I move: "That the Dáil agree with the Committee in Resolution No. 9."
Financial Resolutions—Report Stage. - Financial Resolution No. 9—Customs.
I should like to get some information from the Minister for Industry and Commerce regarding several items set out in the Schedule to this Resolution. We have been discussing the effect of an income tax imposition on housing. In this Schedule, a great number of articles used in the building of houses are subjected to duties of varying amounts. I should like to know from the Minister, how many of these articles are made in the country and to what extent they are available. I should like to know whether the impositions in this Schedule are in the nature of protective duties or are intended for revenue purposes. I should like to know whether the duties proposed to be levied under this Resolution will increase the cost of house building, and, if so, to what extent. In this Resolution and in Resolutions which are to follow, we find that nearly every commodity used in the building of houses, with the exception of timber, is subjected to tax. Many of the articles set out in the Resolution are not made here and, so far as we know, are not likely to be available in this country in the near future. The Ministry are very anxious to promote the building of houses by local authorities and by private builders but if, through practices such as this, the cost of building these houses and — a point I shall come to later — the cost of occupying houses built by local authorities for people living in the slum areas is going to be made more expensive, the Ministry will retard the building of houses rather than assist their building. Before we are asked to vote on a Resolution which covers a large group of articles which are subjected to duties ranging up to 50 per cent., we are entitled to get from the Minister information as to what extent these articles are being made in the country; if they are not being made here now, we are entitled to ask when they are likely to be made and whether these impositions are going to increase the cost of building.
The Schedule covers school bags and other satchels used by children going to school. Are these made in this country and are they available? Having regard to the very expensive books which have to be bought by these children, I should like to know whether these bags are available at reasonable prices. I rose, however, principally to deal with the question of housing materials, which constitute so important a part of this Schedule and I should like to get from the Minister some information regarding them.
Would the Deputy name the items which are not made here and the duties on which he alleges will affect the cost of building?
I am asking the Minister to do that. Does the Minister think it is possible for any private member to tell him that?
I may have misunderstood the Deputy but I thought he said that there were articles being subjected to duty which he knew were not made in the country. I should like him to indicate the references he has in mind.
I did not say that. I said that it seemed to me, reading down through the Schedule, that practically all the materials used in the building of houses, with the exception of timber, were being taxed. I said that I should like to know from the Minister whether all these materials were being made in the country and were available, or how many were being made and to what extent they were available. Is the supply of the articles made in the country sufficient to meet the demand? I am really asking the Minister to indicate to what extent these duties are protective and to what extent they are being imposed merely for the purpose of collecting revenue.
There seems to be terrible opposition to the sweeping nature of the proposals in this Resolution. "Whenever the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, so thinks proper, the Revenue Commissioners may authorise any particular person... to import any articles without payment of duty." That betrays the whole object. While there are some things in the Schedule that I know a little about, like Deputy Morrissey, I would like some information. It is outrageous to put a big percentage tariff on any article for use here if it is not produced in sufficient quantities to meet our requirements. That is not industrial protection. That is for the purpose of producing revenue. It is collecting revenue and taxing the people and in that way it is going to destroy any chance of a revival of Irish industry. There can be no case made for a big tariff to help any industrial activity unless that industrial activity has reached a stage above 80 per cent. of our total requirements, so that, by an extra effort, working day and night, we will be able to produce all that is required. Then let outsiders compete with the home producer over the tariff barrier. This is not giving the producer at home any chance. It is creating a big barrier over which goods must not pass because we want them. If the House took time intelligently to examine all these Resolutions, by the time they are all passed we will find industrial activity being hamstrung, particularly in the building trade.
Reference No. 1 in the Schedule deals with rear reflectors. I do not think there is such an article made here or that we have any exports. If we are turning out our total requirements to 70 or 80 per cent., I am wholeheartedly in favour of a 75 per cent. tariff. Otherwise, I am against it, and I take second place to no one in supporting a tariff policy. But I am not a fool. If this is for revenue let it be for revenue, but let the House and the country know that. I do not believe we are producing rear reflectors. I give the information for what it is worth. If the total production of this article here amounts to 80 per cent., I agree with the Minister. If not, I disagree with his proposal. If the total production of our requirements represents 20 per cent. we should have no tariff at all, but should give a subsidy to anybody prepared to put down money and guarantee protection when there was 70 or 80 per cent. production. I would give a national guarantee in that case, and I am sure the Opposition, if they became a Government, would see that such a policy was continuous. I am quite sure that if we get down to rationalisation no one is going to support a 75 per cent. tariff if we are not making about that figure of the total requirement.
The next reference is to polishing preparations of all kinds, on which there is a duty of 33? per cent. I do not know what we are doing in that respect. Then there is cotton bandages and bandaging material imported in rolls on which there is a duty of 33? per cent. Again, "whenever the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, so thinks proper, the Revenue Commissioners may, by licence, authorise any particular person, subject to compliance with such conditions as they may think fit to impose, to import without payment of the duty...." So we are going to hand the powers of this House over to a Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce, and whatever they say in a chat will be done. I do not suggest that either the Minister for Industry and Commerce or the Minister for Finance, separately or collectively, would be parties to any abuse of the power they get. But it is this House got the power — and not even the whole Ministry. This House has no authority, and should not act ultra vires by giving the authority vested in it by the people to any one Minister or to any group of people, by excluding members of this House from imposing tariffs. If there is to be exemption, let this House, which is vested with authority, have the right of exemption. I do not see any need for the Dáil meeting at all now. There might be a general muster once a year.
Even then it would be of very little use. It would be only a kind of show. It is not legislation, and certainly the people are not represented.
The next item in the Schedule is satchels, on which there is a duty of 20 per cent. No comment is needed. If we are not able to make sufficient satchels for the children going to school, well we are not able to do it. I hope we will before we put on 20 per cent. If we are not, it is monstrous. Reference No. 6 refers to:
surrounds, hearths and curbs which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, are of a kind normally used for fireplaces and are made or consist partly of tiles, bricks or slabs made wholly or partly of clay, stone (including reconstructed stone) or cement; (b) sections of any such surrounds, hearths or curbs as are mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs.
There is no comment by the Minister for Industry and Commerce about that. These are house fittings for building purposes. Are we making our total requirement of these fittings? Are supplies not in arrear? Have not builders got to wait for the execution of orders? I should like to hear from the Minister for Industry and Commerce that all these things are made here. He promulgated an order some time ago imposing a high tariff on syphon cisterns used for lavatories. That was followed up by his colleague, the Minister for Local Government, intimating that Irish syphon cisterns could be used; otherwise there would be no grants. Of course, it is open to doubt whether a house would otherwise be certified as habitable. However, the grant was good. Is the Minister aware that many builders are waiting — myself included — for syphons of a modern pattern? The syphons that are flung at us are syphon cisterns that we must put on an overflow pipe, with a hole through the wall, instead of a syphon with internal control. No one wants to pass the Irish articles if they can be had of a good pattern. In fact, people are prepared to pay a little more for them. I want the Minister for Industry and Commerce to understand that a finished article used as raw material concerns a builder who has to sell a house and to please the public. When a person sees a hole through a wall from the cistern for the overflow, it may make a difference between buying and not buying the house. Besides, there is no need to have it there.
Apart from that, they are not being made subject to duty by this Resolution.
Not exactly, that is right; but I hope the Minister does not want to slip out of his order by that technicality. I should like to know from the Minister if boiler grates are made here. I do not want to take the Minister at a disadvantage. A boiler grate is a grate used now in nearly every house. It has a boiler at the back of it and it is installed in the diningroom or living room of the house.
I should like to answer the Deputy, but I fear I would be out of order in doing so, as they are not subject to duty by this Resolution.
Is the Minister satisfied that tiles and slabs for the facing of fireplaces are made here?
The duty is imposed by this reference upon surrounds made from tiles.
Are they made here?
Surrounds, yes.
And tiles for the surrounds?
No; the reference imposes a duty upon surrounds made from the tiles.
It does not refer to the tiles that may be used in the surrounds. The Minister is satisfied that the output of surrounds is substantial?
There are several firms engaged in it.
I know, but the Minister, I am sure, is aware, and if he is not, I can tell him for a fact, that there are orders in arrear. One cannot have much complaint if that happens now and again, but if it is a regular thing, it is serious, and a matter of which the Minister should take notice. Is the Minister satisfied that steel windows can be delivered here in a sufficiency for our requirements?
Yes.
Well, I am not, and I am quite sure they cannot. If you order a window in the morning, you will not be guaranteed it for three months, not that it matters much in view of the state house-building has been brought to. There is difficulty in getting gutters, and they are going to be taxed to the extent of 33? per cent.
Hooks, brackets, bands and similar fittings for those things.
That is right. In regard to all these matters, I should like the Minister who, I am sure, is familiar with all this, as it is his work, to give the House a figure against each reference as to our production at the present time. Then, there is a reference to ridge tiles, hip tiles and roofing tiles.
It is in Brooks Thomas' you ought to be and not here.
I am afraid it is in the museum the Deputy ought to be and not here.
He looks upon you, Deputy, as a wild and turbulent spirit.
You are interested in farming and he is not.
If there was any turbulence about he could not sleep so soundly or so consistently. He woke up that time when he heard the racket about tiles. It must have been the Minister for Industry and Commerce who woke him up when he spoke. Are iron wheelbarrows made here? Moulds for making concrete blocks are made here. I could make one myself, but would it be a good machine? If the Minister wants to be serious about this, he should not be satisfied to put on a tariff when a man puts up a plate stating that such and such a machine is made here. I have a few of those machines. I have an English machine which has been working continuously for five years, and it can make a block as good as it could on the day it started. None of the others can.
Recently, in the Dublin County Council, we wanted a new machine. There was a builder who is a Fianna Fáil Councillor, at the Committee, and both of us agreed that it would be better for us to pay £25 — including or excluding the tariff, I do not know which — to import one machine than to get two native machine for the same price. We both would have agreed to do it and it would be the better bargain, but the Minister for Local Government would not permit it. It was not a case of politics, as the Minister can understand — I am sure he does not doubt my word, but, if he does, I can give him the name of the Councillor. He had had practical experience of the different machines for making blocks, and so had I. If high tariffs are going to be put on like this, give the people a fair chance, especially when it is a question of machinery and especially machinery for making these blocks. Those blocks are to be used in house building and a faulty machine may produce bad blocks. If it does, no builder in the world can produce a good house. It is important. There is a duty of 40 per cent. imposed on binder twine. I think there is a little joke about that of which I could inform the Minister. I hope we will have all our requirements even with the rapid extension of our agricultural economy. I wonder if this little factory is rapidly extending to meet our requirements?
There are other things here about which I know a little but I will leave them to people who know more. I will leave Reference No. 25 particularly — prayer books and hymn books — to Deputy Kelly.
I do not need them as badly as you do.
You have spent longer repenting than I have, I agree. Reference No. 26 deals with copper tubing and pipes having a wall thickness not exceeding one-eighth of an inch. I take it that that is the tube used for water supplies now. The duty is 75 per cent. and tacked on to that is a note to the effect that the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, can remit the whole thing. That at once, to my mind, admits that we are not producing anywhere near our requirements, and that the Ministers will have a chat and will allow them in under licence free of duty. I should like to know two things, which are very important. Are we near producing our requirements, and have those things been sufficiently tested? It is terribly important that they should be good, and should be guaranteed to be up to standard. It is not good enough to dump an inferior article on a person who is not going to use it outright, but is going to use it in the construction of something else. The Minister will admit there is a difference between an article which will be used up in a year or so and one which is used as a constructional part of something else which should last for a life-time. In any case, I am not satisfied that they are produced here in sufficient quantities.
I cannot say that the factory is in production yet, but it will be very soon.
