the poor affected by this particular amendment, will he not insist upon this being done? It is quite easy to profess interest in the poor and to roll off a few phrases about what might be done, but the Deputy has power to get a particular amendment passed, and he will have to face up, afterwards, to the consequences, when he is asked by certain poor people why he did not use his power to get into the country, tax free, gifts of second-hand clothing coming to the poor even if limited to certain charitable organisations. He could, at any rate, get something in addition to this which apparently is the best proposal the Minister can bring in, from the angle of the clothing tax. Again it is going to do no good to the people that Deputy Norton represents for the Minister to give his assurance that he believes or that somebody told him or that some manufacturer assured him that at some time there is going to be a considerable amount of our requirements in the way of second-hand clothing met at a reasonable cost. The only case that could be made for a tax on second-hand clothing was that made by Deputy O'Neill and that rested on whether ready-made clothing could be produced from very cheap material and produced cheaply. It is understood, if we could, on hygienic grounds make an exception and use cheap clothing, we could do away with the importation of second-hand material. But until that is met and it ought to be met in great detail, people should be able to get all the second-class clothing they want.
Deputy Norton has argued this question on a basis that does not exist. He talks of the rich and the poor. It is not a question between the rich and the poor at all; it is really a question between the rural dweller and the city dweller. In every city where there is a large city population you are bound to have an amount of clothing that will not be worn, to the same degree that it would be worn in rural districts. You never hear of second-hand clothing coming from the country because farmers and farm workers can wear their clothing to a point that does not operate in cities. There is a certain amount of second-hand clothing always coming out of Dublin. It is not fair to confuse that with shoddy or even with ready-made clothing. The second-hand clothing there is good clothing. Shoddy has to be made up. It is put together in the factory and made into cloth and it is very often no use. It would be wrong to deprive our rural population of the privilege that they have in being able to secure these second-hand garments from the urban population. It is not a question of rich or poor. It is really a question of trying to deprive the poor of the country of what is a great boon to them. This tariff which is most unjustifiable and improper would inflict great hardship on the rural population. The people in the country who use these garments can wear them almost threadbare and can wear them to a frazzle which the people in the towns could not.
I moved this amendment without any enthusiasm. I move it because, like Deputy Dillon, it appeared to me that there was room for a lot to be said on both sides of this question of second-hand clothing. I was not influenced by representations made in favour of the reduction of the duty but if the Dáil should decide, or if any Deputy should decide, to challenge a division and if the Dáil had decided to reject the duty and leave it at the higher figure I would not feel very much concerned. It is quite true, as Deputy McGilligan said, that there is a second-hand clothing trade in every country in the world, but it is not true, as Deputy McGilligan implied, that there is an import trade in second-hand clothing in every country in the world. This particular type of trade that exists here does not exist normally anywhere else. There is a considerable amount of output of clothing from the towns and cities in the country but we also import large quantities into the country and the import duty only applies to second-hand clothing that comes from outside.
It is quite true also that there are a number of people in such cases who are very badly paid, such as agricultural workers, who would not be in a position to purchase new suits. It is, as Deputy Gorey said, true that frequently they get better value in second-hand clothing than in low grade shoddy materials sold new. The amendment proposed here is designed to reduce this duty. It will permit of the importation of these clothes subject to that duty, and subject also to the regulations enforced by the health authorities on second-hand clothing imported. They must be either disinfected at the port of arrival or they must be accompanied by a certificate of disinfection at the port at which they were exported. These regulations will be continued and in fact the public authorities are inclined if anything to make them more severe than hitherto because undoubtedly there is some danger of infection arising from the importation of these goods. I do not quite follow his logic. I introduced it here merely as a proposal to meet the case made here and not for the purpose of admitting anything.
The Deputy then went on to talk about the practice of the Revenue Commissioners in refusing to accept a pro forma invoice in respect of second-hand clothing. It is quite true the Revenue Commissioners have refused to accept as accurate the value of the second-hand clothing as declared in the invoices which accompany the goods because they have discovered an organised system to defraud the revenue by invoicing the goods at a much lower value than they actually represent or at a much lower price than is actually paid for them. In order to defeat that organised attempt to defraud the revenue they have refused to accept the declared values as set out in the invoices and they insist on making their own valuation of the goods. It is not possible to depart from that procedure. It is the duty of the Revenue Commissioners to see that the duties imposed by the Dáil are put into effect. If they find that the decisions of the Dáil are being defeated they have to find a way to circumvent the methods that may be adopted.
I have considered Deputy Norton's representation in respect of clothing imported not for sale but for charitable purposes. I found that it would be practically impossible to devise any satisfactory method of permitting that clothing to be imported duty free. The administrative difficulties are insuperable. In that connection I should like to draw attention to the remarks made by Deputy McGilligan. A duty upon second-hand clothing was imposed by his Government six years ago and that duty has been in operation ever since. Deputy McGilligan made no attempt, despite the fact that he was repeatedly asked to do so, to overcome these administrative difficulties and to permit the entry of second-hand clothing, not for sale, free of duty.
Why?
Because they found it could not be done; the administrative difficulties were too great.
It was because the fabric of the cheaper type was coming in free under the exemption limit.
The Deputy is great at explaining his own inactivity. He had the power for six years to remove the duty on second-hand clothing and he refused to exercise it. He is merely weaving words, his main occupation, when he talks as he talked a few minutes ago. The fact is that any attempt to meet the case—and I went into the arguments in favour of it with the utmost sympathy—would produce difficulties which might, in the long run, permit of a much wider evasion of the duties and a much greater defrauding of the revenue even than has been practised heretofore. The duty has been reduced to 25 per cent. It seems to me that the reduction of the duty to that level, which was somewhat lower than I originally intended, and than was suggested by Deputy Murphy, would meet not merely the case made by Deputy Murphy but also the point made by Deputy Norton. The position is now practically unchanged. The duty is increased, but only very slightly; the charitable organisations are involved as well as those who send clothing to relatives in this country. They are not in a much worse position than they were.
These were the main points raised. The actual implementing of the amendment will cause some administrative difficulties, but the Revenue Commissioners will be able to get over these. I hope it will be possible at some future date for a Minister to come here and propose that this concession be withdrawn, because the necessity for the importation of second-hand clothing will have ceased.
Does the Minister propose, as a co-relative to this, to reduce the duty on the cheap woven tissues?
I do not.
The Minister mentioned that he has been informed that public health precautions will be taken. Will he ask the Minister for Local Government and Public Health to go more closely into that matter? I am informed by importers that no such precautions are taken. I am told that there is a cursory spraying of these clothes in the houses where they are sold—in Scotland, for instance—but that they are not disinfected at the port of embarkation or the port of arrival.
I will make inquiries into that matter.
Amendments 4, 5 and 6 relate to the duty on the importation on maize meal. The decision on amendment 4 will cover amendments 5 and 6.
The following amendments appeared on the Paper:—
4. In page 7, Section 10 (1), line 42, to delete the word "shilling" and substitute the word "penny."— (Deputy Pádraig O hOgáin (Gaillimh).)
