I move: "That the Dáil agree with the Committee in Resolution No. 4." This is a general, comprehensive Resolution covering a considerable number of duties up to No. 45.
In Committee on Finance. - Financial Resolution No. 4—Customs.
The fact that it is a general and comprehensive Resolution is surely all the more reason why the Minister should tell us something about it. Are we to hear nothing about it?
Does the Deputy want an explanation of the whole 45 duties at once?
I hold that the House is entitled to get an explanation of some aspects of these duties.
I think it has been the practice to take each separately.
Not on Report.
In order that we may be able to deal adequately with these matters on the Committee Stage of the Finance Bill, I think we should hear something about the Resolution now. For instance, it would appear that there is a wiping out of certain preferential rates that existed on some of these articles up to the present and that, apart altogether from that, there are certain increases in customs duties on certain articles, and that there is a large number of articles in respect of which the Minister takes power to issue licences for import. I only instance these as some of the matters that, on the face of it, would seem to make it necessary for the Minister to tell us something as to what is behind the Resolution generally.
Reference No. 1 imposes a duty upon articles intended for use as holders of paper or twine. These articles at present are dutiable when made of certain materials and it is intended to make them dutiable no matter what materials they are manufactured from.
Could the Minister say what the former duty was?
There is a duty of 50 per cent. on wooden containers for twine or paper.
With 33? per cent. preference?
A preferential rate of 33? per cent. The effect of the duty is to make the 50 per cent. operative on all containers for paper or twine, no matter what materials they are made of, without a preferential rate. No. 2 imposes a duty upon fire extinguishers. There is at present a duty of 45 per cent. with a preferential rate of 30 per cent. on fire extinguishers made wholly or mainly of tin, tin plate, tinned plate or a combination of any of them. Fire extinguishers which are made of tern plate have been free of duty. Tern plate is iron coated with lead, and the dutiable articles are those of iron coated with tin. The effect of the change made here is to bring articles of tern plate subject to this duty and to change the duty from 45 per cent. maximum and 30 per cent. preferential to 40 per cent. flat. No. 3 merely increases the duty on coffin mountings from 50 to 66? per cent. No. 4 imposes a duty on copper boilers of 25 per cent.
Is that a new tax?
It is a new duty. No. 5 extends the existing duty upon galvanised hollow ware and brings subject to duty the articles set out in the list. The existing duties are on domestic hollow ware of galvanised wrought iron or steel, including galvanised coppers, gutters, pipes and ridgings which are, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, primarily intended for carrying off rain-water. The articles being brought in are buckets, cans and pails, watering-pots, dust, ash or refuse bins or boxes, articles which are intended for use in feeding or watering animals or birds and storage bins.
In connection with No. 5, might I ask the Minister a question?
No, the Minister is not going to answer any question until he is finished. No. 6 extends the duty upon cast iron articles. A number of these articles are at present dutiable under Emergency Orders. These Orders have been repealed and various duties have been brought into one list so that they will be easier of enforcement and understanding, and obviate confusion in administration. Under the old duty, payment light frames, skylights and dead lights were subject to duty. These articles fall more properly under the heading of metal window frames and they are now being brought subject to that particular duty. No. 7 imposes a duty on metal plates for motor cars and their component parts. This is a new duty. No. 8 makes specific the duty at present operating on manufactures of wire. There is, under a previous Finance Act, a duty upon all wire manufacturers, That duty has been repealed and, in future, a duty of 33? per cent. will operate only upon the articles set out in reference No. 8 when made of wire.
No. 9 imposes a duty upon spades and shovels and parts thereof. It is intended in the Finance Bill to insert, in connection with that duty, a licensing clause. There are certain small workshops throughout the country where spades and shovels are manufactured from imported blanks and, although it will become necessary for these workshops to procure their blanks from Saorstát firms in future, it is necessary to provide some little time to enable the change to be made, and in the interval to license the importation free of duty of limited quantities of these blanks by these small manufacturers. No. 10 increases the duty on horse shoes. No. 11 effects certain changes in respect of riddles and sieves, which are at present liable to duty when made wholly or mainly of wood. The component parts were not subject to duty, and the effect of the change is to make these articles, together with the component parts, liable to duty whether made of metal or wood.