That is a bit of a joke. Are we grown-up babies, to be talking about a 75 per cent. tariff on those articles? Deputy Good would be a better authority than I am——
Nobody will pay the duty until the Irish goods are available.
Then why are we putting it on?
To regulate imports.
Is it to regiment us? Is it to put us all into a militia?
It is to prevent forestalling.
The Minister need not worry about forestalling, as if anybody is going to start now to get in all that would be necessary to meet their requirements. I suppose there would be 100 feet used in a comparatively small house, and you cannot go on without it. There is going to be a 75 per cent. tariff put on, before you make one foot of it. I heard a story about a popular gentleman in the City of Dublin who went into Grangegorman. One of the inmates said to him "What do you think the wall is there for?" The gentleman replied "I do not know" and the inmate went on to say "You fools think that is to keep us in here, but it is not; it is to keep you out." I think there are worse people outside than there are in Grangegorman.
That is right.
Deputy Kelly and myself agree on one thing and we will vote together on this.
It is open to you to prove it.
Here is a written document——
And there is the author.
——to help Irish industry and to help us to use the products of Irish industry. We cannot build houses in the City of Dublin without perhaps 100 or 200 feet of this tubing. It is all the same whether it is 100 feet or a mile or one inch; you must see it to build a house. There is none of it made here, but the enterprising Minister for Finance, after, I presume, consultation with the equally enterprising Minister for Industry and Commerce, said: "Now, to help Irish industry and make the people support Irish industry we will put a tariff of 75 per cent. on this copper tubing, even though none of it is made here yet. That is the way to help housing. Then, if anybody wants to import it, let him ask us and we will allow him to import it duty free." If the Minister for Industry and Commerce is really serious about industry he should start the industry before he talks about protecting it. This is a joke and a very serious joke.
That is what our predecessors tried, and they did not get the industries.
What did they try?
To start the industry before protection. They did not start many.
The industries which they started throve and prospered.
I bet you will not vote against that one.
What one?
The copper tubes.
Wait until I have finished and you will find out.
Deputy Belton might.
Sure, and I was a protectionist before the Minister.
And for the next five weeks they will try to persuade the people down in Galway that they did not.
I see. It is an election stunt then.
I would not vote against it if it were produced here.
Now you have thought about it you will not vote against it.
I see the Minister's position. It is an election stunt.
You had better be careful or you will be found guilty of sabotage.
I have been found guilty of a lot of things. I do not mind what their drumhead courtsmartial find me guilty of. Then we are to have a duty on refrigerating or cold storage apparatus. We are putting everything into cold storage in this country, but now if we want to get in a cold storage apparatus we are to pay 25 per cent. on it.
You need not bring it in. There is better stuff made in Ireland.
If we need not bring it in, why have this special provision?
"Whenever the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, so thinks proper, the Revenue Commissioners may, by licence, authorise any particular person, subject to compliance with such conditions as they may think fit to impose, to import without payment of the duty mentioned, at this reference number any articles chargeable with such duty..."
What is the need for that if we need not import them? That is a confession that we have not got them here. They will be let in under licence. I do not know whether we make pencils here, and those other articles mentioned, but I should like to know. If there was any advocate of constructive economic nationality in this country, that man was the late Arthur Griffith. He would turn in his grave if he saw that.
On those Financial Resolutions I first wish to direct the attention of the House to sub-section (3) of the preamble:
"That the provisions (if any) set forth in the fourth column of the Schedule to this Resolution at any reference number in that Schedule shall have effect in respect of the duty mentioned at that reference number."
That amounts to a licensing provision authorising the Minister for Finance, after consultation with the Minister for Industry and Commerce, to admit free of duty certain commodities to certain selected applicants. I have directed the attention of the House to the abuses which have grown up under that practice in the past, and I ask the House to refuse those powers to the Minister in connection with this Customs Resolution. I do so particularly in view of two specific cases which I am in a position to bring under the attention of the House. I need hardly explain to Deputies that it is extremely difficult to get information of those abuses from the people who are benefiting by them, and that, therefore, it is a matter of some surprise to me that I have been able to run down two cases which the Minister is not in a position to deny. One relates to licences to import elastic and bootlaces, which were granted to a firm that was at one time, I think, in Suffolk Street or Wicklow Street in the City of Dublin, and which now has its headquarters in the town of Ennis. That firm entered, I believe, into some negotiations with the Minister, and held themselves out as persons who were prepared to engage in the manufacture of bootlaces, elastic, and certain other minor items of haberdashery. On that representation, steps were taken through the medium of a tariff to restrict the import of bootlaces and elastic. I think an Emergency (Imposition of Duties) Order was made. Shortly after that time a merchant applied to the Minister for Industry and Commerce for a direction to the Revenue Commissioners that a licence should issue, so that he might import these commodities free of duty. He was informed that the Minister for Industry and Commerce would not grant the licence, and he was referred to a firm in Wicklow Street or Suffolk Street — I do not know which — for the commodities he required. The merchant applied there for elastic and bootlaces of Saorstát manufacture, and he was told by the people in Suffolk Street that they had no supplies of Irish manufacture but they could supply him with foreign elastic and foreign bootlaces. He was obliged to get the articles there. He immediately drew the attention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to this anomaly, and after the lapse of some time he was notified that the Minister was now prepared to issue a licence to import the goods.
Is this the case that was discussed at length here a year ago?
This is a case that I have brought to the attention of the House once before.
If the Deputy wants to refresh his memory, he can get all the facts in the Official Report.
So much for that particular transaction. It emerges since that while this firm in Wicklow Street was seeking the privilege which it got, the privilege of the exclusive right to import elastic and boot laces free of duty, another individual of this State, who had spent the greater part of his life as a traveller in boot laces, applied for a licence to import the braid wherefrom boot laces are made, free of duty, and he was refused. His proposal was that he would get in the braid, put the tags on after cutting the braid into boot lace lengths, and then dispose of the laces to his customers. He was refused. I want to know why he was refused, while the people now in Ennis were granted a licence.
That is obvious — I could not make it any more obvious.
How is it obvious? Why should he be refused while the others were granted the licence? Does the Minister admit that was the case?
Certainly. Everybody else was refused the licence.
Except the firm in Ennis?
Yes, the firm who were building a factory to carry on the manuture.
Now we have the admission made which has never been made before.
Of course it has been.
About four months prior to these incidents a Bill connected with cereals was passing through the House and on the industrial provisions of the Bill the general question of licences arose. The Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Finance were sitting side by side on the Benches opposite. I asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce would he accept an amendment to the industrial provisions of that Bill requiring that if he gave a licence to any Saorstát citizen to import certain goods over a certain period, any other Saorstát citizen could claim as of right a similar licence. The Minister for Finance interrupted to say: "That is the law." I replied: "It is not the law. Will the Minister for Industry and Commerce undertake to make it so?" and the Minister for Industry and Commerce shook his head. When he came to wind up the debate I reminded him that the Minister for Finance believed that it was the law that any citizen was entitled as of right to demand the same licence as his neighbour got, but the Minister for Industry and Commerce replied: "You know that is what is always done." I replied: "It is not always done, but will you place on yourself a legal obligation to do it?" The Minister sat down, a division was challenged and he brought the boys into the Lobby and, as usual, not one of them knew what he was voting for and the result was that I was voted down.
Now, the same Minister, whose colleague said there was no statutory obligation on them to issue a licence and who himself said that such was the universal practice even if there was no statutory obligation, states, he freely admits, that he was granting a licence to a firm in Ennis to import this merchandise while he was refusing other citizens and he makes no bones about it. That is a long progress from the first position taken up in the House. Any fair-minded Deputy will recognise that the Minister has at last admitted what he has never admitted heretofore, and that is that he was prepared to discriminate between one citizen and another if one was prepared to give him certain undertakings as to future action that the other citizen was not prepared to give. This House had never any intention of conferring on the Minister a discretion of that character, which amounts to a powerful penal weapon, and he is so using it.
The intention of using the licensing power in that way was announced in the Dáil.
Anyone not prepared to climb on the band-wagon and boom up the industrial fraud which the Minister set out to put over on the country, and which Deputy Belton so ably indicted to-day, would not be considered. Unless you are prepared to go out and say that the industries which are thriving and prospering, the industries which were founded under the late Government these are quite useless, that they are no good, and that no one got industrial employment until Seán Lemass became the Minister for Industry and Commerce, you will get no licence and you will get no permissions under this section so long as there is some one who is prepared to boost the Minister up, applying for a similar thing. I declare that that is a grave injustice. If one citizen gets a licence, every other citizen is entitled to get a similar licence for a similar period of time. If a provision to that effect is not inserted, then grave injustice will be done.
I cited one case of a merchant who applied for a licence to import bootlaces and elastic, and I cited the case of a man who applied for a licence to import braid to make boot laces and who was refused, while another citizen got such a licence. Now, I charge the Minister with another specific case. A merchant in Inishowen applied for a licence to import a Crossley engine for industrial purposes and he was refused.
Is this the case the Deputy asked a Parliamentary question about?
The Minister will hear the facts in due course. I will give him all the information.
May I suggest to the Deputy that he might have informed the Minister of his intention to raise these matters? Perhaps the Deputy was afraid.
The Minister must sit down.
On a point of order. Neither of these matters arise on this Resolution. This Resolution imposes a duty on specific articles and the matters the Deputy is introducing do not, I submit, arise.
By what power does the Minister impose a licence?
A specific power in relation to each duty.
Surely Deputy Dillon was entitled to advance reasons and proofs as to why these powers, in their present form, to grant licences should not be granted to the Minister?
I submit that the Deputy might have had the decency to inform the Minister that he would raise these matters, but apparently decency is not a recognised characteristic of some of the Deputies opposite.
Deputy Dillon was quoting reasons why the existing powers in regard to licences should not be permitted, and I allowed him to proceed on that line.
On a point of order. The Minister rose to make a point of order and he has now said that practically his only reason for rising was to make a point and that he had got in what he wanted to say. I suggest that is a gross abuse of the privilege of the House and disrespect for the Chair.
I did not catch what the Minister said. I understood he rose to make a point of order and I ruled against the Minister.
And then he said: "I got in what I wanted to say."
The Chair did not hear that.
Does the Minister deny it?
I have quoted two cases which the Minister, with that brazen-faced audacity with which he faces the House habitually, admits.
Is that in order?
The third case is as follows. A merchant in Inishowen applied to the Minister for a licence to import a Crossley engine for industrial purposes. The Minister refused the licence. The merchant went to the source of supply to purchase the engine and then discovered that an individual who was virtually his next door neighbour was importing an identical engine on a licence supplied by the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
The Deputy's statement is entirely untrue. There was an interval of two years between the two cases. The Deputy is stating an untruth, which he knows to be an untruth, because he got a reply to a Parliamentary question which he addressed to me on the matter.
The Minister cannot be allowed to say that the Deputy is with knowledge stating an untruth, or making a statement which he knows is untrue.
I want to point out that the Deputy asked a Parliamentary question——
The Minister will have to withdraw the remark with regard to Deputy Dillon. There can be no qualification. The House must have a withdrawal simpliciter in this matter. The Minister said that the Deputy made a statement which he knows is untrue.
I would like to withdraw at your request, but he has made a statement which he was informed by me in reply to a Parliamentary question, was untrue.
Simpliciter!
The Minister now brings into this question a letter which I received from his Department, marked "Private and Confidential." I am not going to follow the Minister into a discussion on the contents of that letter unless he will allow me to deal with it freely.
Certainly. It was marked "Private and Confidential" at the Deputy's request.