5. In page 7, Section 10 (1), line 42, to delete the words "one shilling" and substitute the word "three-pence".—(Deputy Roddy.)
6. In page 7, Section 10 (1), line 42, to delete the words "one shilling" and substitute the word "sixpence"
—(Deputy Roddy.)
When introducing the Order imposing this tariff the Minister said that it was necessary to prevent an expected dumping of this commodity. There is one commodity which the farming community want to purchase at a low price. It is a commodity that is absolutely indispensable to them. That commodity is maize meal, particularly the yellow meal imported from the Argentine. That is the meal most generally used by farmers. It is an indispensable food in the production of bacon. I agree there are other animal foods as good as maize meal, but I contend that there is no animal food of the same all-round value and usefulness. In every country in the world where tillage is carried out the importation of maize meal is encouraged. In Denmark they use four or five times the amount of maize meal that the farmers here use. During the last four or five years organisations of Danish farmers have imported shiploads of maize meal so that they could sell it at a low price to the farming community there. They have also imported in bulk other raw materials necessary for the farming industry so that those materials could be sold at very low prices to farmers. The result is that Denmark has been able to survive the agricultural depression of the last four or five years.
The Minister said that the price of Indian meal is falling. The price has been falling during the last few months, but it is not as low this year as it was last year. If the price of Indian meal has fallen, the price of everything the farmer is selling has also fallen and has fallen out of all proportion to the price of Indian meal and other raw materials. Lambs were selling last year at 45/-; this year they are selling at 20/- to 15/-. Bacon has dropped enormously in price and the same thing applies to many other articles produced by the farmers.
I cannot understand why the Government have imposed tariffs on the raw materials of the farming industry. I do not believe that in any country in the world, under existing conditions, a Government would impose tariffs on the raw materials of an industry that represents approximately 60 per cent. of the country's total production.
I am opposing this tariff. Notwithstanding what the Minister has said, I believe the price of Indian meal will later on be increased. I admit that the big mills engaged in the production of Indian meal in the past did sell the commodity to the farmers at world prices and are selling at world prices now. Quite possibly a number of small mills will spring up; many of them will be inadequately equipped, mechanically and otherwise, and it is inevitable that these mills will have to charge higher prices in order to cover production costs. It may be that the bigger mills will, in the course of time, secure a vested interest in the small mills and it will be to their interest to keep up prices. Eventually you will have a ring completely controlling the price of Indian meal.
The pig population of this country is declining rapidly. If there is an increase in the price of Indian meal it is inevitable the pig population will decline still further. I am altogether opposed to the principle of imposing tariffs on any raw material connected with the farming industry. I am particularly opposed to the imposition of a tariff on such a vitally essential raw material as this. Hence it is I have put down these amendments proposing a reduction of the duty.
Two statements made by Deputy Roddy are rather interesting; they tend to strengthen the arguments for a tariff on Indian meal. He said that so far the mills grinding the meal in this country are selling at world prices. That proves that the tariff has not increased the price. The Deputy then said that a number of small mills would in all probability spring up here and there and he mentioned that later on the bigger mills might get control of them. If a number of small mills will spring up as a result of this tariff and if the price of meal will not be increased, that is a very sound reason for the tariff. That would be a most desirable achievement. If there are numbers of small mills, will not the competition result in keeping prices at a comparatively low level? I observe the Deputy shakes his head. It is generally understood in trade that competition has that effect. If it were possible for one big organisation to get control of the industry that organisation, being in sole control of the supply, could undoubtedly increase prices.
On the other hand, if you have small mills engaged grinding meal, that is a thing very much to be desired. It would be far better for this country if we could get a number of small mills established in the rural areas supplying the needs of the neighbourhood rather than have the requirements of the whole country supplied from Liverpool. We should endeavour to create that state of affairs. It would be a most desirable thing to have rural mills supplying local wants, affording much-needed employment and distributing amongst the people a sound article such as they cannot always be sure of getting from abroad. I think the two statements made by the Deputy go a long way to support the reason for this and if it has the effect of starting these small mills in the country every Deputy should welcome it.
Deputy Goulding's speech is altogether composed of "ifs." He said that Deputy Roddy shook his head. Deputy Goulding is also shaking his head. We have had with the Indian meal mills in the country up to now a certain amount of competition between the meal coming in and the meal ground in the country. That competition is going to be taken away by this tariff. There is no possibility of resurrecting the small mills that were in operation on the streams some years ago. First of all they would have to instal new machinery. The old method of grinding corn with the grindstone is unsuitable now. People will not buy as they used to. Of course the ground meal has to be cooked and the new mills have installed a finer grinding plant. This meal is more easily assimilated and of better value for the money. For that reason, I say there is no chance of resurrecting small mills. But there is and always has been a certainty that the supply and price of meal to the country are going to be directed by the large mills who will form a ring if there is no competition from outside. Then the price of meal will go up.
That is purely problematical.
No. Deputy Goulding is not living very far from Waterford, and if he knows that area well he will remember the efforts we had to make ten or twelve years ago to prevent an Indian meal ring from operating——
On a point of order. As the Deputy is speaking about rings, I should like to give information.
The giving of information is not a point of order.
I would ask the Minister to enquire why an Indian meal firm in Bandon has been closed down. Is it not because of a meal ring in Cork that this firm has been closed down?
That is not a point of order.
About thirty years ago there was no possibility of getting maize meal in our country except from the large rings. All the mills in our part of the country—and this is a notorious fact—were idle so far as the grinding of Indian corn was concerned. There was a lot of power plant in the country and not one hundredweight of Indian corn could they get because all the corn was in the hands of one big combine. The combine would supply nobody else but those who were in the ring. As a matter of fact, I happened to be interested in the matter and I brought in a cargo of Indian corn myself. I put down £3,000 for it. We distributed this corn to the mills. That was the first time we had to handle the ring. Now all these mills are distributing centres.
I make no complaint about the manner in which we are served by the mills in our constituencies. We get good meal, well-ground, from them, but we want to preserve this competition from outside so that the meal can be sold at the lowest price possible to the farmers. A tariff of 2/6 a cwt. means £2 10s. a ton. It is going to be a decided disadvantage to the producer that he cannot produce his bacon and cannot feed his farm animals if there is no competition against the local miller. At present we have that element of competition to keep down the price, but now when this tax is put on, the price will rise by the amount of the tax. That is what is going to happen, and if it does not happen in one district it is going to happen in another. Anything that will reduce the price of Indian corn to the farmer is good business. Deputy Goulding might have heard fifteen or twenty years ago about one ring in the Indian meal business; that is Halls. That ring was there then and is there now, and it will be the same all over the country.
Is there any use addressing remonstrances to the Minister? I see the Minister for Industry and Commerce shakes his head. Then at least we will give his colleagues a chance of walking into the Lobby in order to put a tax on Indian meal.
I will later on enjoy hearing Deputy Brady, Deputy Blaney and Deputy Carney explaining to the farmers in Donegal how in order to promote their interests they put on a tax of 1/- a cwt. on meal. I hope the country people will be given an early opportunity of cross-examining the Minister's colleagues on that point in every constituency in this country. I should like to hear Deputies explaining to their constituents how they served them by taxing their Indian meal. Is amendment 4 moved?
