I have nothing further to say on this matter. I explained on the previous day upon which this Resolution was under discussion, the nature of the Order, which deals with onions, and the necessity for the restriction of imports during the season in which home supplies are available. That season has passed for this year, and will not come again until June or July next, and, in the meantime, there is no restriction upon importation.
Committee on Finance. - Control of Imports: Quota Orders: Motions of Approval.
Debate resumed on the following Motion:—
Go gceaduíonn Dáil Eireann leis seo an tOrdú chun Iomportálanna do Rialú (Quota Uimh. 23), 1935, do rinne an Ard-Chomhairle an 2adh lá de Lúnasa, 1935, fén Acht chun Iomportálanna do Rialú, 1934 (Uimh. 12 de 1934).
That Dáil Eireann hereby approves of Control of Imports (Quota No. 23) Order, 1935, made on the 2nd day of August, 1935, by the Executive Council under the Control of Imports Act, 1934 (No. 12 of 1934).—(Minister for Industry and Commerce.)
Minister for industry and Commerce (Mr. Lemass)
As we are back on the subject, will the Minister say if he has been able to ascertain in the meantime why it is a quota is fixed for the next six months substantially higher—I think the quota allows for the import of 34,000 more cwts. of raw onions than were imported during the same period last year—than the quantity imported in the same period last year? Can the Minister tell us why it has been fixed at such an amount, and whether imports of that size are contemplated?
There are two answers. One is that only 75 per cent. of a quota is allocated, except in emergency circumstances. When a quota is fixed, only 75 per cent. is allocated, and the other 25 per cent. is held against possible contingencies. The second is that there is no reason in this case, during the present quota period, to restrict in any way the importation of onions, and, consequently, the quota has been fixed as large as is convenient to administer. in order to ensure that every person on the register of importers will get whatever licences he seeks without restriction.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:—
Go gceaduíonn Dáil Eireann leis seo an tOrdú chun Iomportálanna do Rialú (Quota Uimh. 24), 1935 do rinne an Ard-Chomhairle an 13adh lá de Mheán Fhómhair, 1935, fén Acht chun Iomportálanna do Rialú, 1934 (Uimh. 12 de 1934).
That Dáil Eireann hereby approves of Control of Imports (Quota No. 24) Order, 1935, made on the 13th day of September, 1935, by the Executive Council under the Control of Imports Act, 1934 (No. 12 of 1934).
This relates to Quota Order No. 24, which deals with perambulators and, under it, the importation of complete bodies and complete chassis for perambulators is prohibited save under licence. Considerable progress has been made in the development of the perambulator assembling industry and there are some half-dozen firms now engaged in it. It was found, however, for a variety of reasons, that further progress would be slow so long as the importation of complete bodies and complete chassis was taking place freely, and the Order is designed to transfer, not at present the whole, but a substantial part of the home market for perambulators of the types covered by the Order to the native assembling firms.
The quota fixed for the present quota period, which extends to 31st January next, is 200. That number is, of course, largely experimental, because there are no separate statistics relating to imports of these articles and, consequently, no reliable information. Because, however, of the experimental nature of the quota, the period fixed is a short one, and whatever adjustments may be necessary, arising out of the experience gained during that period, can be effected without undue delay.
I endeavoured by Parliamentary Question the other day to get some information on this matter from the Minister. I got very little and he certainly has not added to it now. He has told us, however, in reply to a Parliamentary Question, that the imposition of this Quota Order was for the purpose of assisting in the development of the industry and providing increased employment. He told us that the total number of persons employed, on the last day fur which he had information, 1st September, 1934, was 77; but he had no information for, say, March, 1935, so that we have here a proposal practically to shut down the import of articles, 16,000 of which were imported during the last calendar year. If the Minister applies the 75 per cent. in respect of the quota on these articles, a quota at the rate implied in this Quota Order is going to allow in only about 600 of these articles in 12 months. Sixteen thousand were imported last year.
The Deputy cannot assume that, because not all classes are covered by the Quota Order.
We would at least expect the Minister to tell us what percentage this quota is of the amount that normally comes in.
I explained that I could not do that because we have not got separate figures. They are not available to anybody.
The way it presents itself to me is that the Minister is shutting down, to the equivalent of an import of 600 articles, the type of article which was imported to the extent of 16,000 last year; that 75 or 77 people were employed on this type of manufacture before; but that he can give us no information as to the amount of employment that is going to be given in this respect. Apparently, we cannot get from the Minister any information as to how tins quota is going to assist the development of industry here. He simply tells us that he has not got the information.