The circumstances are as follows: I put down a Parliamentary question to the Minister in relation to this transaction, and the Minister made an evasive reply. I made further and fuller inquiries in order to be able to nail the Minister's ear to the post which I proceeded to do. When his ear was inextricably nailed to the post, I got a long letter from the Department setting out all the facts which in his first Parliamentary answer he had sought to deny. He then sent a letter——
I have allowed the Deputy to proceed to give the details of a certain case very fully. I allowed him to do so on the assumption that his contention was that the Minister should not be allowed to give licences in these cases. We cannot however, discuss or go into the merits and demerits of every application for a licence that the Minister granted or refused, as the Deputy is attempting to do.
I alleged certain things which the Minister admitted promptly, and I passed on. Then I alleged certain other things, and the Minister, in a disorderly fashion, arose and said that I was stating an untruth. Now, he has put me on my proof.
The Minister withdrew that part of the statement — at least that part in which he said that the Deputy had made a certain statement knowing that it was untrue. I cannot allow every question arising in connection with every licence to be discussed on this reference. I allowed the Deputy to refer to this licence to prove his contention that the Minister should not be allowed power under this reference to give a licence.
Under sub-section (3) of the preamble, power is conferred on the Minister to grant licences to certain individuals. I want to build up the case that there had been repeated abuses under this power, a case which will convince the House that it is not safe to give the Minister this power. That is my respectful submission to you, Sir. If I had only one case perhaps the Minister would say: "Well, mistakes will happen in the best regulated families; possibly there has been a mistake." Surely, I am entitled to quote other cases in which abuses have occurred to uphold my contention? If you do not let me do so the Minister can say: "Well, there may have been a few mistakes but that will happen in the best regulated families."
Surely the Deputy cannot be allowed to go into every case in which a licence was granted or refused?
Surely I am entitled to direct the attention of the House to the relevant facts of every case which, I say, proves my contention?
To go into the merits of every case?
I can set out the facts. I am not discussing the merits.
The Deputy was proceeding to discuss the merits and the demerits.
All I want to do is to lay the facts before the House and to say to the House: "I think that it is an abuse and if you agree with me that it is an abuse, is it not time to say to the Minister: ‘We refuse to give you these powers any longer'"?
I cannot allow the Deputy discuss the merits and demerits of each case.
I merely want to state the facts. Two merchants applied for a licence under a power similar to that conferred by sub-section (3) of the preamble of the Resolution. One merchant was refused a licence, but he bought his engine and brought it in. The second merchant bought his engine, brought it in under licence, and paid no duty. Both engines came into Saorstát Eireann about the same time, but it emerged, when the Minister was pressed, that the first application for a licence had been granted to a man about eight months before the second application had been made. The licence lay fallow, for want of a better word, in this man's hands for a considerable time but he elected to use it at the same time as the other merchant was bringing in his engine. While it is true that there was a time lag between the two applications——
Two years, to be exact.
Does the Minister allege that there was an interval of two years between the issue of the licence and the engine being brought in?
No.
Does the Minister allege that there were two years between the engine being brought in and the other licence being asked for?
And the other licence being refused.
I shall have to look up the correspondence with the Minister on the matter. Furthermore, I now allege in addition to the facts which I laid before the House on the occasion of the Parliamentary question, that there was another application made to the Minister for a licence to import an engine within two months of the first successful application and that was refused. Why, in the exact terms of my allegation, can one man get a licence, say in February, 1933, when another man unsuccessfully applied for a licence before 1st August, 1933, and when a third man unsuccessfully applied for a licence in January of 1934? These are not the exact dates, but they bear the relation to one another that the actual dates in fact do. I allege that the licencee under the first licence in February, 1933, brought in his engine in February, 1934, and that that engine was in transit at the time the controversy was going on between the third applicant and the Department for the licence under which he sought to bring in a similar conveyance. On these grounds I urge the House to withhold from the Minister the powers which he seeks under sub-section (3) of the preamble to the Resolution.
I desire to direct the attention of the Minister to the terms of Paragraph No. 3 under which it is sought to impose a Customs duty of 33? per cent. on cotton bandages and bandaging material imported in rolls. I take it these are largely used by the hospitals of the country. Quite apart from anything else, I do want to submit that it is highly undersirable to make these things subject to a Customs duty, unless we are able to supply them here, for the simple reason that the delay, which Customs supervision inevitably entails, may cause the very greatest inconvenience.
I have no doubt that we could make ordinary cotton bandages of one kind or another in this country. But this is a case I think in which the Government should indicate their willingness to give a subsidy to cotton bandage-makers until they are able to supply sufficient of them of the right kind for hospitals and other institutions. I ask the Minister to consider whether he ought really to put a duty on crêpe bandages; they are indispensable to invalid persons. It is vital they should be of a special quality and have the necessary tensive strength; otherwise they may be worse than useless. I know no one who has any experience of making surgical bandages of that kind, and I think it is imprudent to impose a tariff upon them unless the Minister is satisfied on the assurance of surgeons in this country that facilities for the turning out of such bandages are available and are of the very best quality in Saorstát Eireann.
From curiosity I would inquire why the Minister is putting on a duty on ice. Does he apprehend that there will be forestalling at the North Wall while we are awaiting the setting up of that industry? Does he contemplate going down to open a new industry close to a turf manufactury, for the manufacture of ice?
They have been opened already.
I think it is well to note that the terms of sub-section (3) will be available in regard to a tariff on ice. If a Deputy shows an urgent desire to import a block of ice from Peru he can do so.
No; that is intended entirely for Donegal.
Paragraph 25 deals with prayer books, missals, breviaries, hymnals and so on, used for the purpose of religious worship. I do not know whether Deputies are aware that, contrary to the well-established practice of the Fianna Fáil Party, the Minister referred the question of a duty on these things to the Tariff Commission and they reported against them.
Nothing of the kind.
They did.
The Deputy did not read the report.
I did.
If the Deputy can produce a unanimous finding of the Commission against I shall give him £5.
I am very thankful indeed for this evidence of generosity on the Minister's part. Will he agree that the evidence was against tariffs on breviaries and hymnals, on the ground that the sale of these books in Saorstát Eireann made it unthinkable that they could be produced here and, that that would mean that the tariff would have to be paid by the persons who used them, and that they were persons least able to bear the expenditure. So far as I am aware every Franciscan monastery and similar institution in the country will have to pay this tariff on breviaries and hymnals. Every Protestant community will have to pay the tariff on hymnals they import because they will not be used in sufficient quantities to justify their production by Saorstát firms. Many of the regular Orders of the Catholic Church who have such ritual will find it impossible to get supplies of their particular missals in Saorstát Eireann, and will, therefore, have to pay the tariff on the imported ones. The Minister must find himself put to the pin of his collar when he has to come out and collect tariffs from the parsonages of the Protestant Church and the friaries and monastic institutions of the Catholic Church. The Minister waxes very eloquent over our roofless monasteries and ruined churches but he ought to refrain from making his contribution to the injury of the monasteries and the friaries by his tariff on breviaries and hymnals and other books used in these institutions. I suggest that if he would do so we might rest quietly with regard to the imminence of the Protestant Succession in this country.
In regard to the question of advertising on pencils the Minister may have observed that in recent years a desirable practice has grown up of advertising one's wares or place of business on highly enamelled pencils. This is an advantage to the poor and that is something that one ought to think of in a case of this kind. These pencils are of a superior quality. They are made in Czecho Slovakia by the same people who used to make the Koh-i-noor pencil which was for many years a standard of excellence. It is well worth a merchant's while to buy these turned out with an advertisement of his business on them and sell them to the national schools at a price which the cheapest black lead pencil could be sold at. Because they are a good advertisement for his trade or business he is compensated for any loss in the transaction so that these pencils which cost him 16/- a gross are supplied to the children at one penny apiece, and to school teachers at 9d. per dozen so that they can sell them to the children. I am certain that the production of that style of pencil cannot be contemplated in this country and that no serious difficulty can arise where the pencil was admitted with the name of the person who distributes such on the pencils. In that way a number of persons derive considerable benefit that would otherwise be denied to them if the Resolution is passed in its present form. Subject to these observations, and with special reference to sub-section (3) of the preamble I propose to oppose this Financial Resolution.
I wonder why is it that when we are discussing import licences in this House we are always treated to several scenes by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I hardly remember an occasion on which we were discussing import licences that the Minister has not lost his temper and treated the House to the most amazing display.
Dear, dear.
The Minister for Finance was not here and I do not think I ever heard the Minister for Finance so lose his head as the Minister for Industry and Commerce does. The Minister for Industry and Commerce displays great anger on every occasion this particular subject is mentioned. But if the Minister would only consider the matter seriously he would realise that his system is bad. It can only lead to abuse; it cannot avoid leading to abuse if kept up for any long time. I think the House ought to take every opportunity of resisting every attempt to extend this system. Yet instead of some curb being put upon this system of licences we find that month after month it is being extended, though it can only lead to corruption in the long run. But there is no good in the Minister losing his temper. I wonder whether there any Deputies in this House who have not heard serious complaints about the abuses of this system or of any kind of licensing system that is at present in vogue and that is being extended. If a Deputy tries to probe into that and asks for the full evidence he is told that he cannot get it.
Who told him?
If a Deputy goes to the person making the complaint and asks for full particulars, he will not get them for the very simple reason that he will be told that it would not pay the man whom he asks to give such evidence because there is such tremendous power in the hands of the State that no person who wants to keep on in his business will do it. Is the Minister for Industry and Commerce so innocent that he does not know that that is the experience of any Deputies in this House with regard to licences? These licences are used to bring pressure on individuals.
Name one individual.
I cannot.
Of course the Deputy cannot.
I cannot name any individual for the simple reason that in one case the man said he dare not mention it.
Who is the man?
That is precisely why I cannot say it. The Minister knows that those who trade in this country are in such a position of terror as a result of this system that they dare not give the information. We are told on some occasions that this licensing power would not be used to discriminate against countries —that it might be used in favour of a particular country, but that it would not be used to discriminate against countries. I have heard, however, of cases where it was used to discriminate against a country. I suggest that that is inherent in the system. The system is bad. It has led, in every country in which it has been in vogue, to abuses and is bound to lead to abuses here. There is no good, when the matter is taken up here in this House and discussed, in the Minister for Industry and Commerce losing his temper at any mention of these things. The thing is really absurd. Apart altogether from that, what I object to is that we have here a number of duties imposed and tariffs of various kinds, and the House is unaware of the reasons for the imposition of any of them. If they were imposed for revenue purposes, very well; then the House would know that that was their purpose and that they were taxes for the purpose of making the revenue sufficiently large to meet expenses. When, however, they are alleged to be protective tariffs, the House has no reason, and no reason is given to it at any time, for the imposition of these tariffs. There are one or two cases that may have come before the Tariff Commission, and in that way the House can at least see whatever case is made for the imposition of the tariff concerned, but in the case of the bulk of these impositions the House is asked to pass them without any information whatever being given.
The House does not know to what extent these impositions are protective or revenue raising tariffs. The House has no means of deciding why a tariff of 75 per cent. must be put on one set of articles, 40 per cent. on another set of articles, and 20 per cent. on another set. The House is given absolutely no information at any period. In introducing this particular schedule of taxes this evening the Minister gave no explanation as to why he was imposing them. Again and again, efforts have been made, as the Minister knows well, to get information from him as to the factories in this country, and again and again he has refused that information. The House is asked to vote blindly a number of tariffs, some 75 per cent., some 20 per cent., and some 40 per cent.—in one case. I think, 100 per cent.—and no reason whatever is given to the House.