Yes, 4, 5 and 6 are moved.
Amendment 4 is a token amendment, and it is put down for the purpose of doing away with this tax. I see the Minister's face blanches at my use of the word "tax," but it is very desirable that the people of the country should know what this tariff is. It is a tax on the agricultural community to promote other forms of industry in this country and everybody who has to do with agriculture knows that. Amendment 4 may be described as a token amendment for the purpose of removing this tax from the basic raw materials of the agricultural industry. I have said repeatedly in this House that a lot of persons who could not feel the same cordial enthusiasm that the Minister feels for industrial development on the lines he is going, are prepared to go a good deal of the way with him in order to give his policy a chance provided he would give those who do not want any help, except fair play, an opportunity of earning their living and provided that he would not interfere with the livelihood of one section of the community in order to provide a hypothetical means of livelihood for another section.
I say that the agricultural industry is supporting five times as many people as any other two industries in the country. To tax that industry to promote the welfare of mills which are already operating in this country in close combination; to protect their welfare by excluding what the Minister himself admits was never more than ten per cent. of the total consumption of Indian meal in this country, is not going to help the agricultural interests. These mills were able to operate and make a good profit while competing with foreign imports at all times. Even when they had to withstand the ordinary movement of world prices only a dribble of meal came into the Free State from across the Border. This dribble immediately regulated the price and brought down the price of the meal in the Saorstát to the price level outside. As soon as the price came down the outside imports ceased to come in. That has happened time and again. Any person who was in the Indian meal business knows that that is so. Time and again the Irish millers' prices did not follow the fall in the Liverpool and Argentine maize markets. They lagged behind time and again in reducing their price and it was the corrective of the imports of meal coming in that brought down the prices here. The very minute the prices came down the imports stopped. The Minister has before him one instance after another in which these infinitesimal imports of about ten per cent. acted as the most effective brake upon the endeavour of the meal ring in this country to force up prices.
No Government intervention, no auditor's certificate, no host of Government inspectors, no inquiries or commissions were required in order to keep down prices of Indian meal in this country. In the dribble of Indian meal into the country there was an agency which did the job far more effectively than the Minister can ever hope to do it with all his price fixing machinery, secret service agents and Government Commissions. This tax will mean that the farmers will be exploited in the raw material they require by these Indian meal rings. For some extraordinary reason the Minister is going to put on a tariff so that, as he says, we can secure that all our farmers are to be supplied by Irish millers. But at the present moment, with the exception of ten per cent., the meal used in the Free State is ground in the Free State mills. Except in very abnormal times there was never more than ten per cent. of Indian meal imported. That ten per cent. has always operated so as to keep the prices down. This tariff will raise the level of prices and in that way an absolutely prohibitive tax is being put on the farmers' raw material.
I know Deputy Goulding will excuse me if I say what may seem offensive to him. I have not the slightest desire to use an offensive word but I cannot help saying that he does not appear to understand the Indian meal business when he speaks as he has done. When the Deputy speaks of competition from the small mills he does not evidently know that ninety per cent. of the cargoes of Indian meal are brought on the high seas. The corn market fluctuates with such violence that the object of every miller is to buy his supply as near the port as he can, lest at the time the corn is being discharged the bottom may have fallen out of the market and the corn merchant may find himself ruined. The small miller is absolutely helpless. He is bound to get his supply of corn from the big millers. Even if the small miller had the capacity of milling a whole cargo, supposing that he were able to bring it in, the fact remains that the Indian meal market is the most violently fluctuating market in the world and at one stroke a miller may be wiped out. The only safeguard the miller had is to buy constantly in modest quantities.
We had a case mentioned here of a mill that is being wiped out in Bandon. I asked the Minister why and he said it was due to illness on the part of the proprietor. If the Minister has certain information to that effect I have no more to say but I heard that there was a deliberate attempt made by the big millers.
I should like to inform the Deputy that the business in Bandon is for sale and if he wants a profitable investment for his money now is the time.
If the Minister knew as much about the Indian meal trade as I do, he would not give that invitation to his best friend, and I hope I am the Minister's best friend. If the Minister has an enemy I suggest that he should tender to him the advice he has now tendered to me. It is better than advising him to set a candle on the hob. If that man that he refers to is dealing with Halls he would get his supplies regularly from them. Naturally, if he attempts to cut the price, his weekly loss at a reduction of 3d. per cwt. on Indian meal is comparatively small, but it may be something gigantic for the man importing the corn.
What will happen the next time he sends for a couple of waggons of corn? He will be informed that the cargo has not turned up, and that there are no supplies available, but that that day three weeks, if there is a cargo in, they will do what they can for him. Gradually that man will be crushed out of business. He is not going to be crushed out next week or the week afterwards, because the Minister would be on his hind-legs to know the reason, but when the Minister has settled down and passed on to some other important matter, then is the time the big man will start dealing with the small millers, and if any of us try to defend them it will be explained to us that there was incompetence or imprudence, or something else, and that if anyone wanted to buy a mill it would be a very good investment. It would be a very good investment if you are prepared to make yourself the slave of some large importer next door, who can cut off supplies and hold you up as incompetent, simply because you are not prepared to crawl on your stomach to him and to do what he tells you.
That is not the end of the difficulty, because Deputies forget that a large miller who wishes to keep down, and wishes people to keep down world prices must mill his corn under the most modern conditions. That requires that he will bring meal in off his waggons by elevators, that there will be as little haulage and cartage as possible, and that he will get his meal at the lowest possible overhead charges, mill it in the most expeditions way, and get it to the consumers with the lowest possible measure of overhead cost. I can see the Minister's point when he says: "I am not going to let that criterion of costs be the actual criterion which will apply for all manufacturers in this country." I can see that point of view. But where you are dealing with the raw material of a great industry, the greatest of all our industries, then I think that criterion should apply. Indian meal admittedly is a manufactured article, but for the great agricultural industry it is a raw material. Would the Minister get up here and say, if by intensive agriculture you can produce two blades of grass where you used to have one, "I am not going to have people indulging in intensive agriculture; I will not allow you to make slaves of the people and work them that hard"? The thing is obviously ridiculous. If they do not adopt the most modern methods of conducting the agricultural industry, in the rearing of cattle and pigs they cannot hope to compete in the markets where they will have to compete.
I can quite see his point in regard to clothing and other matters, that if a section of the community is in dire distress as a result of cut-throat competition from abroad, if this State can possibly afford it we are obliged—I am stating his point of view as I see it— if necessary to do a little more in order that sections of the community may have a livelihood. But where it means that in order to provide a livelihood for such a number of persons as will manufacture the extra 10 per cent. of meal would come into this country on a free market we are to open our agricultural industry to the dangers of exploitation, of close rings, such a course I contend would be absolute madness. The Minister may say that he will control prices or he may say "What is the use of talking to me? I have made up my mind." The object I have in talking to him is this, that he may make up his mind, but I think that some agricultural members of the Fianna Fáil Party will come to realise that, whatever be Party politics and whatever be Party discipline, they are not entitled to betray their own people in order to maintain a Party programme. If they go into the Lobby and vote for the taxation of Indian meal, which is used by the greater part of the agricultural industry in this country, they are betraying their own people and they will have to answer to these people sooner or later for it.