The Finance Act, 1932, imposed a duty of 22½ per cent., with a 15 per cent. preferential rate, on articles of the nature of a disinfectant, insecticide, verminicide, vermicide or fungicide, which pass in commerce under the designation of proprietary or protected trade names. It has been found very difficult to administer the duty, on account of that qualification. The only articles subject to duty were those which passed in commerce under the designation of a proprietary or protected trade name. During the discussion which took place with the Revenue Commissioners in that connection, it was mentioned also that there was extreme difficulty in determining what is a germicide for purposes of customs administration. The change, therefore, which is being effected here is, firstly, to remove the qualification of articles which pass in commerce under the designation of a proprietary or protected trade name and, secondly, to insert the words "which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, is a disinfectant, vermicide, verminicide, or fungicide."
No. 13 extends and increases the duty on photographic prints. No. 14 imposes a duty upon complete dentures of any material and bases for dentures. No. 15 increases to 50 per cent. the duty in operation upon certain sports implements. No. 16 imposes a new duty of 20 per cent. on certain articles manufactured of leather, which are set out, that is, fancy leather goods of various kinds, such as handbags, notecases and so forth. In respect of No. 17, the position at present is that there is a duty of 1 1-5d. per lb., with 1d. preferential rate, on canned fruits and syrups. That duty has been repealed and, instead, a duty of 4d. per lb. has been imposed on certain fruits named in the reference which are imported in sealed tins or cans, and of 1d. per lb. on other fruits.
It is an increase of duty upon the fruits named and a slight decrease in the full rate on the other fruits. No. 18 imposes a duty upon filled shot cartridges. The new duty is designed to revive the business of filling those cartridges in the country. No. 19 increases and extends, as I have already explained, the duty upon metal window frames. No. 20 imposes a duty of 33? per cent. on badges, medals, medallions and the like, made wholly or mainly of silver, copper, bronze, brass, gunmetal, tin, zinc or aluminium, or a combination of any of those metals. No. 21 imposes the duty mentioned upon certain articles manufactured of cotton, linen or union cloth, that is table cloths, table covers, all other table equipment, towels, domestic cloths and tarpaulins; also bags and sacks made wholly or mainly of cotton, and also component parts made wholly or mainly of such bags or sacks. The principal type of sack to which that duty applies is the ordinary flour sack, the manufacture of which is to be undertaken here in future.
No. 22 increases and extends the existing duty upon linen and cotton goods. It is proposed in the Finance Bill to exempt from duty cotton goods which have been subject to a process of proofing. The present duty exempts cotton goods which have been subject to the process of printing or painting, or both printing and painting, and it is proposed to insert there the word "proofing" also. The manufacture of linen goods has of course been a substantial industry in this country for a long time. Cotton goods have also been manufactured. The manufacture of cotton piece goods over 4½ ozs. to the square yard is being undertaken, and consequently this duty is being imposed in order to afford the necessary protection. No. 23 imposes a duty upon bias bindings. It is a new duty. No. 24 imposes a duty upon the component parts of sparking plugs. There is a duty on sparking plugs, but the practice of importing them unassembled has been going on. Of course anyone could assemble a sparking plug, and in order to make the duty effective it is necessary to make it apply to the component parts of those articles as well as to the complete article. It is proposed to amend that reference slightly in the Finance Bill, to make it clear that the duty applies only to metal parts other than copper washers. There is a certain porcelain fitting which is used in some types of sparking plugs and which is not yet manufactured here. No. 25 imposes a duty upon boot and shoe lasts. Those are not yet being manufactured here; consequently there is a licence provision. Proposals for their manufacture have been made, and it is expected that production will be commenced in a short time. It is necessary to impose the duty now in order to prevent forestalling, but until production is commenced importation under licence will be permitted. No. 26 imposes a duty on washing soda. Again there is a licence provision inserted there, because production is only beginning, and until the concerns here are able to supply the full requirements of the country some importation under licence will be permitted. No. 27 increases the duty on bedding, and removes the preferential rates of duty which operated heretofore.
It applies only to rubber?