Deputy Belton was quite correct when he said that one of the major purposes of this House was the strict control of the public purse and that it had passed out of the hands of the House. It has passed out of the hands of the House by procedure such as the procedure we are discussing. Tariff after tariff is put on merely on the bare words of the Minister: "I move." The only justification offered is: "I move." No explanation is given. Deputies have tried here during the debate, by way of questions to the Minister, to find out information, but none is given. This House is supposed to be a deliberative assembly, and it is particularly supposed to have control over the power of the purse, which is one of the most fundamental principles of parliamentary government. As I pointed out, that is passing away to the extent of millions of pounds already as a result of our legislation. It is passing away every month with these tariffs that are being put on. No information is given, although we are told that we will have an opportunity of discussing them, but not merely is no information given but the Minister, again and again, has refused the information.
When there has been a question of putting a tariff on certain articles, Deputies have asked are we making these things in sufficient quantities or, if there is a factory in existence, what percentage of our needs is that factory capable of producing; but it is quite obvious that the House is simply asked to pass the tariff without that information. We do not know to what extent the licensing provisions that the Minister demands under this section will be used or how far they will be used. I thought, when listening to the Minister on one occasion, that the purpose of this was to prevent forestalling. It is quite obvious, however, from the nature of some of the articles, that that is not the reason. Why is it that you have 75 per cent. in some cases and not in others? Is it meant to be a prohibitive tax in the one case and not in the other? Why is 20 per cent. put on in some cases? Is it meant that a firm goes to the Minister and says that if there is a 20 per cent. tariff put on it can carry on that industry, and that straightaway the Minister says: "Right, you can have your 20 per cent."? Is that what happens after a certain amount of perfunctory investigation by the Minister and his Department? Take the case of school satchels. Is that 20 per cent. put on to help them to be produced here or does it mean an increase of 20 per cent. in the price of school satchels due to the Customs duties on the articles coming in? Why have you a 75 per cent. tariff in other cases?
The Minister must realise that he is making a mockery of the alleged power of this House over the finances of this country. If these tariffs are protective, why have they been able to produce such a large revenue return in the last few years? I think it must be quite obvious that, although the Minister may allege that they are primarily intended for protective purposes and that he or his colleagues received the advantage of them merely as a kind of by-product, very often the by-product is the more important thing. It enables the Minister for Finance to balance his Budget. A number of articles here have been discussed by various Deputies. It is certainly not my intention to deal with those that have been discussed before. In one case I heard the Minister give as his excuse for seeking the power of issuing licences that it was necessary to prevent forestalling. That statement was made, I think, in connection with the Reference No. 26, copper tubes, tubing, pipes, and so on. He said that would be necessary until a factory was established here and until it is productive. Until then he said it would be necessary to seek that power so as to prevent the importation of large quantities of these goods and the forestalling that sometimes goes on and thus to give the new industry a chance. Why it was that he could not simply put on prohibition and allow importation by licence instead of putting on tariffs, I do not understand, unless his purpose is to raise revenue. As a consequence he will raise the cost of these articles on the people. This prevention of forestalling could be quite as effectively carried through in this way by prohibition and the issuing of licences, though the licences may be equally objectionable owing to discrimination against individual citizens. At all events there is no reason for raising the prices of these articles by the tariff duty of 75 per cent. which it is now proposed to impose. The result of that is that the cost of production in this industry will be thereby increased. I refer to the building industry. Now we come to another article—Reference No. 23— Ice imported separately—on which the Minister claims the same power. The excuse is not put forward that these factories are not in existence. The Minister admits they are in existence long since. The explanation that he gave, namely, the necessity for starting a factory, does not hold water here even though the item deals with ice. From what the Minister has said, it is quite obvious that the cotton bandages are not yet made here in sufficient quantities and he needs this power to let them in. But that means a delay and the delay in that instance proves very serious.
There was a matter referred to by Deputy Dillon in which I was very interested. I am referring now to the imposts of 30 per cent. on missals, breviaries, and so on. Does the Minister pretend that Latin missals and breviaries are used in sufficient quantities in this country to become economic and to make it an economic proposition to set about the production here? Or is the impost in this case merely for the purpose of producing revenue? It is essential, as the Minister knows, that these missals and breviaries should be most carefully printed. Then, again, there are frequently changes in the books that would make it a still more uneconomic proposition for anybody here to undertake the printing of them, except at a prohibitive price. I wonder how far the Minister has taken into account at all the views of the people who will be affected by these tariffs. The people who use them are few and there are not very many firms on the Continent who produce these books. The number, as I say, is limited. Of course there is a very much larger demand in Europe than there is here. This is obviously a case where the tariff is imposed without any reference to the starting of a factory. This impost has inflicted a serious hardship on the clergy.
My main objection is to the fact that this House which is supposed to keep a special watch over finance has again and again, practically every month, on various Bills such as the Butter Bill, the Wheat Bill, the Beet Bill, and others, allowed taxes to be put on the people without any explanation whatever being given and in the case of Bills introduced here imposing taxes on butter or bacon without adequate discussion. Once the Bill has passed and that particular levy is imposed, the matter is beyond the control of this House. It is not discussed on the Budget. We are now asked to pass these tariffs without a single word of explanation. I should have thought when asking this House to pass tariffs the Minister would have told us what was the position as regards every one of them. Deputies are acting quite blindly in these matters. For that reason I would ask the House not to pass these items.
I want to say with regard to Reference No. 22 in this Resolution that the tariff in that case will be welcomed by a very deserving class of people, the people who have carried on a hard struggle for the past ten years to keep an old-established industry in existence in spite of severe trials and competition. The quarry owners and stone cutters affected by that tariff will now have some hope for their industry. I must say with regard to the stone-cutters in particular that for a very long time past there has been very high unemployment in their industry. I would like the Minister to say what is the meaning of the exception there with regard to the stone subject to a tariff and why in particular crushed stone is excluded? I have not much to say with regard to the other items in this list except that I am glad to know that a number of the tariffs are in preparation for new industries. With regard to some of them at all events I know that in the towns where these industries are to be established there is now great hope and expectation because these towns are at last to have a share in manufacturing industry. In some of these centres I refer to factories have already been established. Some of the things mentioned here were actually on exhibition at the Spring Show in Ballsbridge. With regard to the twine that is mentioned here I was witness to a number of farmers examining it and they had nothing but praise for the production. I think we should be extremely glad that things like these are being manufactured in this country and especially so as they are manufactured to the utmost satisfaction of those using them. So far from finding fault with the development we ought to be very glad that we have seen the period arrive in our country when instead of going on at the rate of one little miserable attempt at a new industry in five years, we see now new industries being established one after another through the country, and happily being so decentralised that almost every town of importance in the country is sharing in its advantage. So far as my experience goes that development is one of the most helpful that has occurred in our time; towns that have long remained sluggish and without any apparent hope for a future simply depending upon a casual trade, are now looking forward to the future feeling that they are at last getting a chance to justify their existence in the nation. I would say with certainly that if Deputy O'Sullivan went to any of those towns, say Carlow, Newbridge, Arklow, Enniscorthy or Roscrea, or any other town that is getting a chance of industrial expansion, he would find there would not be much patience with his criticism. He would find that, so far from there being any doubt about the value of these industries, there was nothing but satisfaction at this movement which is taking place. If Deputy McGilligan, who was asking the other evening what were these industries producing, went to these towns which have got factories of different kinds, he would not get much tolerance even from those who are normally of his own political belief. He would find that there is one thing the people are determined upon at present—that this industrial revival by means of tariffs has got to go ahead; that there is to be no slowing up and no such thing as temporising, or delaying, simply because people have doubts about technical points. All the criticism of Deputy O'Sullivan, in my opinion, and much more indeed the criticism of Deputy McGilligan, was totally opposed to the spirit of the country at present.
I intend to vote against this Resolution. Unlike the last speaker, I do not believe that the industrial development which we have in this country is anything like worth while. On the contrary, I believe that this Resolution, and a number of other similar Resolutions which we are to discuss within the next three or four hours, and the orders which were made throughout the year and which will be made throughout the coming year, are a far more serious interference with the real liberty of the subject in this country than the passing of the Public Safety Act. Fianna Fáil Deputies, of course, laugh because they are prepared to swallow any of the dope which the Minister for Industry and Commerce is ready to give them at a moment's notice. Despite what the Minister for Finance told us when this Resolution was in the Committee Stage, that this Resolution is meant to impose purely protective duties, I do not accept that. I have heard that stated so often in this House with regard to taxes that were imposed, and which upon inquiry I found had nothing whatever to do with protection, that I am now unwilling to accept any such statement.
Perhaps in one or two or three cases of the numbers of cases which are dealt with in the different parts of the Schedule there may be factories which produce the things which are there set out in any kind of quantity which will meet the demand. But the real fact is that these duties are put on purely for the purpose of getting revenue and nothing else. It is the greatest nonsense to tell the House that these duties are protective. I should like the Minister for Industry and Commerce, when he comes to reply, to take these items one by one and to tell us where the factories are, what they are producing, how much of the demand they are meeting. Then, perhaps we will be in some sort of a position to judge of how far these alleged protective duties are really protective.
I see here in a number of instances in the special provisions column, that some of these commodities are to be imported on licence, free of duty, on consultation between the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Industry and Commerce. I should like to ask the Minister for Industry and Commerce if one of the general conditions imposed when these licences are being asked for is that the factory, which is either in process of formation or which is perhaps already established, must give a certificate that they have no objection, or words to that effect before any licence will be given to enable the distributor to import the goods. I should like to know that because in certain specific instances that reply has come back from the Department of Industry and Commerce. The trader has then to get in touch with the manufacturer who, of course, is not able to supply him with one-tenth of his demands. He asks the manufacturer to supply him with some such certificate, and not in one single instance has the manufacturer taken the trouble to reply, or to certify any such thing. The result, of course, is that the trader is left without the goods. If that is the kind of protection which this Resolution is intended to afford, I shall certainly take the greatest delight in voting against it.
I find I cannot oppose this Financial Resolution No. 9. The Minister has put me into this position, that he has presented me with a mixed grill, and I must say that I will have to take it with some measure of disappointment. However, I certainly must query some of the statements I listened to since I came into the House with regard to some of these taxes and the difference between a revenue-producing tax and a tariff. The second item in this Schedule relates to polishing preparations of all kinds. Long before the Minister or his Party came into office a factory was in existence outside Cork City—by the way, not in my constituency but in an adjoining constituency—for manufacturing these polishes. That industry did not require much protection. I daresay it is because a number of other persons engaged in industry have taken up the manufacture of these polishes, encouraged by the success of the Cork people, which is quite a usual thing, that the Minister saw fit to protect them by means of this tariff.
Another matter mentioned in this Schedule is monumental, architectural or building stone. Much of the stone required for monumental work is imported into this country from Italy. Most of this stone used to come in already cut and dressed, and very little indeed was left for the local stone-cutters to do. A couple of labourers would execute any work required in connection with these imported monuments. I think it will be conceded that the stone-cutting industry was once a very thriving one here. Were it not for the enterprise of a number of people and the good civic spirit shown by a still larger group of people, who gave a good deal of encouragement to the industry over a period of years, the industry would have died out altogether. I believe that this tariff will give some help to that industry which very much requires it.
Then I come to item 25 of the Schedule, relating to "prayer books, missals, breviaries, hymnals, and other books used for the purpose of religious worship, and also bibles and testaments." Now, in respect to prayer books, missals, etc., and monumental, architectural building stone, the Church authorities themselves are the greatest offenders. Most of the money collected to build churches in this country and to educate our clergymen for their noble and sacred calling, was made in the country, and yet the clergy themselves have been frequently the greatest offenders where it was a question of, say, engaging musicians. A man should have a Herr or Signor to his name before getting employment as an organist. We have had organists coming here from the ends of the earth and getting employment. The last place in which the clergy would seek for a man to fill an appointment of that kind would be their own country. The same used to be true of various articles used in our churches, such as confessionals, etc. I welcome this duty on prayer books, etc., because I am interested in this branch of industry. I know, of course, that we will have some ultra-religious people saying that this is a tax on religion. Well, the Deputy who would say that must have his tongue in his cheek. I do not believe that the ordinary working-class man or woman will worry much about paying a penny more for his or her prayer book.