It is a pleasure to me to join with Deputy Dillon in his protest against this tariff of £1 per ton on imported Indian meal. It ought to be known to anybody with any knowledge of the trade that the quantity of maize meal imported at present is infinitesimal. The fact that it is very small is one reason why the Minister should hesitate in imposing the tariff. It is the one means by which a monopoly will be prevented. There are two parties to this question, the miller and the farmer. I wonder which of these is the better able to take care of himself? I think the Minister should not have any difficulty in coming to the conclusion that millers at present in this country are quite competent to take care of their position and that the farmers should be afforded a reasonable opportunity of securing their position by reasonable competition, which will be killed by this tariff. A tariff of £1 per ton on imported maize meal is to be borne by the farmer, whom we pose here as trying to safeguard, at a time when every article that the farmer has to dispose of in the market is going down by leaps and bounds. That is the manner in which the Minister proposes to protect the farmer.
The quantities of maize meal coming in are very small, but the fact that there is a slight importation and that that importation is coming from millers who have the most modern machinery at their disposal, and as a consequence are in a position to meet similar modern machinery in this country, prevents a monopoly in the trade. It secures competition, regulates prices, and prevents the farmers being fleeced by such a monopoly as will be created under this tariff for one purpose only, and that is to exploit the farmer for the benefit of the miller. When that competition is killed, I wonder is it the £1 per ton imposed by the tariff that the farmer will have to pay extra for his meal or will it be £2 or £3? The latter, I think, is more likely. The Minister is taking a risk by killing that limited competition which to-day safeguards the farmer. When he removes that competition he constitutes a monopoly. To my mind, and I think to the mind of any businessman, it is almost inevitable that a monopoly will at once spring up and the result will be that the price will be forced up to such an extent that the Minister will have to try and rectify the grave injustice caused by imposing this tariff which the farmer will have to bear. That is a fact that cannot be disputed and I think it should appeal to the Minister. He has taken on his shoulders a very grave responsibility, and there is no getting away from it that it is going to inflict on the farmers a very grave injustice.
I ask the Minister to look into the matter very carefully as it is a very grave question. If the farmers are to have a fair chance they must have certain competition which will regulate prices and enable them to get the produce that is necessary for them on reasonable and fair terms. Once you kill that competition you remove the one safeguard for the farmers to secure a foodstuff which to-day is used more extensively for pig producing than anything else that the Minister can mention. Is this the means by which the Minister hopes to do the farmers a benefit? Does he think that the millers carrying on the trade at present here are not well able to take care of themselves and that they require his assistance in this matter? I say they do not. I believe that there are millers carrying on in the maize business at present who are equal to any proposition put up to them from England or anywhere else, because they can import their cargoes direct from the Argentine at the very lowest freight and on the very best terms. They have the most modern machinery, as Deputy Dillon has mentioned. They have elevators and mills alongside the ports. They have dispensed with all unnecessary overhead charges and they can produce their stuff certainly on as economic a basis as any other millers competing with them. For that reason, they are on an equal footing with any miller who tries to compete with them.
In such circumstances, is it right, for the small quantity of maize meal that is now being imported, and which is a mere bagatelle as compared with the quantity of maize turned into meal here, that such a risk should be taken when that risk is going to be at the expense of the farmers? I say finally that you are going to kill the competition that now regulates the price; you are going to remove from the farmer the one protection he has to get his article on fair and reasonable terms. Having done that, it is not the £1 per ton tariff that the farmer will have to be content with, but you will have created a monopoly and placed in the hands of these millers the right to advance prices not by £1 per ton, but perhaps by £3. If the Minister considers that that is good business he can proceed with it, but I think he will have reason to regret it.
I am opposed to this tariff on Indian meal. I come from a constituency where there are thousands of tons of it used. In a great many cases the farmer who formerly could only keep six or seven cows can now keep nine or ten as a result of the low price of feeding stuffs. I made a statement here that within the last few years the ring in the Cork trade tried to put a mill in Bandon out of business. The Minister has denied this. I am now prepared to make an offer to the Minister that I will give £25 to any charitable purpose he names if I cannot prove this statement and that on one condition only, that I am allowed to produce evidence at the inquiry. Who made this demand for a tariff on Indian meal? I am quite sure it was not the farmer. If it was the working classes made the demand I think the Minister, in justice to the House, should state what extra hands it is going to employ and what it is going to cost the country. If it came from the millers, what is the idea of the millers in looking for it? Is it not for the purpose of increasing the price to the consumer? I think that the Minister should inquire very carefully into the matter before imposing the tariff. I am not talking politics; I am talking business. I have been listening for 35 years to the question of feeding being discussed and I have often heard it discussed in my business place. I have heard the question asked: How did certain people who drew a pile of stuff for feeding purposes make it pay? The extraordinary thing about it is that these were the people who were the most successful.
I can prove this. I say that anything that leads to an increase in the price of raw material for these people would be a crime in my opinion. Just to give you an idea of the effect of this tariff I might mention that about three years ago there was a question of the admixture of barley and Indian meal. I discussed the question with farmers who lived in my own area, one of them a man who feeds fifteen cows and had about 70 acres, half of which would be arable. The price of Indian meal was then about £10 per ton. He said that he bought about £300 worth. That would mean he used about 30 tons, and if the price of feeding stuffs was increased by £1 per ton it would mean about £30 to him. He said that that would be about the amount of his rates and annuities. I would again appeal to the Minister before deciding on imposing this tax to inquire carefully into it.
This is a useful tariff because it shows up in a brief way all we will get from the Minister, all he had to say on any tariff. We are going to be told in the first place that the price has not gone up since the tariff was put on.
It has gone down.
It has gone down in some cases. Secondly we are told that eleven-twelfths of the material used in the country was produced in the country. Finally we are told that if prices go up, if there is any corner in the raw material, the Government will step in. What are the facts about these three points? The price has not gone up——
It has actually gone down in some places.
The price has not gone down to a degree equivalent to the fall in the price of the raw material.
It has gone down more.
The Deputy is not often voluble in these debates and he is not very successful in making himself clear when he is voluble. He might easily restrain himself. His Trinity College education has not brought him forward to the extent that one might expect. The price has not gone down in any degree equivalent to the decrease in the price of the raw material. Secondly, on the fact that eleven out of every twelve consumers use the home produced stuff, this is the same argument we had in regard to the manures, that four out of every five use the home produced stuff, but the Minister has not realised that it was the one individual out of every twelve who insisted on using the foreign stuff, who kept the price at a reasonable level for the other eleven because we got the impact of world prices on the foreign manufactured product. If we had not that one person in every twelve using the foreign product then all the consumers here would be at the mercy of the home millers.