No. Articles of rubber are excluded. No. 28 makes the same change in respect of rugs. No. 29 imposes a duty upon live domestic fowls, turkeys, geese and ducks. There has been a duty in operation upon those articles already. The duty has been repealed, and certain emergency orders have also been repealed. That duty is now being confirmed. No. 30 imposes a new duty on soups of all descriptions, whether in liquid, solid, powder or any other form. Certain soups were subject to duty under an emergency order which has been repealed. No. 31 imposes, in lieu of the duty at present operating under an emergency order, a duty of one shilling per pound on honey. No. 32 is also a replacement of duty imposed under an emergency order. No. 33 is in the same category. Those duties have been in operation already under emergency orders. No. 34 is the same. The duty has been in operation under an emergency order, and is being confirmed under this Resolution. No. 35 is also a replacement of duty at present in operation under an emergency order by the duty imposed under this Resolution.
What did the Minister say about No. 34? Is it a new tax?
The same thing applies there. It is a duty imposed on glazed articles by an emergency order some time towards the end of last year in anticipation of forestalling taking place following the announcement of an intention to erect a factory here. Imports are at present taking place under licence, and will have to take place under licence for a considerable time. No. 36 increases the duty on cordage, cables, ropes and twines, which has been in operation for the past two years. No. 37 is a substitution of Budget duty for the duty at present in operation under an emergency order upon bolts and nuts. The manufacture of bolts and nuts was commenced at the beginning of the year, and it was necessary to impose a duty at that time in order to afford protection and prevent forestalling. That duty is now being confirmed under this Resolution. No. 38 imposes a duty upon prepared liquid or quasi-liquid sauces and condiments. No. 39 imposes a new duty of 1/- per cwt. on whiting or whitening. The manufacture of whiting and whitening has been in progress at Ennis for some time past, and the industry is now being protected for the first time. No. 40 imposes a duty on aluminium goods. Deputies will have seen in the papers that the manufacture of these goods is about to commence at Nenagh. It was considered necessary to impose a duty in advance of production, in order to prevent forestalling. There is a licence provision under which ordinary requirements will be imported free of duty for some time to come.
No. 41 imposes a duty on lubricating oil imported in containers under 40 gallons. The purpose of the duty is obviously to get the work of packing the oil in small containers and the manufacture of the containers undertaken here. One company, as Deputies are aware, has been doing that for some time past, and considerable employment has been afforded in the manufacturing of containers and the cases for the containers. It is proposed to make all the oil companies operate in the same way. Following the imposition of the duty and the experience gained by the Revenue Commissioners in its operation, it has been decided to reduce in the Finance Bill the 40 gallons to 35 gallons. The large drums or barrels in which the oil is imported normally contain 41 gallons. It appears that a certain shrinkage or leakage takes place in transit and they contain less than 40 gallons when they reach the port of destination. It will simplify matters to have the 40 gallons reduced to 35 gallons. It will not affect in any additional way either the oil companies or the intention of the duty.
No. 42 imposes a duty on wire-bound hose tubing. Deputies will remember that wire-bound hose tubing was manufactured in this country for a number of years. The firm engaged in the business was acquired by an English firm and the works in Dublin were closed down some time last year. One of the persons associated with the former firm is now about to commence the manufacture of these articles in the Saorstát again, and so a duty has been imposed for the purpose of affording protection.
No. 43 imposes a duty upon tinned or canned fish of all kinds. Where the container and the contents thereof do not together exceed 1 lb. in weight, the duty is one penny on each container; where the container and the contents together exceed 1 lb. in weight the duty is 1d. per lb. or part of a lb. weight of each container.
No. 44 imposes a duty of 2d. per lb. on fish kippered or smoked. No. 45 imposes a duty of 3d. per lb. on fish filleted and parts thereof. These duties are being imposed for the obvious purpose of securing that the work of canning, kippering or filleting of fish will be undertaken in the Saorstát.
I am anxious to give Deputies all the information that they may desire concerning any of these proposed duties. It is difficult to do so without knowing in advance the information that is desired, and I shall be only too glad to clear up, if possible, any points raised in the discussion.
The Minister has placed a Resolution before us which very substantially increases a large number of taxes, and as one particular part of that raising of taxes it does away with the preferential rate that existed up to the present. The Minister did not address himself to that particular aspect of the matter, and the House will be interested to hear what effect doing away with the preferential rate in respect of all these items is going to have on the direction of our trade outside, if any. As I say, the increase is very substantial in many ways. The first item increases the duties on a list of articles of a particular kind from 31½ to 50 per cent.