Did the Deputy read the report of the Tariff Commission on prayer books?
I did, but at the same time I want to confess this much: that I only use my prayer book once a week. I imagine that some Deputies would not be courageous enough to make that much of a confession, but I am honest about it. I am prepared to support these two items, although, as I have said, it is a sort of a mixed grill. The Minister is putting me into a nasty corner, but still I am prepared to vote for this duty.
There is a controversial matter that I would like to deal with. Deputy Moore accused us on this side of the House of having no sympathy with the industrial development policy of the Fianna Fáil Party. I can assure him that a lot of us were interested in Irish industrial development long before some of the gentlemen opposite were born. At the same time, we do not want to have industrial development, or the creation of industries, fortified and built up on tariffs under the conditions set out here or at the expense of the degradation of the most important industry that we have. We have been told that these new industries will bring prosperity to the towns of the country. The Deputy should have remembered that there used to be such a thing as a monthly fair held in most towns. Recently, I collected some statistics as to the amount of business that these monthly fairs brought to the towns in which they are held. I am speaking now of towns with a population of 2,000 or 3,000 people. The turnover in these towns, due to the fairs, used to be about £10,000 or £12,000 a month. Now, it has gone down to £1,000, due to the absence of business at these monthly fairs. The loss they have sustained is in or about £8,000 or £9,000 a month. If either figure is multiplied by 12, one gets an idea of the loss over a year.
Is the Deputy speaking of cattle fairs?
I am speaking of the circulation of money due to that industry. Deputy Moore talked about industry in these towns, and I am giving this example by way of reply.
Deputy Moore did not say anything about cattle. The discussion on this Resolution has travelled very far already, and I certainly will not allow any further references to the agricultural position on it.
I bow to your ruling, but Deputy Moore raised a controversial point, and I think I have the right to reply to it.
Deputy Moore did not speak about agriculture, good, bad or indifferent.
He spoke of industry, and agriculture is a bigger industry than any that we have mentioned in this Resolution. Deputy Moore also referred to crushed stone. Would the Minister explain why he excepts crushed stone? It is one of the things that is excluded. Stone is one of the things that we ought to be able to produce in abundance, and the crushing of stone is an industry that ought to be protected. Crushed stone is used in the surfacing of roads. I see that under another Resolution the Minister is going to put a tax on some road-making material, such as bitumen. I think that he should protect the stone that we have. In my part of the country we have, I think, the best quality of stone to be found in the United Kingdom. We export hundreds of thousands of tons of it to England. I think the home market for it ought to be protected. Local authorities ought to be made use it. I do not know if crushed stone is being brought in in any quantity, but here we have a local industry that ought to get every encouragement from the home authorities. At present it has to depend, to a large extent, on its export trade.
Deputy Anthony raised a question about prayer books that some may regard as controversial. Of course, there is a distinction between prayer books and breviaries. Prayer books would probably come under the heading of ordinary printed matter. I think that our Government should follow the example of most Governments in the world and allow in articles required for church services free of duty. I do not mean that marble should be allowed in free. Even pagan countries allow in free of duty articles used in church services. In America, for instance, Irish lace for surplices is allowed in free even though it is a country with high tariffs. Irish priests, when returning to America, are given that privilege of taking in surplices with them, and America is not a very Catholic country. The same is true of vessels required for church services. They are also allowed in free. I think that our Minister here might follow the same practice. The revenue would not lose anything.
This Resolution deals with a variety of articles. It is notorious that when an article is protected the price of it rises to the extent of the tariff. I do not want to go over all the articles that are mentioned in this Resolution. You have, for instance, children's schoolbags. Another portion of it deals with felting, binder twine, window sashes, tiles, bricks, etc. I am prepared to concede that where goods can be produced here, quality for quality and price for price, we should give a preference to them. It is all very well to ask the House to pass these Resolutions putting on protective tariffs, but I think the Resolutions should go a little bit further and ensure that the imposition of a protective tariff is not going immediately to raise the cost of an article by the amount of the tariff. In the ordinary affairs of life we find, as regards the materials and implements we use, that as soon as a tariff is imposed on a home-produced article the price of it is advanced to the full extent of the tariff. I think the Department should take steps to see that consumers would, at least, get quality in the home-produced article when a tariff is put on.
Deputy Anthony spoke on item No. 25 dealing with prayer books, etc. I may say that I do not share the Deputy's views. In this particular case I do not think that any duty should be imposed. Surely it is not becoming to do so in a country which boasts that, for its size, it has done more than any other country for the propagation of the Gospel, a country, too, which is commonly referred to as the Island of Saints. But seeing we are anxious to give the Gospel to other countries, it does not look well that we should put even the semblance of an obstacle in the way of doing that. If we had read of this in Soviet Russia or in those places where they deliberately go out against the Gospel, we would say that it was the natural outcome of their present ideals. But, in a country like ours, where we can claim to be deeply religious, where the different sections acknowledge religion and put it in the foremost place, it is a poor commentary on the Government that we should be putting any tariff whatever on Bibles and Testaments. Other books are mentioned which I would put in the same category. I think that these books should be left severely alone so far as tariffs are concerned, so that the rising generation would perceive that the people in power had that much respect for religious things and for the Gospel and the Bible.
I should like to be convinced of the necessity for all these high tariffs on different articles. Reference has been made to item No. 4 in the Schedule, which refers to satchels. I am rather interested in that because I have a couple of young boys who say that they are big enough to go to school. The first thing a young fellow will want in these circumstances is a school bag. I should like to know whether or not school bags are manufactured in this country in sufficient quantities. If they are, I do not raise any objection to the duty but I should not like to see the price raised simply for the sake of raising it. Item No. 6 refers to surrounds, hearths and curbs which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, are "of a kind normally used for fireplaces and are made or consist partly of tiles, bricks or slabs." I should like to know from the Minister if, assuming that these things are constructed in the country, there is any tariff on the tiles as distinct from the hearths or sides.
Not under this Resolution.
Under any resolution?
Under the next Resolution.
I do not know whether it is worth while for any other than revenue purposes to put 33? per cent. on these articles. I do not know that the manufacture gives very much employment. These articles are not so extensively used. It might be as well if the 33? per cent. were reduced somewhat because, every time you increase the cost of materials used in the building of houses, you increase the cost of the house. As regards item No. 7, I understand that metal frames and metal sashes are being manufactured here. I wonder if sufficient time has elapsed since the manufacture of these commodities was commenced here to enable the home manufacturers to meet foreign competition with a lesser tariff than 40 per cent. Would it not be wise on the Minister's part, as a sort of gee-up to the home manufacturers, to allow a certain quantity of these goods to be imported for comparative purposes as regards price and quality and for his own satisfaction. I am not one of those who expect miracles in a year or two years. I agree with the Minister that a child must creep before it walks but I think it is about time the Minister took stock of the situation in regard to the manufacture of window sashes and all these other articles used so extensively in the construction of houses. These have a very material effect on the cost of building. There are a large number of small items in the Schedule to which I will not refer because they are not of much importance.
Item 11 refers to ridge tiles, hip tiles and other roofing tiles made wholly or partly of clay or of cement. Has the Minister evidence that ridge tiles are made here in sufficient quantity to meet the demand? I am referring to ridge tiles composed of clay. I can quite understand that the manufacture of tiles composed of cement is sufficient. They are easy to make but the ridge tile made of clay is a different proposition. I should like to know if these particular tiles are manufactured here in sufficient numbers and in sufficient varieties. The ordinary ridge tile which suits the cottage or the house costing £400 or £500 might not be suitable in the case of other types of house or in the case of churches. I do not see why there should be a tariff of 50 per cent. on that class of ridge tile if it is not being manufactured in the country at present and I think I should not be far wrong in saying that it is not. As regards item 12 which refers to wheelbarrows and two-wheeled trucks, the wheelbarrow is a very important article and I am sorry that Deputy Edward Rice is not present because a considerable amount of time was spent at three meetings of the Vocation Education Committee in Monaghan in discussing the pros and cons of wheelbarrow construction. I think that the plans were sent to the Department of Education and that the intelligentsia of that Department had to decide the matter. I am glad that we are able to manufacture a wheelbarrow in this country.
I now come to item 22, which refers to monumental, architectural or building stone. The tariff applies to dressed stone and not to rough stone. What does Deputy Moore think of that when he advocates the development of quarries? Under this Resolution, rough stone is being allowed in free. That operates against the development of local stone. I could argue that this Resolution is upside down, that it is putting the cart before the horse by placing a tax of 100 per cent. on the finished article and allowing in free the raw material. After all, when you speak of the development of quarries, you have in mind the raw materials and not the finished article. The raw material—limestone, granite and so forth—we have in abundance. It is questionable whether this tariff has been of any great assistance to the stone-cutters of this country. I sympathise deeply with that branch of the trade because the stone-cutters find themselves in much the same position that the old Dublin jarvies did when the taxi was introduced. Cement seems to have knocked the bottom out of the stone-cutting trade. and it is questionable whether this 100 per cent. tariff will be of any great advantage to it. I notice that the Minister, after consultation with the Minister for Finance, may, by licence, authorise any person to import finished stone.
As Deputy Dillon dealt very fully with that matter I am not going into it. I want to draw the Minister's attention to one fact in connection with the 100 per cent. duty on dressed building stone. That duty has been the means of greatly increasing the cost of building in certain parts of the country. A church was built in Dundalk recently, the exterior walls of which were constructed of granite. Owing to the tariff the builder found it necessary to import the raw stone and to have it dressed in Dundalk. It so happened that the stone-cutters who dressed the stone were from Newry, where the raw material came from, so that the duty was no benefit to Dundalk from the financial point of view, because, having an excellent bus service, the men went home in the evening. The duty, however, had the effect of increasing the cost of the building by £700 or £800, which, considering the difficulty of collecting money at present, is a rather tidy sum. No licence was granted on that occasion. It may be said that the granite could have been got in Wicklow or in parts of County Dublin. I suppose it could, if the builder was prepared to pay an extra £1,000. I may say that it is not every stone-cutter can work granite. Stone-cutters who are good at other stone work may be useless at granite work and vice versa.
I think a duty of 100 per cent. on monumental, architectural or building stone is not going to do very much for those engaged in stone-cutting. Undoubtedly, it will be the means of increasing the cost of buildings of the type to which I referred. It is the same with many other articles used in constructional work included in this Resolution. I am very anxious to hear from the Minister what progress has been made with the manufacture of steel windows and doors, and how the prices compare in the Free State with prices in Great Britain and Scotland. When we hear the Minister's views in connection with that aspect of the situation, possibly we will be able to say that he has done excellent work in having these industries started here. The prices paid for many articles used in the construction of houses are far and away above the prices paid for articles of foreign manufacture. It is about time we heard something with regard to the present state of the trade in regard to the manufacture of these articles.
In sub-section (2) of the preamble I should like the Minister to tell the House what is the real interpretation of the term "the value of such article."
The value at importation.
Does that mean what the purchaser pays for the article, what is on the invoice, or can it be a fictitious price that is put on the article at the will of anyone?
Ordinarily it means the invoice price, but it is up to the Revenue Commissioners not to accept the invoice price as a fair indication of the value of the article.
The Revenue Commissioners are empowered not to value the article on the invoice?
If they have any doubt about the invoice value not being the true value they can refuse to accept that value.