The Minister further states that he is going to have price fixing, and that in the end, if necessary, he is going to take over the importation of corn into the hands of the Government. The Government will fix a price. They will require a host of inspectors to decide what is a fair price in the various areas in the country. They will require a host of assessors and other inspectors to see that that price is charged and nothing more, and a host of prosecutors to see that people who do charge more are brought to justice. Finally we are going to have the importation of corn taken over by the Government. The Minister, the man who talks of fixing prices in regard to furniture, soap, candles, sugar confectionery and a host of other things, is going out to take in cargoes on the high seas and to control prices in the feeding-stuffs market in connection with this particular duty. He is going to do all this with civil servants, who for their pains are going to have their salaries reduced. These are the new economics which the country is facing.
Deputy Dillon used a phrase in reference to dealing with little driblets of Indian corn coming into the country, but let it be remembered that it is that one-twelfth of the entire consumption which comes into the country that keeps down the price of the other eleven-twelfths. It has done that, without interference by inspectors or civil servants, or without the necessity for further legislation to enable the Government to take over the importation of corn, or to fix prices. Until that system which has operated here, has broken down, it should be tried out. We are asked to-day, in order that some little employment may be provided by the milling of one-twelfth of the entire consumption of the country, to take away the impact of world prices, which gave us the situation that we have at the moment.
Deputy McGilligan having listened to the clotted nonsense of his colleagues who talked about this tariff, stepped in at the last moment to cover up the damaging effects of the statements which some of them had made. Deputy O'Leary, Deputy Gorey and others were telling us that this tariff was bound to increase prices. Deputy McGilligan had to admit that prices have fallen since the tariff was imposed. I have said before that the greatest tragedy in life is to see a beautiful theory killed by actual facts. The beautiful theories that have been created by Deputies opposite have got to go out against the fact that the prices have not gone up since the tariff was imposed.
The price has not gone down in proportion to the fall in the price of the raw material.
The price has gone down more than the fall in the price of maize would justify.
Would justify!
That is a fact. Let me make a correction. The Deputy said that in some areas only prices went down. I have got to admit that in one area one miller tried to increase his prices. There is, of course, in this particular case no need for me to deal with it, because that miller was a member of the Oireachtas, and also a member of the Cumann na nGaedheal Party, and I thought that perhaps the members of that Party would approach him personally and say that in the national interests he should not dare to profiteer. He brought down his prices eventually. He brought the price lower than it had been at the time the tariff was imposed because his attempt to profiteer brought such competition into his area that he is now practically fighting for his existence.
A Cumann na nGaedheal "Whang the Miller".
The fact is that this is the most successful tax ever imposed. Not merely have we got a reduction in price, a reduction in price greater than the reduction in the price of the raw materials, but we have got considerable development in the re-starting of mills. Deputy Roddy talked about small mills coming into production in the Northern counties. Of course, Deputy Gorey said that the tariff would not bring the small mills back into production. I do wish that the Cumann na nGaedheal would argue these things and settle their differences outside the Dáil.
The fact is that such mills are coming into production in many areas and I regard that as an excellent development. I know that Deputies opposite do not think of small scale industries. They think always of the big mill at the port, the mill with the suction plant for loading and unloading ships and the mill with the latest machinery. They will be glad to hear that already there is a proposal to establish such a mill here as the result of this tariff. It is coming in here as a result of the tariff.
To manufacture the ten per cent.
I say that the existing mills are capable of supplying the home consumption and are capable of supplying much more if necessary. The fact that these mills have gone into production means competition and explains the fall in prices. It explains the nonsense of Deputies who are talking about rings being formed for the purpose of exploiting consumers. Where are the rings? The only attempt I know of, to exploit consumers following the tariff, was that made by an odd profiteering shopkeeper here and there. We were told that this was an attack on the agricultural industry. It is nothing of the sort. We had Deputy Roddy talking of the duty and ignoring the distinction between maize and maize meal. We import maize because we cannot grow maize. I admit that but we can mill it here. We have always made about eleven-twelfths of our requirements, but the milling of the quantity imported was not a negligible factor. It was not a mere bagatelle. It was about 1,000,000 cwts. per annum. There is a good deal of employment to be given in the milling of that 1,000,000 cwts. Deputy Dillon said it is a problem of how you are going to keep down the price. The obvious way to keep down prices is to promote competition. We had an export trade in maize which we lost this year when Great Britain imposed a duty on it. There was maize milled in Donegal which was exported and I would ask Deputy Dillon to go with Deputy Carney and Deputy Blaney and explain this to the workers, that the fact that the British Government imposed an import duty on maize meal, rendered them liable to unemployment. We were faced with that danger of unemployment, a danger which has now been removed because another market is made available for them.
Wait and see.
Let me say that in one particular district there has been for a number of years not much competition in respect of maize meal. I will admit that the price for these areas is and has been for years dearer than in the rest of the country but in the majority of districts, particularly in the north and in the south, there has always been fairly intensive competition in this industry and the price has been kept down because of that fact. We have been told about a mill that has been closed in Bandon. Let me say that that was a prosperous mill, and it had all the advantages which enabled maize to be milled at a profit. Its closing down arose out of purely fortuitous circumstances. I suggest to Deputy Dillon if he has any money to invest that he should put it into that quarter. Deputy Roddy talked of farmers organising themselves to import shiploads of maize in bulk. I do not believe that the Danish farmers are foolish enough to import milled maize in bulk. I agree that they probably import maize in bulk, but they mill it in Denmark and that is what we propose to do here. We are importing maize. We shall try to get maize as cheaply as we can and try to facilitate those farmers who organise themselves for that purpose but the maize will be milled here and the resultant price will be much lower in this country than it is in most others. We cannot pretend that we are doing something here which is going to restrict in any way competition. The British, who are not advised by fools on these matters, imposed a duty on maize meal going in there and the British farmer as a result of that duty has had to use meal ground in England.
The Irish farmer is going to have his maize ground in Ireland and the Irish farmer has the advantage that the price of maize meal has gone down here since the tariff. I recommend this as a tariff, not only just in itself, but the most valuable of our whole tariff policy, and one that should not be removed under any pretext whatever.
Has not the Minister expressed a different view as to cost, or has he changed his view since he spoke on the last occasion? He said to-day that there was only one area in which the price was increased, but at the last stage he spoke of several areas, and he mentioned one county as a whole.
What I said was that one miller had increased his price, and I said in certain districts the shopkeepers had increased their price.
In the instance that he gave he mentioned one miller only, but on the last stage he said that there were several areas, and in relation to one county he spoke of it as a whole, and said that over a great part of the country the price position was the same. Now in one part of the country the price has gone down. Has he had additional information?
Yes, the price has gone down.
Is not that contrary to the earlier information? He said that in one part of the country the price had gone down, while in others it was the same. Now the Minister says that it has gone down everywhere.
Quote my words.
"Over a great part of the country which was always supplied from the Saorstát mills the price position is the same. In one part of the country the price has come down." That is the quotation, and it is contrary to what the Minister said to-day.
Because since that the price has gone down all round.