In the case of a third item, coffin mountings of metal, the Minister stated that there was an increase in the tariff from 50 per cent. to 66? per cent. In fact, I think that the increase is from a preferential rate of 33? per cent. to 66? per cent. In reference No. 5, in regard to one item, hollow ware of domestic or household use, the Minister seemed to imply that that meant an increase in the tax, but I should like to hear from him whether it is not a new tax entirely, whether this is not putting 30 per cent. duty on certain articles that have not been dutiable heretofore.
That is only in regard to certain parts of that reference. Hollow ware of domestic or household use has been dutiable. That duty is being repealed, and is being re-enacted under this reference. Some of the other articles set out have not been dutiable heretofore.
In reference No. 6, the Minister puts an appreciable increase on articles very much used in house building. We have had statements made before the Prices Commission in the last couple of months that the cost of building materials is very much above what some people, at any rate, think it should be. Here we have the tariff increased from a preferential rate of 15 per cent. to a flat rate of 25 per cent. on such things as external water pipes, sash weights, gully traps, fire bars, smoke pipes, and articles of that kind.
They have all been dutiable up to the present.
They have been dutiable; but the duty was only 15 per cent.
22½ per cent.
With a preferential rate of 15 per cent.
The preferential rate was abolished by emergency order in 1932.
I think the Minister will find from the publication giving the customs duties as revised and up-to-date, in January 1934. that there is some discrepancy between what he says now and what I say. From the information published there, I suggest that in respect to quite a number of these items—they may have been items on which the preferential rate has been wiped out—there is a substantial increase in the tariff. There was a preferential rate of 15 per cent. in respect to these items formerly. The original duties on the items indicated under reference No. 6 were, I take it, imposed for the purpose of stimulating the manufacture of these articles here. If, as I suggest, the duties are now being increased by 10 per cent., I should like to hear the Minister explain why that increase is being imposed and what the position is generally with regard to development of the manufacture of these items.
In regard to a number of these items the Minister takes power to issue licences. The position with regard to the issue of licences, generally, is of such great importance, and the issue of licences being the kind of thing that should be avoided as far as possible, I think it would be well if the Minister would give us some information as to the way in which these licences are being worked generally. There appear to be different cases in which the Minister takes power to issue licences. He indicates one of these in regard to reference No. 34 and another in regard to reference No. 40, where he imposes a tariff for the purpose of enabling him to shut down on the import of certain articles if he sees dumping beginning or for the reason that steps are being taken to begin the manufacture of these articles here. That is one class of case. Then reference No. 12, in which the Minister takes similar powers, deals with a different class of article entirely. There is a licence clause attached to that reference, although the articles enumerated there are not of the class the manufacture of which is actually beginning to be developed here. I should like to hear why, in the case of disinfectants, insecticides and ointments, it is necessary for the Minister to take powers to allow certain of these articles in on licence. Is it that there are certain classes of disinfectants that are of vital necessity and that no attempt is being made to manufacture these articles in this country? It certainly seems to me a different case for the control of imports by licence, to that of the Arklow or the Nenagh cases.
Reference No. 15 is very interesting, because a tax is being put on tennis racquets, which are completely or substantially manufactured, golf clubs, and things like that. There has, up to the present, I understand, been a tariff of 15 per cent. with a preferential rate of ten per cent. on these articles. A tariff of 50 per cent. is now being imposed. The Minister, apparently, is developing another sports tax. If this is not intended to be another sports tax, I should like to hear from the Minister what is the position with regard to the development of the manufacture of these articles here. With reference to the statement that the increased tariff under paragraphs (a) and (b) refers to articles wholly or substantially manufactured, I should like to ask the Minister whether there is a tariff on parts of these sports articles which are imported for assembly?
No.
Does the Minister then contemplate that the increase in this tariff will develop an assembly industry here in respect to these sports articles? I should like to ask the Minister whether the tax imposed in reference No. 16, on articles made wholly or mainly of leather or skin, is intended to be a revenue tax or a protective tax. If it is intended to be a protective tax, when we compare the 20 per cent. imposed under reference No. 16 with the 50 per cent. imposed on sports articles under reference No. 15, the difference in the amount of the two tariffs is not understandable, particularly when we remember that reference No. 16 imposes a tariff of 20 per cent. on cash bags made wholly or mainly of leather or skin or a combination of leather and skin. We should remember in that connection the calf skins that will be made available in the country and the fact that no use can be made of our calf skins in connection with the boot industry. Under reference No. 17 the Minister provides that we can have preserved peaches, pears and apples at a tariff of 1d. per lb., but if we want to have blackberries or gooseberries, preserved in the same way, we shall have to pay a tariff of 4d. per lb. I should like to hear from the Minister why it is necessary to double the tariff in respect of gooseberries and raspberries, increase it four times in respect to damsons and plums, and to put a tariff on blackberries which did not exist before. The Minister does not take any licensing powers in connection with these matters.