Take a box of pills "worth a guinea a box," as imported, for which perhaps one penny is paid. Are the Revenue Commissioners entitled to say that that article is worth more than a penny, or that it is worth a guinea, because that is the value at which it is to be sold?
The Minister for Finance will be after the pills.
I will tell the Deputy what the regulation says:
The value of any article for the purpose of ad valorem duty shall be taken to be the price which, in the opinion of the Revenue Commissioners, an importer would give for the article if the article were delivered, freight and insurance paid, in bond at the place of importation, and duty shall be paid on that value as fixed by the Revenue Commissioners.
Now we are getting after what I wanted the Minister to tell the House. "The price which the importer would pay for the article." Are the Revenue Commissioners entitled to say that because an article is advertised as worth a guinea when imported, would a person be obliged to pay the Revenue Commissioners on that value? I will raise the point again. I want the Minister to consider the force of that regulation. I contend that the Dáil, in passing Resolutions of this kind, always meant the value of the article to be what the purchaser actually pays. My contention is that the words the Minister read do not give the Revenue Commissioners power to put a fictitious value on the article, but only to put on it the price that the importer would pay. Steps should be taken to make that perfectly clear. I have a case in mind, not so far removed from the illustration I have given, and I want to raise it later in connection with this term "value." It is the duty of the Dáil to make the meaning perfectly plain. Probably the best way to do it is by some amendment when we come to the Finance Act.
The other question I want to ask the Minister is whether this Schedule, as drafted by him, is the first Schedule which contains the imposition of a duty on raw materials not obtainable in this country? Can he recall any other occasion on which he has imposed a duty on raw materials which cannot be obtained in this country for the purposes for which they are required? The phrase to which I wish to draw his attention particularly is in that sub-paragraph in reference No. 22 to which Deputy Coburn has just referred. It contains the phrase, "Unworked marble" without qualification. I know the Minister will say that he has power to give a licence for the importation of such things, but I think there is more involved in the principle of this new duty than can be got over by a reference to that power to license. To my mind, it is entirely indefensible to put a duty on materials coming into this country which are going to be used by workers in the country for the manufacture of any article, whatever it may be. I am convinced that this duty is only the prelude to revenue-raising duties which can only have the effect of making employment more and more difficult. In fact, if that sub-paragraph is allowed to stand in that form, it would definitely cause certain workers to be put out of their employment. I ask the Minister to consider that carefully before we come to the Finance Bill.
The third point I want to make has already been made by Deputy Dillon. I protest in principle against reference No. 25 by which is introduced a duty on religious books whatever their kind may be. I hope to move an amendment to the Finance Bill to that effect. It is entirely against our traditions that we should impose what can only be a purely revenue-raising Customs duty on this kind of religious books.
Deputy Dillon took advantage of the discussion on this Resolution to reiterate his usual allegations that, in the issuing of licences for the free importation of dutiable goods, the Department of Industry and Commerce is naturally corrupt and partial as between one importer and another. The basis of his allegation apparently is that the Minister for Industry and Commerce, the Minister for Finance and some of their officials are accepting bribes in order to give him——
No such allegation or implication was contained in anything I said and it is a monstrous thing to suggest that there was.
The Deputy's suggestions were rather monstrous. They were to the effect that certain individuals were refused licences and others given licences for some corrupt reason and Deputy O'Sullivan was surprised and pained that I should be annoyed at having such a suggestion made. What is the suggestion based upon? It is based upon two cases which have been exploded time and again in the Dáil. I am going to explode them for the sixth time if necessary. The Deputy mentioned three cases but the third was not a case at all. His complaint was that we used the licensing power in precisely the manner in which we said we were going to use it. The Deputy's own firm was refused a licence for the importation of lace and elastic at one time. There is no harm in mentioning that it was the Deputy's own firm because the entire facts were stated in the Dáil 12 months ago.
I have no objection.
When the Deputy's firm first made application, they were referred to a particular firm by the Department. That firm was a firm which was building a factory for the manufacture of these things and in accordance with the decision which was made when the duty was first imposed, we decided to allow imports to take place through that firm during the interval between the imposition of the duty and the commencement of production in their factory, on certain understandings—that no profits would be made and no restrictions placed upon the amount of goods consigned to any other firm. That arrangement was made because we were rather apprehensive of the administrative difficulties that would arise in respect of the granting of licences to every firm in the country that would require to import these commodities. The experiment was not a success, and, after the experience of about six weeks, we stopped it. According to the Deputy's own admission, he was then notified that the Department were willing to issue licences for the free importation of these things.
The Deputy took one case that arose when one system was in operation and he compared it with the experience of another firm, two months later, when another system was in operation and said that that was partial treatment, one firm having been refused a licence and another firm granted a licence. At the time that the one firm was refused the licence, every firm was refused, and at the time that one firm was granted the licence, every firm was granted it. That is one of the Deputy's cases. The Deputy had the full facts of that case given to him by correspondence, given to him in the Dáil and given to him in every way that it was possible to give them to him and here we have him, twelve months later, reiterating it as being an entirely new example of corruption on the part of the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
The other case was one about which the Deputy also got full information from the Department and in relation to which he twice put down Parliamentary questions and got them answered. An emergency duty was imposed upon British machinery in August, 1922.
1932.
1932. Amongst the types of machines caught by that emergency duty were Crossley oil engines but a number of firms had these engines on order. A number of firms for various reasons had committed themselves to the installation of that type of machine and so, for a period of some months after the imposition of the duty, licences for their importation free of that emergency duty were issued fairly freely up to the beginning of the next financial year. About 1st April, 1933, these licences stopped and they have not been issued to any firm since. I say that with the qualification that there may possibly have been some exceptional cases during those two years in which some firm got a licence, but I do not think so. On and after the date upon which the decision was made by me to stop the issue of licences for these engines, free of emergency duty, no firm, so far as I know, got such a licence. The Deputy takes a case that occurred in the early part of 1933 of a firm to which a licence was issued at that time and compares it with the case of a firm which was refused a licence at the beginning of 1935 and says that that is partial treatment. The Deputy cannot possibly sustain that allegation.
The third case arose out of the lace and elastic duty again. He said that the firm in Ennis which were manufacturing laces were for a period getting licences to import braid while their own braid machinery was being installed and that another person—I know the person—the representative of a Belgian firm, was refused a licence to import the braid. He was refused a licence to import the braid because he had no intention of manufacturing it, and the temporary licence to import braid was given only, and will be given only, to people who are in fact installing machinery for its manufacture.
What did he want the braid for?
Because they were able to start production stage by stage. The Deputy said that never happened before. It happened hundreds of times before. The hosiery manufacturers were faced, following the first Budget of Fianna Fáil in 1932, with a duty upon knitted fabric. They were called into conference in the Department and told that licences for the importation of knitted fabric, free of duty, would be issued to such hosiery manufacturers as gave us a written undertaking that they were going to instal machinery for its manufacture, and only those manufacturers who gave that undertaking got licences. The others were refused. A duty was placed upon planed and dressed timber, and the saw millers of the country were brought into conference and told that licences for the importation, free of duty, of planed and dressed timber would be issued for a period of twelve months to such firms as gave undertakings that they were installing machinery for the production of such timber, and only firms which gave that undertaking got those licences. There are hundreds of examples of how, in the interests of public policy, licences of one kind or another were refused to one person and granted to another——
That is an admission.
——in order to encourage and procure the establishment here of new industrial enterprises.
The Minister admits discrimination?
Of course—discrimination between those who are going to co-operate with the Government in the development of industry and those who are not going to do so.
And you denied it with imprecations three months ago.
I challenge the Deputy to produce one single quotation from the Official Debates since the 15th March, 1932, in which it was denied that the licensing powers conferred on the Department were used in that manner. All types of manufacturers got certain concessions with respect to the free importation of partially manufactured goods, subject to the condition that within a specified time they would instal machinery for their manufacture. That applies to a number of the licensing provisions set out here. The partially manufactured goods will be permitted in free of duty to those who are going to ultimately manufacture them, so that they can train unskilled Irish labour in the various processes of their industry. If we had not adopted those tactics we would never have succeeded in getting a very large number of those new industries established, because we had to work under the initial handicap that our labour was untrained, and that they could not be made proficient overnight in the skilled processes of various industries. In any event, I want to suggest to Deputy Dillon what I have often suggested to him before without effect, that the consideration of elementary decency might convey to him that if he is going to make a very serious allegation against the Minister and the Department of Industry and Commerce in specific cases, he should at least convey an intimation of his intention to the Minister in advance, so that he will be given an opportunity of looking up the facts of those cases and answering the Deputy's allegations. It is a contemptible procedure for the Deputy to come in here and make allegations about licences, without affording any opportunity whatever to the Minister concerned to get at the facts and refute those allegations. It may be a waste of time to suggest to the Deputy what is the decent procedure in those matter, but, at any rate, his allegations will have much more effect amongst those who are prepared to believe them, if they have at least the appearance of being fairly made.
The Minister has just admitted most of them.
I do not think it is necessary to give a detailed account of the position in respect of each of the industries which are being protected by the various references here, for reasons that will be obvious as I proceed. The first is a minor duty. It is a duty on rear reflectors for bicycles. Rear reflectors for horse-drawn vehicles are already subject to duty, but it was obviously ineffective in view of the difficulty of distinguishing a rear reflector for a horse-drawn vehicle from a rear reflector for a bicycle. Their manufacture is being undertaken here. There will be no increase in price, and there will be an adequate supply. A duty on polishing preparations of all kinds is the next item. Polishes, other than metal polishes, have been subject to duty heretofore. The industry is in a fairly satisfactory condition, although there is still a not insignificant importation of polishes which are subject to duty. The imports of dutiable polishes in 1933 amounted to £10,000, and in 1934 to £7,500. There is no reason why that particular item should not disappear from our import list.
It would be more intelligible to us if the Minister gave us the figure as a percentage of the total imports.
It is not a very high percentage at present. It was previously a high figure, but since 1932 there has been a steady decline. In any event, the main purpose of this part of the Resolution is to extend to metal polishes the duty which at present applies to polishes used for other purposes, and to change the existing duty of 37½ per cent., with a preferential rate, to a flat duty of 33? per cent.
But we are making those extra polishes?
Yes; the metal polishes are being made here. Some of the very cheap polishes come in already packed in tins, and consequently one particular portion of this resolution applies the package tax to polishes so imported. Deputies need have no apprehension that there will not be an adequate supply of those polishes. As proof of their value, and of the competitive prices charged for them, they will find in our trade and shipping statistics an item in respect of the export of those polishes.
Cotton bandages and bandaging material, which are the subject of the next item, are manufactured by two firms in the Saorstát. The prices which are charged are strictly competitive, and the firms in question are quite capable of supplying all the requirements of the country. The value of the imports of those articles is estimated at about £20,000. There is no precise figure available, because they have not been separately specified on importation heretofore. However, as I have said, our estimate of the value of the imports is about £20,000. Two fairly well-known firms, one in Dublin and one in Cork, are engaged in their production, and are capable of supplying whatever quantities are needed. Their prices will be no different from the prices now chargeable for those articles.
Are they producing crepe bandages?
They are producing the bandages which are made subject to duty by this Resolution. I do not want to speak as if I had technical knowledge on the subject; I have not.
The Minister is deliberately excluding elastic bandages.
Quite.
Consequently, I wondered if his attention had been directed to crepe bandages, which are a kind of intermediate stage between cotton bandages and elastic bandages. I though he might include the crepe with the elastic materials if he finds they are not being produced satisfactorily or in sufficient quantities here.