The Minister's information about the price a week ago is that it was practically the same.
I am putting the question:—"That the words proposed to be deleted stand part."
But there might be another case to be made on the other point.
The debate was allowed on all the amendments, and it was definitely understood that they would all stand or fall with No. 4.
Put No. 4.
I submit, a Chinn Chomhairle, that you should put the question in the way you have indicated. We have had a discussion on this whole matter not merely to-day but on several occasions, and it is necessary that we should have these amendments disposed of now.
That is not a submission of order. What the Minister thinks is necessary is not a submission on a point of order.
I differ from Deputy McGilligan. I asked you when I was speaking that you should allow us to discuss the three amendments together and you said "Yes." I take it that we are now constrained to go to a division on the question as you have put it.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Allen, Denis.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Blaney, Neal.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Bourke, Daniel.
- Brady, Bryan.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Briscoe, Robert.
- Browne, William Frazer.
- Carty, Frank.
- Clery, Micheál.
- Colbert, James.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred Hugh.
- Crowley, Tadhg.
- Curran, Patrick Joseph.
- Derrig, Thomas.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Flinn, Hugo V.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Geoghegan, James.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Gorry, Patrick Joseph.
- Goulding, John.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Humphreys, Francis.
- Jordan, Stephen.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kennedy, Michael Joseph.
- Keyes, Raphael Patrick.
- Kilroy, Michael.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Murphy, Patrick Stephen.
- Norton, William.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Kelly, Seán Thomas.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- O'Rourke, Daniel.
- Powell, Thomas P.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick J.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sexton, Martin.
- Sheehy, Timothy.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C. (Dr.)
Níl
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Blythe, Ernest.
- Brasier, Brooke.
- Broderick, William Jos.
- Brodrick, Seán.
- Burke, Patrick.
- Byrne, John Joseph.
- Collins-O'Driscoll, Mrs. Margt.
- Conlon, Martin.
- Cosgrave, William T.
- Craig, Sir James.
- Davis, Michael.
- Dillon, James M.
- Dockrell, Henry Morgan.
- Doherty, Eugene.
- Doyle, Peadar Seán.
- Duggan, Edmund John.
- Esmonde, Osmond Grattan.
- Finlay, Thomas A.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Gorey, Denis John.
- Hassett, John J.
- Hayes, Michael.
- Hennessy, Thomas.
- Keating, John.
- Hennigan, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- McDonogh, Fred.
- McGilligan, Patrick.
- Minch, Sydney B.
- Mongan, Joseph W.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- O'Connor, Batt.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Hanlon, John F.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Shaughnessy, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Roddy, Martin.
- Thrift, William Edward.
- White, John.
- Wolfe, Jasper Travers.
Amendments 4, 5, and 6 are lost.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 7, Section 11 (1), line 59, to delete the word "seventy-five" and substitute the word "fifty".
In this section an imperial preference rate on furniture is introduced. I propose an amendment which would leave the preferential rate at 33? per cent. and the other at 50 per cent. I think there is absolutely no case for increasing the existing duty on furniture. The duty on furniture was put very high for the purpose of giving a big fillip to that industry. Nobody can deny that a great fillip has been given, that existing firms have been put into a position to extend very substantially, that new firms have been able to establish industries and make progress, that the quality and variety of the goods available have increased steadily since the tariff was imposed. To increase that tariff can have no effect other than to destroy the element of outside competition and create conditions favourable to monopolies and rings within the country. It seems to me that, except the policy of the present Government is to put on tariffs where there were no tariffs and to increase any tariffs that they may find actually in existence, there can be no possible reason for this tariff. No reasons have been stated by the Government other than reasons in such general terms as I have just mentioned. The arguments in favour of each tariff generally are simply that the Government has decided to increase them, that these are their proposals, and the Dáil can take it or leave it. We can get no indication that there is a necessity for an increase or that there is any substantial need that is or is not likely to be supplied.
A tariff ought not to be higher than is necessary. In my opinion too high tariffs encourage the springing up of industries which are not well organised and are not likely to be carried on on an economic basis. Over-high tariffs create a monopoly position where it is very easy to have agreements and to mulet the consumer. For every reason a tariff should be just as high and no more. I think that 33? per cent. in relation to furniture has been proven to be ample. If there are minor requirements in the country that cannot be made with the protection of 33? per cent. I think they ought not to be made. If we can manage to make the big bulk of the requirements, I suggest that that is the most that can be achieved. In big countries with large central units there are certain items that they do not produce and that they find it more satisfactory to import from abroad. In regard to any industry we should not take up the position of tariffing every industry. As far as the great bulk of the requirements of the country are concerned, our tariffs are bound to be very much too high. This tariff will impose hardships on the public for which there is no justification and will injure the development of the industry along healthy lines.
The Deputy is not correct in stating that no case for this tariff was made to the Dáil. We discussed the necessity for the duty at very considerable length on previous stages, and if the Deputy has any doubt as to the nature of the case made, he can look back over the official reports and he will find that his statement is at least a very grave exaggeration. The main reason for the tariff was because, despite the 33? per cent., there was an import of furniture into this country valued at about £100,000 a year. When the duty was imposed in 1924 the value of our imports dropped substantially—as low as £80,000 in 1926. Despite the fall in prices, the value of our imports since then has tended to go up until the average for the last couple of years has been £100,000. The furniture imported was of a very cheap grade, produced under conditions permitting it to be sold at very low prices, and we decided that the increased duty was necessary in order to stop that furniture coming in here, and secure for Irish factories and Irish workers the full output represented. It seems to me that this duty is quite justifiable.
I do not think there is any real prospect of any of the dangers referred to by the Deputy emerging. If they should emerge it is not beyond the wit of man to deal with them. In any case these dangers could emerge whether the duty was increased or not. At the moment the position is that the firms engaged in this industry are in competition with one another and that that competition is likely to increase and grow in intensity. In fact a number of the larger firms are getting quite voluble, as Deputies will have noticed from the Press, about the nature of the competition they have to contend with and they have been actually pressing on the Government to take action to limit that competition in particular directions. Deputies, therefore, need have no fear whatever that it will be possible for any one individual manufacturer to indulge in profiteering of any kind. If the combination of manufacturers into a ring should arise, as the Deputy seems to fear, then there will be a new situation. There is no sign, however, of such a ring emerging for a considerable time to come and if it should emerge it might also have emerged under the old tariff.
The Minister has referred to competition of a certain type. Does he in that allude to internal competition of that type?
We discussed it.
Did they mention anything about a statutory ring? Were there any proposals put to the Minister for licences to be given to those who wished to enter into the trade?
I have no recollection of any such thing being suggested to me.
I move amendment 8, which is as follows:—
In page 8, Section 11 (1), paragraph (c), line 3, after the word "bedsteads" and within the brackets to insert the words, "and also other than blind rollers and wooden portions of kitchen utensils."