The Minister stated that a new tariff is to be imposed on filled shot cartridges. I thought there was a tariff on these already and I should like to hear the Minister explain whether he intends this to be a prohibitive tariff. The Minister made certain references to the tariff on cotton piece goods and indicated that the manufacture of some of the articles mentioned in the Schedule was going to be undertaken here. I have heard it stated by people engaged in the shirt manufacturing industry that the tariff imposed, and which is in operation now, on some of the cotton goods mentioned here will seriously interfere with the shirt industry. I have been told that some of these articles are essential for collars and stiff shirt fronts and that the shirt industry is being interfered with owing to the difficulty in getting some of the stuff at the present moment because of the tariff.
In the case of an article like honey, in reference to which the Minister takes power to allow the article in free of duty on licence, I should like to know whether it is intended to apply that power in a seasonable way. The Minister has a Prices Commission operating at the present time and I should like to ask him whether in a case such as that covered by reference No. 41, where he is imposing a tariff of 1/- per gallon on lubricating oil brought in otherwise than in containers of a certain kind, he asks the Prices Commission to consider whether the price that will be charged in future for this commodity is a price above that which would be warranted. Does he ask whether the cost of the oils will not be unduly increased by this tariff or whether the increase in cost is in any way equable to the amount of employment that will be given?
I should like to get some information from the Minister regarding items what are mentioned in reference Nos. 5 and 6 dealing with gutters, pipes, ridgings, external water and soil pipes. The information I want to get might be applicable to other items on which there are tariffs. I want to know whether in all cases where these things are manufactured here, or are about to be manufactured will the Minister take steps to protect the public against people who are now exploiting them? I will give a definite case. This week a prominent builder in Cork gave me figures dealing with gutters and pipes which require explanation. This man communicated with Irish firms who manufacture gutter pipes and make them I understand in lengths of six feet. There is a tariff already on imported gutters. A Scotch firm quoted at 6/6 delivered, while a Dublin firm for the same quality, wanted 6/7 although they had the advantage of the tariff. That is a glaring case of exploitation, although we hear a good deal from time to time about inquiries being set up in the Free State to find out the ratio between the paper cost and the finished product for materials for houses. It has been frequently stated at these inquiries that the cost of labour amounted to almost half of the cost of housing, and that that was why the cost of building material was altogether out of proportion to other costs in this country. Here is a definite case. I should like to know what protection will be given to the general public, or if you wish, to the consumer. My own experience in connection with reference No. 18 may be of interest. I remember when it was possible to get good filled shot cartridges of the very best kind for 10/- a 100. As good quality cannot be got now for from 15/- to £1. I make this forecast, that when the extra tariff goes on the cost of filled shot cartridges will go up by at least 50 or 60 per cent., and Irish manufacturers will pocket the difference they get from exploiting the consumer. That is a position that I would like the Minister to inquire into, particularly with regard to gutters and pipes, which I feel are of more importance to the community than filled cartridges. The experience of the general public is that these tariffs, while they may have done something to help struggling industries, such help is more than counter-balanced by the increased cost of living of the working classes. That is a matter the Labour Party should take into consideration. The cost of housing is going to be increased very considerably. No matter what is said about Irish manufacturers, and the protection they are getting in these commodities, they are going to charge more than persons outside the Free State charge. I can verify the figures I gave, that an outside firm could supply at 6/6 as against 6/7 from a Dublin source.
Can the Deputy say whether the price charged was the ex-factory price or price delivered? Is he clear that the 6/6 included the duty?
It included the duty.
Is that stated? Has the Deputy made sure of it?
Absolutely. I can give the names of the builder and the firms.
Does the price quoted include duty? The Deputy is sure that is correct?
That was the statement made to me.