So far as item No. 4 is concerned, some time ago a duty of 20 per cent. was placed on satchels made of leather. Adequate supplies of Irish-made leather satchels are available at a price no greater than that at which they were formerly available from abroad. At that particular time the manufacture of cloth satchels was not taking place here to a sufficient extent to justify us in imposing a duty upon those also, but they are now being manufactured to a sufficient extent by two firms, one in Galway and one in Dublin. The price charged is 4/- per dozen, as against 3/9 per dozen for an imported article of a corresponding nature, so that although they are slightly dearer the difference in price is, in fact, very small.
The next item, felting and felting substitutes, provides only for an increase in an existing duty. Those goods are subject to duty at present. They are being made here by two firms. Certain technical advice which the Department sought upon the quality of the goods being produced by those firms, and the prices charged for them, definitely established the fact that they compare very favourably with anything available anywhere else. Both in price and in quality they are as good as anything produced in other countries.
Then, perhaps, the Minister would state the reason for increasing the duty?
There is still an appreciable import which it is desired to eliminate. In 1933 the value of the imports was estimated at roughly £12,000—£11,999 to be precise—and in 1934 the value was estimated at £10,165. Surrounds, hearths and curbs made of tiles are manufactured by several firms in the Saorstát and there is no reason to anticipate that they will not be able to supply all the requirements of the country in these goods. We have no figure as to the value of the imports of these articles previously, because they were never listed separately and only an approximate estimate could be made. We had a special examination carried out over a period of four months in 1934 and the value of the goods coming in during those months was only £500, so that the total imports do not amount to much. However, the industry gives a considerable amount of employment having regard to the value of the output, and the employment is adult male employment, which is an important consideration. Deputies who had an opportunity of inspecting the exhibits of certain firms at the Spring Show will appreciate not merely the variety of the products but also their excellence.
If they executed the orders sooner, it would be all right.
So far as No. 7 is concerned, there is a duty of 40 per cent. on metal windows. That has been re-enacted in another form to enable the window to be levied at a duty of 40 per cent. when it comes in with the glass in it. At present, if a window frame is imported with the glass in it, duty can only be levied on the framework and not upon the glass. There is no reason why the stained glass and other glass industry should not be given the benefit of this protection. The purpose of this Resolution is to extend the scope of the duty so as to cover metal frames with the glass in them. The intention is to encourage industries concerned with stained glass windows, coloured glass doors, etc. Number 8 adds a number of comparatively insignificant items to the standing duty upon cast iron goods. They are mostly of the kind made by ordinary blacksmiths. I do not think we have any scarcity of blacksmiths in the country, so there need be no fear of a scarcity of these articles in consequence of the imposition of this duty.
So far as No. 9 is concerned it is designed to remedy a certain mistake made when the original duty upon types, wrapping tapes, was imposed. The duty was imposed upon printed tapes or tapes imported to be printed here. The mere declaration of the importer that he did not intend to have the tape printed, but intended to use it unprinted, enabled him to get the tape in free and consequently the duty has had to be recast and it is now to apply to printed and unprinted tape. Both are available here. No. 10 refers to portable vacuum flasks for containing food or drink, and component parts of such flasks, excluding component parts made wholly or mainly of cork. It is a new duty. These vacuum flasks are now being made at Nenagh by the Aluminium Company there.
How does the charge compare?
I think their charges compare very favourably. Their prices are reasonably low and we have had no complaint whatever from any source as to the price charged for any of their products. The firm have the intention, according to their own declarations, of seeking export markets, if possible. They believe it will be possible for them to do it.
Do they make the glass?
Oh no. So far as No. 11 is concerned—ridge tiles, hip tiles and other roofing tiles—these are at present liable to duty when imported unglazed. The majority of such tiles are unglazed, but it is possible, by applying some simple process, to give the tiles the appearance of being glazed and, therefore, those tiles become entitled to free entry. The purpose of this duty, therefore, is to prevent that evasion of the original duty by imposing it upon tiles whether glazed or unglazed. There are numbers of firms engaged in the production of roofing materials. In any event there is the regulation of the Department of Local Government requiring the use of Irish roofing materials, fully, in order to qualify for the housing grant.
May I ask if there is any test placed on these home-made tiles and on home material generally? There is a terrible lot of it being used and it would be very serious if it is not good.
There is a certain standard established. Of course, I agree that we should have some system of a standard test for most building materials. That is an innovation which we would welcome. Personally, I do not know who should do it. In other countries it is generally done by some voluntary organisation like the Institution of Civil Engineers and, perhaps, they might undertake it here.
Does the Minister contemplate taking any steps in that direction?
I have made speeches advocating it. In No. 12 we deal with wheelbarrows and two-wheeled trucks. These are being manufactured at Inchicore. The prices compare favourably with imported articles and their quality is very good. Most of the people who have experience of them have commented very favourably on their quality. There need be no fear that the firm will not be able to supply in any quantities. They would be glad, I am sure, to get orders from the Dublin County Council, largely because of the advertising value of the orders, knowing the discriminating nature of the members of that body. That firm has, in fact, already got on merit a great part of the market for machines for making concrete blocks and slabs. The duty is to direct attention to the fact that the machines can be procured here.
As regards No. 14, the duty on binder twine or yarns is an important addition to the list of duties, because the quantity used here in the year is considerable. There is a licence attached to this duty, because the manufacture was not commenced sufficiently early this year to enable a full supply to be made available at the time it was required. All the binder twine is required at a certain period of the year. This year we have to license certain quantities in order to supplement the home production so as to meet requirements. In other years that will not be necessary, because production will go on all the year round to provide the stocks necessary to meet requirements at the particular period of the year when it is most needed.
A certain difficulty arose there. It was impossible to get a definition of binder twine that would cover the yarn from which ordinary twines are made and consequently this duty also covers imported yarns. It will be necessary for some time to license the free importation of yarns to the firms concerned. We will have to move with considerable caution in that regard because of the definition difficulty. It is intended that the rope and twine making firms should be required to spin their own yarns. One firm is equipped to do it at the present time and the other firms will be required to do it at some future time and so Deputy Dillon may note that in relation to the licensing provision connected with that duty it will be used in precisely the same manner as other licensing provisions were used for the purpose of facilitating firms that give an undertaking that they are going to carry out the complete process of manufacture in due course.
There is no shortage of yarn spinners, I suppose?
The Opposition Benches are filled with them.
The intention is, as I have said, to apply the licensing provisions to these persons.
And never fear there will be plenty of applicants for the licences, and they will get them, provided they are led in by the hand by a Fianna Fáil T.D.
That is just the type of allegation we expect to get from Deputy Dillon, and it is as groundless as most of the allegations he makes here. If other Deputies in that Party believed there was the slightest truth in these allegations of Deputy Dillon they would not put themselves to the trouble of coming on deputations and of leading applicants by the hand to the Department of Industry and Commerce. They have more confidence in the impartiality of the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the fairness of his Department than Deputy Dillon has. Perhaps Deputy Dillon might take the opportunity of consulting them some time as to their experiences in the Department before he commits himself to these wild allegations which do his reputation no good and mine no harm.
The next item imposes a duty on roller blinds made mainly of textile materials and also component parts of such roller blinds. These blinds are made here. We had up to now the anomalous position under which the cloth of which they were made was subject to duty and the blinds themselves were not. That was very unfair to the firm manufacturing the blinds, and we are levelling the matter up in this reference. The same remarks apply to sails, sail covers, sail bags and yacht or boat covers. The cloth from which these articles were made was subject to duty, but the articles themselves could be imported free of duty. That position is being rectified by this reference. Reference No. 17 requires some explanation. By an Emergency Order, a duty was imposed on cotton thread in order to protect the factory which was established in Westport for the manufacture of cotton thread. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that when the Revenue Commissioners came to administer the duty they applied it to everything except thread. The definition of "thread" was so considerable that the duty had to be amended. Then when we came to consider the matter we found it was not possible to get a definition of "thread" satisfactory for duty purposes which would not also include the yarns from which thread is made or the yarns imported by weaving firms. Therefore, the duty has to go upon thread and the yarns. The intention, however, is to license the free importation of yarns by the firms requiring them until we get cotton yarns spun in this country which will not be, I hope, at a very far distant date.
You did not start spinning the yarns yet, but there is a 40 per cent. duty on them.
I should like to put a very heavy duty on some of the jokes we hear in this House, jokes which are not by any means original.
I am talking about the tariff. This tariff is no joke.
We have not yet started making cotton yarns, but we hope to do so.
You have started tariffing them.
I have explained the reason—because it is not possible to get a definition of "thread" which does not include cotton yarns.
That is a great joke.
If the Deputy can give us a satisfactory definition of thread, which will not be a definition of yarns, he will be rendering the Department a very great service.
Is the Minister confessing his incompetence to give us a definition?
I have to confess that for the last 12 months I have been in consultation with experts in the Department and we could not arrive at a satisfactory definition. That is why the duty goes on. The next reference imposes a duty upon attache cases, suit cases, and other articles of that description which are about to be manufactured in a new factory that is being established at Portarlington. The following reference imposes a duty on the parts of such cases or on semi-manufactured materials from which they might be made. The entire process of manufacture is being undertaken at this factory.
Are you going to turn out the cheaper classes?
I am not going to do it, but the firm building the factory hope to do it.
Is the factory built?
The last news I had when I was down at the turf cutting competition was that the machinery would be installed the next week. I passed through Portarlington and was so informed. Reference No. 19 deals with parts of cases from which cases might be assembled and is consequential upon No. 18. Reference Nos. 20 and 21 impose a new duty of 40 per cent. upon straps and belts made wholly of leather or skin. There is an enormous variety of straps either being made or which can be readily made here and there is no substantial difference between the Saorstát price and the price charged elsewhere although, as yet, no protection has been afforded to the manufactures of these goods. This reference also imposes a duty for the first time on watch straps. Watch straps are now being manufactured here by two firms. They carried on successfully up to this and established themselves without protection. It is now, I think, possible to give them the whole of the market, because they have shown themselves well able to supply it without any increase in price. Similarly dog collars, muzzles, and leads are made in the Saorstát. There is a considerable scope for development and the purpose of the duty is to make these leads and straps of various kinds liable to a 40 per cent. duty on importation. So far as reference No. 22 is concerned, various Deputies addressed themselves to the amount of the duty, but the main change which it effects in the existing position is to include marble and marble chippings. Stone of various kinds has been subject to duty, but marble and marble chippings have been excluded. The change which is now being effected brings in marble and marble chippings. There are numerous marble quarries in the Saorstát, but, as Deputies are aware, only three or four of them are being worked. These are all in Galway and are producing green or black marble. There are a number of unworked quarries which we hope to bring into production in the course of time, namely, black at Kilkenny, red at Castleisland and Kilcow, pink and dove at Midleton and Fermoy, white at Dunlewy and Donegal, black at Ballyhaunis and white at Creggs.
There is no white marble being produced here now?
It is true that white marbles are not being produced here at the present time, and the licensing provision will be used exclusively for white marbles where a special case can be made for the use of white marble. A number of parish priests may like to have white marble for altar-rails and other purposes when I think that they could do with Connemara marble and I am not promising that every time they want it a licence will be given to import white marble for such purposes, but for statuary work and other special work of that kind, white marble is required and will be imported under licence until we get our own white marble produced here.
Does the Minister undertake that licences will be issued to different parties who may require white marble?
The whole purpose of the duty is to get people to use Connemara marble or marble quarried in the Free State. For certain classes of work white marble is necessary and perhaps that kind of marble would not be available here when required. In such cases, a licence for its free importation will be issued. We propose to endeavour, if possible, to discourage the use of these white marbles where, in our artistic opinion, coloured marble might be used.
In some cases customers will not take anything but white marble.
It is very largely a matter of fashion. The fashion at one time was to use the Connemara green marble, the Cork green marble or the black marble of Kilkenny. We hope to make a start towards restoring that fashion at home before we try to convert the unenlightened people of other lands.