The Minister has told us that the furniture trade is adequately catered for by the manufacturers in that particular industry. I do not wish, at this particular stage, to quarrel with that statement made by the Minister, but if that is true in general it is certainly not true in certain particular items. With that object in view I framed this particular amendment which I now recommend to the House. I will state, without fear of contradiction, that there is not a single, solitary blind roller made in this country by an Irish firm. I think that that would be admitted by the Minister, and if that is so, it is merely increasing the cost of blind rollers by 75 per cent.
I do not know how the Minister views raising revenue from very small items that entail considerable machinery in their collection. I have said all I wish to say about blind rollers, and will now mention what I wish to bring before this House with regard to kitchen utensils. I believe that technically they come under the furniture section, although possibly there might be some doubt as to whether in some cases they would not come under the other Finance Bill, the schedule 7. However, I am assuming that they come under this particular section. I suggest to the Government that it is absolutely absurd and preposterous taking an article which is not manufactured in this country and insisting that some one particular small part of it shall be either sent along separately and invoiced separately and duty paid on it, or, on the other hand, an effort made to produce it in this country. If you try to get one manufacturer to supply one-tenth of the things required to complete a particular machine, you have all sorts of difficulties. You have double assemblies. You have two manufacturers and one has to fit his goods to the works made by another. I have in mind, say, for instance, the wooden handles on an enamel pail, or the wooden handle on, say, an aluminium teapot, or the small wooden knob on the top of an aluminium teapot, or the wooden portion of a strainer or sieve—either a wire or a hair sieve. I suggest to the Minister that the trouble and annoyance and expense caused to the trade and the general public by forcing the trade to bring in the wooden parts of those articles is out of all proportion to the revenue that is produced to this country. As I have said before, the wooden parts have to be brought in separately and a duty paid on them, and the manufacturers have to furnish invoices and all sorts of other arrangements have to be gone through, and I would suggest to the Minister that, if he has got his main duty, as he has on furniture, and his main revenue, he ought to exempt these smaller things in which you have to spend probably 5/- or 6/- of the community's money in order to raise a shilling in revenue.
The Deputy is not quite correct in saying that blind rollers are not manufactured in the country. Rollers for the external blinds used by shops and also particular rollers used internally by shops are manufactured here.
I am talking of the domestic blind.
It is correct to say that the smaller household roller has not been made in this country heretofore, but the Department has been in touch with certain firms engaged in associated industries and I am informed they are making arrangements for the manufacture of these things now and that as soon as certain minor difficulties are overcome there will be an adequate supply of them from within the country. As regards the second point of the amendment, if the Deputy looks at sub-section (3), paragraph (c), he will see that we have made provision to meet the point to which he has been referring. It is true that, heretofore, pails, teapots and other articles with wooden handles have been subjected to duty as wooden furniture. We are giving the Revenue Commissioners power to exempt from duty articles of that kind. The paragraph states: "In respect of any article of furniture (other than a bedstead) or any component part of an article of furniture (other than a bedstead) that the quantity of wood contained in such article or component part forms only an inconsiderable part of the whole of such article or component part"— the exemption applies in that case. That is designed to meet the point to which the Deputy has been referring.
Does the Minister propose to use these powers?
Undoubtedly.
Amendments 9 and 10 are out of order.
May I ask on what grounds amendment 9 is ruled out of order?
Amendments 9 and 10 would remove the operative portion of the sections.
Why? My amendment would leave a duty on the article.
The Deputy is referring to amendment No. 9?
Yes. It only provides for a variation of the rate.
That is right.
My amendment is in order?
I move amendment 9—in page 8, Section 12 (1), line 59, to delete the words "one shilling and." I put down this amendment merely because I want to get some information as to why this extraordinary rate has been decided upon. The rate goes up to 1/6, with 1-3rd taken off the preferential rate. The only information we have got by way of a case for this tariff is that which the Minister gave on the 24th May when he said that the existing factories in the Saorstát are in a position to supply not merely all the requirements of the country but half the requirements of Europe as well. Consequently, we need a tariff of 1/6. I do not understand the reasoning.
The tariff is intended to be prohibitive and to stop the importation of sugar confectionery, so that all the requirements of the country will be met by the existing factories, which are not alone capable of meeting existing requirements but are capable of supplying half the requirements of Europe.
We have that statement now for the second time. We are capable of meeting half the requirements of Europe. That statement is not so very far inaccurate when compared with many other statements the Minister has made. We are asked to accept that definite statement —that we are capable of supplying half the requirements of Europe in sugar confectionery—as a reason for imposing a tariff of 1/6 on this material. We have got no information as to the imports coming in still or as to what was the rate of decrease in imports over the years in which the smaller tariff had been in operation. We have got no differentiation made by the Minister as to the different classes of confectionery coming into the country. He might have made the statement that so far as the lower grades are concerned we have pretty definitely seized the trade. The Minister has made no reference to the failure of those operating this business to meet the requirements of the country in the higher grades of whatever is covered by this peculiar tariff. We have had no statement by the Minister as to whether he believed that in some reasonable time— which he might make concrete by giving the number of months—the requirements of the country in the higher grades would be met. There ought to be some explanation, if importation has lasted over a number of years against a particular rate of duty, as to why an increase is required and there ought to be some statement from the Minister of a reassuring type, backed by detail, as to the period in which we are going to have the country's requirements met. Otherwise, we have got to face this as a tax. It is not a tax I am going to be very vehement about, because it applies to material which, except in the jam line, cannot be considered in the nature of an essential requirement —and, in the jam line, I think we meet our own requirements. This is a tax. It may be a tax on a particular commodity about which people will not get vehement but it is not protection. Otherwise, we would have had a case made by the Minister, if it were possible to make a case, and we would have been told what is going to be done in the near future and what prevented whatever is going to be done in the near future from being done some time ago. I want to lessen the tax. I regard it merely as a tax and I say "Give them some increase. The sixpence I propose is a definite increase on what was in operation up to date." If the Minister says that he wants money, I refer him again to his own election promise, that we were to have economies amounting to £2,000,000. A party which promises £2,000,000 in economies in a particular year ought not to be looking for fresh taxation and it is only on the basis of a tax that this proposal can be justified.
The alteration in this duty will cost the Exchequer about £50,000 a year. We are losing revenue by increasing the duty.
And the people are paying more.
I dispute that. I say the people are not paying more. The existing firms are capable of supplying all the requirements of the country and the fact that their capacity is in excess of the requirements of the country means that the competition here will be quite severe.
By how much were they failing to supply the country's needs before?
By £200,000.
Why?
Largely because certain brands of confectionery of one kind or another were so well advertised and had been for such a long period known to the public, who had become accustomed to them, that the particular rate of duty heretofore in operation was not sufficient to break that connection. The connection continued despite the fact that the duty was in operation. Very intensive advertising campaigns conducted by the firms in question enabled them to hold their position, not altogether but to some extent, although imports were declining year after year. The position now is that the higher and prohibitive rate of duty has definitely stopped the imports and is giving the market to the Irish firms, which are rising to the occasion and which are now producing all the classes of sugar confectionery required by the people and supplying them in the quantities required.
They are not. Will the Minister look for trade treaties with a view to supplying half of Europe which he says we can supply?
I shall adopt that suggestion.