In reference No. 34, dealing with articles of domestic or household use, I notice that the rate of duty is 30/- per cwt. Tea-pots or similar articles are not made here at present, except common tea-pots, which are made in a small factory at Carrigaline, County Cork. I am given to understand that other types of tea-pots have to bear as much as 100 or 120 per cent., in some instances, ad valorem, and that it is eventually passed on to the consumer. I understand this tariff has been put on in order to protect an industry which is about to be started in Arklow. If one could reasonably hope to see that industry started in the immediate future, one could understand the proposal. But it has been spoken of for a considerable time. If the industry was reasonably near starting, one could understand affording it undue protection, but to give it a long time in advance to a rather shadowy industry is different. I understand that licences are being given to enable these articles to be imported, and I would like to draw attention to the manner in which they are issued. Four or five firms have been engaged in this trade for many years, and they are entitled to get a limited number of licences. If my information is correct a couple of agents with offices in Dublin, who employ only typists in their offices, can get licences ad lib., and it is necessary for some of the firms who are in the trade and who give employment to go to these agents and to make purchases through a particular channel. That is an unfair restriction on firms who may wish to purchase where they like. That is the information I got from the trade. As the tariff is a very heavy one, if licences are to be issued they should be given to people in the trade. These people should be given the right of a free market, to bring goods from Staffordshire or any other place without being compelled to deal with agents who inflict themselves on the trade in an unfair manner. The Minister might look into that matter and see if it could be remedied.
There are three circumstances in which power to permit imports free of duty under licence is taken—(1) where certain industrial developments are pending, and it is necessary to secure that the market will not be flooded out with imported products during the stage when the plans become known and the date upon which production commences; (2) where it is desired to give protection to an industry which has been already established, but which is not yet in a position to supply full requirements; where importation must obviously take place, and where it is desirable that the importation should not be subject to duty, and (3) where difficulties of definition make it impossible to provide the protection required, without, at the same time, imposing a duty on articles which it is not desired should be subject to duty, but which cannot be excluded by legal definition, and where consequently discretion is given to the Revenue Commissioners to permit the importation of such articles free of duty after consultation with the Minister. All these circumstances operate in determining the duties imposed by this Resolution, in respect of which licensing powers have been taken.
To deal with the other general points raised, namely, the abolition of preferential rates, it has to be remembered that the Preferential Rates Bill, which was recently discussed in the Dáil, has now passed through the Oireachtas. In future the position will be, that when a duty is indicated with a preferential rate attached, no country will get the benefit of that preferential rate until an order has been made by the Executive Council extending it to some country or countries named in that order. The possibility of such an order being made in respect of any of the new duties imposed by this Resolution was considered, and it was not thought likely that such an order would arise in the near future. Consequently no provision for preferential rate was made. If circumstances should arise in which it is considered desirable that a preferential rate in respect of any of these duties should be given to a particular country or to countries, then the necessary financial resolutions can be introduced. It is obviously much better, from the point of view of administration, that the number of preferential rates should be as few as possible and that a flat rate duty should apply to articles of a certain description irrespective of origin, so that no obligation to produce proof of origin will rest upon the importers. In respect of a number of the duties set out in the Schedule to this Resolution, the position has been that although the original duties provided for the application of preferential rates to articles originating in the British Commonwealth, these preferential rates had been superseded by Emergency Order and had not been operative for a considerable time. That position is being merely regularised by the inclusion of these duties in this Resolution.
To deal with the matters which have been raised, the position in regard to Resolution No. 6 is that no change has, in fact, taken place. A number of duties were imposed on cast-iron goods of this class by different Finance Acts and Emergency Orders. The preferential rates provided for in the Finance Acts were repealed by Emergency Orders and a position arose in which it was not easy to ascertain what articles were dutiable and to what extent. The effect of reference No. 6 is really to codify the duties imposed upon these articles, so that there will be a single list with a flat rate of duty applicable—25 per cent.
Deputy Mulcahy made reference to the Customs and Excise tariff. I think that he omitted to notice the note which appears at the foot of reference No. 72, which relates to cast-iron manufactures. It is in smaller print than the rest of the reference, and it states:
United Kingdom goods of these descriptions other than pile shoes, smoke pipes, ventilation pipes and other similar pipes are ineligible for admission at the preferential rate of duty.
Deputy Anthony referred to some complaint he had received that a quotation had been given for cast-iron rain-water goods by a Scottish firm, which was slightly lower than a quotation for similar goods from an Irish firm. He built on that a sweeping condemnation of Irish manufacturers of all kinds.
Quote what I said.