If the Minister can make a man who pays for his breakfast eat what he does not like and pay more for it, well and good, but I am afraid that the man will continue to eat what he likes for his breakfast.
Marble chippings are also being produced at Clifden and Merlyn Park. The licensing provision covers that, but it will be used only to prevent any difficulty arising from the sudden imposition of the duty upon them; that is, where work was already in progress and not yet completed, the sudden imposition of the duty would be upsetting and create a hardship.
Will the Minister not continue to admit white marble chippings used for the adornment of graves?
No. Reference No. 23 imposes a duty on ice. As Deputies are probably aware, factory ice is produced here—not merely ice cream and things of that kind—but ordinary factory ice. There is, however, a not inconsiderable importation of ice from Northern Ireland which could be supplied from the factory at Drogheda which was established last year or perhaps the year before. However, there is no reason why that ice should be imported. There is a licensing provision here also because there are certain districts which, so far, cannot be served from any of the existing factories. It is proposed, therefore, to allow free importation into Donegal and, perhaps Sligo, for that reason.
The next reference, No. 24, imposes a duty upon printed labels of woven material. They are being manufactured here—labels mainly used by flour merchants and others—and all the requirements of the country can be supplied.
Does it include new woven labels?
No, printed labels in textile materials. Reference No. 25 imposes a duty on prayer books, missals, breviaries, hymnals, and other books used for the purpose of religious worship. Deputy Dillon said that the Tariff Commission made a recommendation against the imposition of any such duty. I was in a position to make a bet with the Deputy on that matter because I knew I was on a certainty and I only bet on certainties. The Tariff Commission is not required to make a recommendation. It was the practice, before this Government came into office, and when we were in Opposition, for the Commission to make a recommendation. Its power to do so, however, was very frequently questioned in debates here and it was contended by myself and by other members then in Opposition that the Tariff Commission had no power to make a recommendation and, in fact, was acting contrary to the statute in making a recommendation, particularly where the Commission framed the Report to support its recommendations. There was one famous case in respect of one matter where they said in their Report:—"In view of our recommendation, we do not think it is necessary to vote under this head." That was discussed here in this House year after year and it became a matter of controversy when every Report was published. Accordingly, as soon as this Government came into office, and when I became Minister, I pointed out that the Act did not require a recommendation, and, in none of their Reports since has a recommendation appeared. The function of the Commission is to ascertain and examine all the facts and to prepare a Report on the information they have obtained, but it is for the Government first and then for the Dáil to decide what shall be done with regard to the Report.
We considered it desirable to impose this duty, which will mainly benefit the bookbinders. There is a licensing provision because it is not possible to get certain material printed here economically on account of the small quantities required, and in such cases the printed sheets would be allowed in free of duty so as to allow the book to be bound here. A large number of these books are, in fact, bound here already. As far as Catholic books are concerned, there is a very wide selection of them both printed and bound in Ireland and available at the shops specialising in this class of books. As a matter of fact, the organisation which is called the Bible Society of Ireland has been one of the best of all the religious organisations in the country in supporting the Irish printing industry here and has been setting an example that others might well follow. It is ridiculous to describe this tax as a tax on religious knowledge or on the propagation of the Gospels or in any of the other ways in which certain Deputies saw fit to describe it. There is no reason whatever why we should not use books printed and bound by Irish workers in preference to some of those coming in from other countries and produced under conditions that we would not consider suitable for a Christian country at all. Undoubtedly, some of these foreign firms enjoy a very high reputation, give very good employment, and are of the kind that we would like to see established here; but certainly some of the cheaper publications are produced to a large extent by sweated labour, and I do not think it is going to help the propagation of the Gospels that the use of such publications here should be encouraged, particularly when, at very low costs, prayer books, hymnals and other books of that description can be procured, printed by Irish workers and put together in Irish factories.
Does the Minister know what the Tariff Commission found to be the additional employment provided by a 30 per cent. tariff?
The facts are set out in the Commission's report which, I presume, all Deputies have read.
One and a half men and one and a half women!
Well, is it not better to have one and a half men and one and a half women employed here than in Belgium or somewhere else?
I understood the Minister to say that certain publications did not come under the tariff.
Wherever it is clear that the quantities of a particular publication required are so small that they could not be printed economically here, the printed sheets can be allowed in, free of duty, for binding here. That has been done quite regularly in the past by many firms.
The probability is that this tariff will somewhat increase the cost of many of these sheets because of copyright regulations, and that is why I am particularly anxious to let them in as printed.
There is a certain difficulty there. Whereas, I think, the principal advantage of the duty will go to the bookbinders, it must be remembered that there is a printing industry here also and in one respect that industry is very efficient. They are effective in our list of exported goods, and have been engaged largely in printing and could, possibly, go into the printing of these books with considerable efficiency and success. That, however, could only be done where there was a considerable quantity of a particular publication to be printed. Where that is not possible, and where the quantity is insufficient to enable their economic manufacture to be undertaken here, the intention would be to permit the printed material to be imported for binding here. The binding need not cost more than it would cost anywhere else.
The Minister is also aware that the costs of bookbinding in our State compare most unfavourably with the costs elsewhere?
It is true that the wages of the bookbinders are considerably higher here. That is a factor which is making for a higher cost.
Does the Minister know what would be the ratio of the increased costs in that case?
The difference is not inconsiderable. Reference No. 26 replaces a duty, which has been in operation under emergency order, upon copper tubes, tubing, pipes, and certain piping. A factory is being established at Galway for their manufacture. Deputies need have no fear about the technical efficiency of that factory, because they have announced that they have technical collaboration with Imperial Chemicals. Imperial Chemicals own some of the shares in the company which is to be operated, although it qualifies as a national company under the Control of Manufactures Act, and has an Irish majority on its board. We have no fear that this company will not produce a first class article. The factory is also engaged in the production of other things. I cannot say to what extent the manufacture of copper tubes, piping, and so on, has commenced, or whether it has yet commenced. In any event, it is desirable that the market should not be allowed to be stocked up with these goods. Everybody knew that the factory was to be built. The duty was imposed by an Emergency Order. In the meantime, licences were issued to everybody who wanted these goods, and such licences will be issued until a supply is available from the home factory. The same applies to the rest of the references in this Resolution. These duties are now in operation under the Emergency Order. No. 27 is supposed to be a toilet preparation.
Before the Minister passes from No. 26, I would like to know if he is taking any steps to set a standard as to the pressure to be applied?
There is no standard that I am aware of. At the present time we have neither a standard for the imported nor for the home manufactured goods. It is somebody's duty, I presume, to look after that matter, but it is hardly the duty of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. It might be the duty of the Board of Works or the Housing Department of the Department of Local Government and Public Health. In Great Britain most of these standards are set by voluntary associations, and the same applies in other countries. We might get the same development as under the Cement Act. The standard for cement is being set up in consultation with civil engineers, and perhaps they will come forward and make out a general standard for the class of articles manufactured in these factories.
Is the Minister aware that there are faults in some of this tubing and piping?
Yes, but you can get these in the imported articles as well.
I think the British firms guarantee these articles.
The home manufacturers will do the same.
There is more competition in Great Britain.
As regards reference No. 29, a factory for the manufacture of pencils, crayons, chalks for marking, and such things is being established in Mullingar. It has not yet been established but it was obviously necessary, as soon as the report that such a factory was coming went abroad, that the duty should be imposed; because one good shipload of these pencils would flood the market for three years. Licences are being issued for the free importation of these goods at present. I do not see why there should be any objection to the Minister for Finance getting revenue from these. It will not make any difference to the economic life of the country whether he does or not. There is no reason why these pencils should not be produced at this factory just as well as elsewhere. The firm engaged is a well-known firm. It is an English firm and it has been manufacturing pencils upon a large scale for a number of years. The benefits of its experience and technical skill will be available in Mullingar and Deputies need have no fear that they will not produce these articles of as good a standard as any to which we have been accustomed. These are the main points in connection with the duties imposed in Resolution No. 9. They are all protective duties. To the extent that these duties produce revenue, they will be a disappointment to the Minister for Industry and Commerce whatever the Minister for Finance may think of it. It is the hope and intention of the Minister for Industry and Commerce to see that they produce as little revenue as possible. In that way they will achieve the main purpose for which they are imposed.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 68; Níl, 45.
Tá
- Aiken, Frank.
- Anthony, Richard.
- Bartley, Gerald.
- Beegan, Patrick.
- Boland, Gerald.
- Boland, Patrick.
- Brady, Brian.
- Brady, Seán.
- Breathnach, Cormac.
- Breen, Daniel.
- Cleary, Mícheál.
- Concannon, Helena.
- Cooney, Eamonn.
- Corish, Richard.
- Corkery, Daniel.
- Corry, Martin John.
- Crowley, Fred. Hugh.
- Crowley, Timothy.
- Daly, Denis.
- Davin, William.
- De Valera, Eamon.
- Doherty, Hugh.
- Donnelly, Eamon.
- Dowdall, Thomas P.
- Everett, James.
- Flynn, John.
- Flynn, Stephen.
- Fogarty, Andrew.
- Gibbons, Seán.
- Goulding, John.
- Hales, Thomas.
- Harris, Thomas.
- Hogan, Patrick (Clare).
- Houlihan, Patrick.
- Keely, Séamus P.
- Kehoe, Patrick.
- Kelly, James Patrick.
- Kelly, Thomas.
- Keyes, Michael.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Kissane, Eamonn.
- Lemass, Seán F.
- Little, Patrick John.
- Lynch, James B.
- MacEntee, Seán.
- Maguire, Ben.
- Maguire, Conor Alexander.
- Moane, Edward.
- Moore, Séamus.
- Murphy, Timothy Joseph.
- Norton, William.
- O Briain, Donnchadh.
- O Ceallaigh, Seán T.
- O'Grady, Seán.
- O'Reilly, Matthew.
- Pattison, James P.
- Pearse, Margaret Mary.
- Rice, Edward.
- Ruttledge, Patrick Joseph.
- Ryan, James.
- Ryan, Martin.
- Ryan, Robert.
- Sheridan, Michael.
- Smith, Patrick.
- Traynor, Oscar.
- Victory, James.
- Walsh, Richard.
- Ward, Francis C.
Níl
- Alton, Ernest Henry.
- Beckett, James Walter.
- Belton, Patrick.
- Bennett, George Cecil.
- Bourke, Séamus.
- Broderick, William Joseph.
- Burke, James Michael.
- Byrne, Alfred.
- Coburn, James.
- Costello, John Aloysius.
- Daly, Patrick.
- Desmond, William.
- Dillon, James M.
- Doyle, Peadar S.
- Fagan, Charles.
- Finlay, John.
- Fitzgerald, Desmond.
- Fitzgerald-Kenney, James.
- Good, John.
- Haslett, Alexander.
- Holohan, Richard.
- Keating, John.
- Lynch, Finian.
- MacDermot, Frank.
- McFadden, Michael Og.
- McGovern, Patrick.
- McGuire, James Ivan.
- McMenamin, Daniel.
- Morrisroe, James.
- Morrissey, Daniel.
- Mulcahy, Richard.
- Murphy, James Edward.
- O'Donovan, Timothy Joseph.
- O'Higgins, Thomas Francis.
- O'Leary, Daniel.
- O'Mahony, The.
- O'Neill, Eamonn.
- O'Reilly, John Joseph.
- O'Sullivan, Gearóid.
- O'Sullivan, John Marcus.
- Redmond, Bridget Mary.
- Reidy, James.
- Rice, Vincent.
- Rogers, Patrick James.
- Wall, Nicholas.
Tellers: Tá: Deputies Little and Smith; Níl: Deputies Doyle and Bennett.
Question declared carried.