I move amendment 10—In page 9, Section 13 (1), line 30, to delete the words "three shillings" and substitute the words "nine-pence." I am moving to reduce the ordinary rate of duty here proposed— 3/- per lb. on cocoa preparations—to 9d. per lb. There is a preferential rate of two-thirds so that the 3/- rate would run to 2/- on the products of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
I described this recently as the worst of the tariffed industries—probably the greatest disappointment of the whole lot—and one which had the greatest advantages so far as tariffs, trade loans and money from other sources were concerned. In spite of that, we find that the productivity of those interested in this industry has been sadly lacking, and that there has not been a great deal of progress made. Not merely is that the situation but the people interested in this industry showed themselves as amongst the most demoralised of all those who benefited by any tariff. This is the industry from which the most outrageous proposal which ever proceeded from any group of manufacturers operating in this country was made. They made the definite proposal—they were not slow even to make it public in letters—that there should be a statutory ring established in the industry. They wanted to have industrialists grouped. They wanted to have legislation passed, under which only those would be allowed to manufacture in this industry who held licences. They wanted themselves established as the people to give the licences. They were not even going to allow those in the trade in their entirety to be in the licence-giving body. They wanted a certain number of people cut out. They showed themselves in their proposals as clearly and definitely unfit to run an industry under any ordinary conditions of competition. They were even afraid of the limited amount of competition existing. They had made no special move to meet the requirements of the country in, say, higher-grade chocolates and they do not even represent as great a percentage use of home-produced raw material as the importing firms do. I should say with regard to the vast bulk of the cream chocolates which come into this country, that they are really Irish exports reimported. They are, in the main, butter, milk and cream, sent out of this country and brought back here in the finished state. The home manufacturer is not producing from Irish raw material to the same extent at all as the importer was. Because of this, I see no reason whatsoever to give these people the increase they, presumably, have asked for. This duty, I suppose, again, is meant to be prohibitive. It is going to be prohibitive, but it is not going to be prohibitive merely of imported chocolates. It is probably going to be prohibitive of chocolate-eating. It is going to be prohibitive of the eating of chocolates of a certain type, because the taste of the country in certain respects is not being met to any degree whatsoever by those engaged in the home industry. I sat here throughout the debate that took place on this question previously, and listened to the particular arguments used. There was no justification given for this huge increase. There may be something to be said for helping, by way of a differentiated scale, for loading the tariff in a particular way against a particular type of chocolate, and for scaling that, so that if we saw the industry progressing, the scale could have operated, and could have slid up against the dearer commodities, but I think that, with the industry as it is, and with the failure that, to a greater extent, I may say, has marked the industry, there is no reason whatsoever why we should lump on this prohibitive tariff in this way. It is one of the worst of the tariffed industries, and it certainly does not require any extra help at the moment, and does not deserve any extra consideration at this moment.
The value of the chocolate confectionery imported last year was just under £300,000. The amount of labour represented by that import was very considerable, and in view of the fact that there appears to be no reason whatever why we cannot produce that chocolate confectionery for ourselves, we decided to impose a prohibitive duty to ensure that these imports would stop, and that the production of these goods would take place here, and that the employment represented by them would be given to our own people. The imports have stopped and the industry is developing as we anticipated, but, perhaps, not as rapidly as it might have under somewhat different circumstances because certain doubts and uncertainties have been created as to the future. These are now being resolved and development is proceeding. The firms that were engaged in the industry heretofore are extending their productive capacity and one other firm which was engaged in this industry in a minor way—the well-known firm of biscuit manufacturers here in the city—are extending their capacity for production of chocolate confectionery quite rapidly, and giving substantially increased employment in that sphere of their operations. The tariff, therefore, appears to be one which has justified itself. It is also one which has involved a loss of revenue to the Government, because the prohibitive import duty which now operates stopped the influx of these goods entirely, while, formerly, as I have pointed out, there was a very valuable import on which a substantial rate of duty was paid. However, the loss to the Exchequer is a small consideration if the substantially increased employment we anticipate follows from it, and, therefore, we think it would be a very foolish action for the Dáil to take to reduce this import duty in any way, or to give the impression that we were prepared to facilitate the importation of these goods, subject to revenue being paid to the Exchequer on them.
I am afraid I must question the accuracy of the statement made by Deputy McGilligan that the chocolates imported represented in any form reimported Irish milk or Irish butter. The information available to me would seem to indicate that the firms which have been principally engaged in the importation into this State of chocolate confectionery did not use any Irish milk or milk products in their manufacturing. Whether or not the Irish firms are using Irish raw materials to the extent they should is a matter that can be examined, but I have no reason to believe the contrary, or to believe that, if circumstances are favourable, as they now are favourable, we will not be able to get associated with this industry, certain kindred industries which will give increased output to the agricultural industry. I have had, already, certain discussions in that connection with the Minister for Agriculture, and certain projects are under consideration. I think the amendment should be rejected and I ask the Dáil to reject it.
What the Minister said about one large firm entering the industry in a substantial way provides more justification for this than anything he has said, because, undoubtedly what is happening, apart from that, from the imposition of this prohibitive tariff, is that a monopoly is being given to a group of manufacturers who are incompetent. It may be that under the tariff that existed, the firms here could not have captured the whole of the home market in the superior grades, and it may be that some case could have been made for a small increase, but the difficulties before the manufacturers were not mainly due to greater advertising expenditure of outside firms or the lowness of the tariff. The thing that held back the development of the industry here was that, for some reason or another, the home firms could not produce a good quality article. It may be that there are secret recipes in this trade, and that it is difficult for a new firm to produce a good quality. I do not profess to know at first hand, but I have questioned many people who are strongly in favour of the support of home industries, and I have got the universal testimony that the dearer grades of the home made chocolates were of very third rate quality, and I am certain that, to a large extent, the consumption of the imported chocolates will not be replaced unless the operations of the big firm which the Minister has referred to alter the position. Except for that, they will not be replaced by consumption of the home made chocolates. The home made chocolates of the best grades are so much inferior in quality to what has been imported that there will be a reduction in consumption.
It is a very unsatisfactory thing to give a monopoly to a group of people who, heretofore, have not shown themselves able to produce goods in a quality at all comparable to what is imported. It would be much wiser on the Minister's part to give them some small increase, to give them some little additional help and encouragement to improve the quality of their goods and fight for their market. Instead of making them fight for the market and helping them to improve the quality of their goods and to give the public what they want, the Minister is presenting them with the market, and saying to the public "You either eat these goods you are going to get from these manufacturers or you are going to do without." I do not think we can get real industrial development along those lines. I think it is a most wrong-headed policy. Of course, it is of no great economic importance that these goods are not of the right quality, because they are all in the nature of a luxury, and it would not matter at all if their consumption went down, but it is because it is of a piece with the general policy of the Ministry to make the public suffer, to bolster up inefficiency and not to try to strike a mean between giving some reasonable help to a manufacturer and altogether disregarding the interests of the community as a whole, that I am opposed to this.
I understand that there is an arrangement to take the Diseases of Animals Bill at 6 o'clock.