He said that they were engaged in exploiting the people, and were fit only to be inmates of prisons, or words to that effect. That is quite typical of people of Deputy Anthony's mentality. Because they get one unsubstantiated case——
I suggest it is quite typical of the Minister's replies.
The Deputy is going to hear my reply. We have, unfortunately, a number of people who, when they get one unsubstantiated complaint about the price charged for Irish goods, condemn all Irish industrialists.
I did not condemn them.
I challenge the Deputy to read the telegram he said he received.
I did not say I received it. A builder in Cork received it. The Minister is wrong again.
I want the Deputy to produce evidence of his statement. He has made the statement that the price charged by a Scottish contractor was 1d. less——
6/6 against 6/7.
And that included the duty?
So the builder told me. I told you that I would bring the evidence that I got from the builder.
The Deputy said he read the telegram.
I saw the telegram.
Did the Deputy say the duty was included in the price?
They said they would deliver the goods at 6/6.
Inclusive of duty?
The builder told me that it was inclusive of duty.
Did the telegram state that?
The telegram stated that they would deliver the goods at 6/6.
Did the builder tell the Deputy that that included the duty?
Yes, that the 6/6 included the duty.
Did the builder tell the Deputy that, in fact, the duty is of very little importance in relation to rain-water goods, that there is complete prohibition of the use of imported rain-water goods in houses to which the Government subsidy applies except a special licence is given, and that the Scottish firm could have offered to give the goods for 1d. each, seeing that they would have to get an order and that the goods could not be used unless the Department of Industry and Commerce sanctioned their use? If they did, there would be no duty applicable.
These goods were, I think, for better class houses.
That builder was, I think, pulling the Deputy's leg. The Deputy was only too anxious to allow his leg to be pulled, so that he could come in here and condemn all Irish industrialists as people whose sole purpose is to exploit the public.
Refer to the record of my speech.
There are more honest people in this country than Deputy Anthony seems to think, and quite a number of them are engaged in industry.
The Minister is one of them.
Deputy Mulcahy raised a question concerning reference No. 12 and the necessity for a licensing provision in that connection. The reason is that difficulties in respect of the definition were anticipated. The definition is necessarily a wide one. It could not have been made any more specific than it was. It was anticipated that certain articles not intended to be covered would be deemed by the Revenue Commissioners to be legally liable to that duty under this definition. It was considered desirable, in that event, to have power to remit the duty and admit free goods of a class that it was not desired should be subject to the duty. That situation would inevitably arise under a wide definition of that kind. After a period, during which experience of the operation of the duty will have been obtained, it may be possible to amend the definition and, at the same time, abolish the licensing clause.
Deputy Mulcahy raised a question concerning reference No. 15—the duty imposed upon assembled or substantially assembled or manufactured sports goods. These articles were liable to duty under the general duty upon sports goods of all kinds which has been in operation for some years. An increase is now being made because their manufacture on an extensive scale has been undertaken by a number of firms in this country. Of course there are associated with sports clubs, golf clubs and other clubs professionals whose livelihood comes from the manufacture of these goods. The duty was raised to 50 per cent. to make it prohibitive, so that the business of manufacturing these articles from imported parts would be entirely done here. There is no duty upon the parts.
Reference No. 16 is a new duty which operates upon certain articles manufactured of leather. The duty has been fixed at 20 per cent. because the manufacture of these goods here is only commencing. One firm has already commenced the manufacture of ladies' handbags and articles of leather of that kind, and is producing goods of very good quality. Certain plans for the manufacture of other fancy-leather articles have been made and will fructify in due course. It was felt that no particular hardship would be imposed by making the duty extend to all articles of that kind, manufactured of leather, which are luxury articles in every sense of the word. Consequently the duty, to some extent, may be considered a revenue duty, but it is hoped, by the end of the year, that articles covered by the duty will be manufactured here, and that revenue will cease to accrue from that particular duty.
Deputy Mulcahy raised some question in reference to Article 17—soft fruit. A duty is put upon that because it is supposed that the canning of these fruits will be undertaken here, and then it will not be necessary for people to pay 4d. per in dearer if they got them from Irish factories engaged in the canning industry. They are all grown in the country, and that growth it is desired to cultivate. The other fruits are not packed in cans here, or grown at the moment, and, consequently, the higher duty does not apply. In fact, a lower duty will apply, and instead of a duty of one penny one-fifth the new duty will be one penny. In respect of No. 18—filled shot cartridges—these were liable to a duty as sports goods. They are not going to be removed from that duty, and they are to be submitted to a duty of 33? per cent. in order to encourage their manufacture here at home. Deputy Mulcahy also raised a question as to the effect of the duty on foreign cloth upon the shirt industry. It will be noticed that printed and pained cotton cloth is not subject to the duty. Nowadays most of the shirts worn are manufactured from printed cloth. In so far as shirts of plain colour are used or shirts with the woven patterns, this cloth is liable to duty if it exceeds 4½ ozs. to the square yard. If in excess of that weight it is hoped that it will be available for many of the weaving mills in the Saorstát. I do not want to leave Deputies under the impression that the full requirements of the country, in respect of cotton cloth of that kind, could be supplied at home. Some parts could be supplied, but until there are some further extensions, which are likely to take place in the way of building new premises and installing additional machinery, the full requirements of cotton cloth cannot be woven here, but the position is that the main classes of cloth covered by that duty are being manufactured in considerable quantities here. We have, in respect of some cotton cloth, an export trade not of considerable dimensions. In due course, all other cloths will be produced here. We hope, at a later stage, to extend that duty to all cotton cloths when new machinery is installed and other manufactures are brought into existence. With regard to No. 31— honey, including artificial honey. This duty is intended to be seasonal in its operation. It is the Minister for Agriculture who is responsible for the operation of the duty, and if Deputies desire to raise any query as to his intention, they might do so on the Finance Bill, but the reason for the licensing provision is as I have said.
Deputy Mulcahy also asked if the price of lubricating oil will be increased in connection with the duty mentioned in reference No. 41. It is not anticipated that it will. I mention one oil company—the Irish-American Oil Company—which showed very considerable initiative in arranging for the manufacture of all its oil containers in this country. It did so at considerable inconvenience, at the time, but it gave considerable employment here, and I am not aware that it felt under any obligation to increase its price on that account. The effect of this duty will be that other oil companies will be compelled to arrange for the packing of their oil, in small containers, in the country, and, consequently, for the manufacture of those containers in the country. It is not anticipated that any increase in price will result. In any event the information at my disposal indicates that there is sufficient profit to absorb any additional cost that may arise without the necessity of passing on the increased price to the public.
Deputy Keyes raised a query in connection with the increase in Article, reference No. 34. I have no recollection of having received any complaint concerning the manner in which the licensing clause has been operating in respect of that duty. If there is any such complaint I would be glad to consider it, to investigate it, and see if any changes in the present method of administration are necessary. The position was that the duty was imposed by an Emergency Order early in December, 1933, when we had evidence that, following a Press announcement of the intention to establish the pottery industry here, very large quantities of pottery were being imported. As pottery goods would keep indefinitely, and as it was very necessary to move before the market was filled up entirely, it was decided to allow imports under licence of the normal goods until the new works were established. That did not apply to glazed teapots. There was a duty on teapots to protect the articles made in Cork where some excellent work prevails, though not in sufficient quantity to supply the requirements of the country, but the quality of which is as good as any available. The position in regard to the new pottery works is that all arrangements in connection with the business, and its finances are complete, and that a definite move for the establishment of the factory will take place in the next three or four weeks. Until the works are started, and until they begin to produce, the present licensing provisions will operate. I should be very anxious to remove and eliminate any causes of complaint as to the manner in which these licences are operating and to receive any such complaints from people who think they have any grievance.
These are the only matters, I think, that were raised. I do not think that any Deputies desire to raise any other question. Another occasion will arise on the Bill itself. I mentioned that it is proposed to make four changes and, in order to avoid confusion, I shall reiterate them. First, it is proposed to take licensing powers in respect of the articles mentioned in reference No. 9 so as to permit of the importation, for a short period, of a limited quantity, of spade and shovel blanks, to certain small firms to which these blanks are raw material, until they make arrangements to get supplies from Saorstát factories; secondly, to exempt from the duty imposed under reference No. 22 proofed cloth of cotton; thirdly, in respect to reference No. 24 to make the duty apply only to metal articles, that is, to the metal parts of sparking plugs, and fourthly, in respect to reference No. 41 to reduce the size of the container from 40 gallons to 35 gallons for the reasons which I have stated—that is, merely for the convenience of administration.
Question put and agreed to.