But there is another aspect of it to which I would like to draw the attention of the House. The cost of perambulators imported last year was £17,700. They are used, I suppose, by the less wealthy class of people, the class of people who have on them the responsibility and the cost of rearing young families. These people had to pay £8,800 in Customs duties on the import of these articles last year. Judging by the number of persons employed, the number of these articles that are being produced in the country is less than the number that is being imported. The price of the manufactured article is obviously measured by the price of the imported article. If, on the import of £17,000 worth of perambulators, the buyers of them had to pay the equivalent of more than £8,000 in Customs duties, it gives one an idea of the amount of the additional cost that these persons have to bear by reason of the tariff. I submit to the Minister that they will have to bear more by the reason of the putting on of this particular quota.
The Minister explained when the tomato quota order was imposed that, because of the shortage of tomatoes, the sellers of tomatoes in this country made abnormal profits. It is undoubtedly the fact that, in the case of boots and other articles in respect of which quota orders have been made, the issuing of the quota order brought about a rise in the prices paid. The Minister must be not only blind but deaf if he does not understand that his quota order in respect of boots raised the price, of boots in the country. Now, we are going to have the price of these perambulators raised if we consider the amount of duty alone paid in respect of imported perambulators last year, amounting, as I have said, to £8,800.
Where did the Deputy get that figure?
I got it from the reply of the Minister for Finance quoted on page 60 of the Dáil debates for the 30th October last. We have got the figure of £117 or so for every person employed in this country in the manufacture or assembly of perambulators. That is according to the figure of the Minister for Industry and Commerce. If the Minister, takes it that the production of perambulators in the country is equal to what comes in, we set an idea of the amount of money that has to be borne by the particular class of persons purchasing them.
Is there not another explanation of that?
We would be glad to hear any explanation that the Minister has to give.
The duty was being paid by the exporters.
Would the Minister explain that to us?
That is why the quota order had to be made because the duty was non-effective. The exporters were paying the duty.
If the Minister would stand over his proposal and tell us what he has found out by his examination of the situation as to what is happening in the country, as to what he thinks and what he hopes is going to happen as the result of it, we would not be led into these misconceptions. I am not prepared to take an interjection like that from a Minister who will not, in a systematic way, give the House an explanation of what the position is industrially or from the point of view of cost or taxation. The Minister, in putting these quota orders before us, should give us a somewhat systematic exposé of what the effect of producing additional employment is going to be here. He should also give us a more systematic explanation of the price of these things as a result both of the taxation that is imposed and of these quota orders. To anyone who simply looks at the facts as they are, the purchasers of these articles, before ever a quota order was imposed, had as a result of the 75 per cent. tariff with the preferential rate of 50 per cent., paid these huge sums of money that I speak of on the imported article alone, and an equivalent sum over the normal cost of manufacture on the produced article here. But, when we relate the additional cost paid by reason of the Customs duty to the number of people employed, the facts that emerge are sufficient to warrant a deeper examination of the situation than the Minister has apparently given to it, with a more complete explanation to the House.
The Minister says that this order is going to increase employment here. It is put in such a way that, I suggest to him, it reduces in a very blunt way the number of these articles that are being imported. At the rate that is quoted in the quota order, there are only 600 of these articles going to be imported in the 12 months as against 16,000 imported last year. The whole thing, in my opinion, is very irresponsible. If we are to believe the Minister it seems to me that he is only taking a shot in the dark as to what may happen. Surely, the Minister with the assistance of his Department and with the contacts that he has, both with manufacturers and the commercial community both in the city send through the country, should be able to give us a somewhat more satisfactory explanation with regard to the real effects of this quota order.
The Minister says that this quota order will have the effect of increasing the number of people employed in this particular industry. We should like to have more definite information on that than we have got from the Minister. According to his figures, in the previous year the number of these articles imported was 16,000. The tariff on them amounted to £8,800 odd. The Minister said it was paid by the exporters of the articles. I would like to have some more definite information on that from the Minister. Is he in a position to produce tables showing the price of these articles in England, where the articles were manufactured, and the price charged here? According to the figures that the Minister gave this evening, we gather that the purchasers of these perambulators, in tariffs, alone are contributing the sum of £115 each in wages to the 77 men employed. There has to be added to that the profit of the protected manufacturers here, and that is going to amount to something. We have no means of knowing what that profit amounts to. Judging by our experience of other tariffed goods, we know that manufacturers are able to obtain a handsome profit for themselves on these already highly tariffed goods. It is probably true that the mere putting into employment of 77 men costs the purchasers of these perambulators a good deal more than the sum paid in-wages to them. This particular tariff will bear severely on people who are not in a position to bear it, people with family responsibilities, people who are working desperately to maintain themselves and their little growing families. I should like to have very clear and definite information on the whole subject. I, myself, shall not be purchasing any of these articles, but I have sympathy for the 16,000 odd purchasers of perambulators, many of whom, I know, are in a position in which they can ill afford to buy any kind of propelled vehicle to carry child. This particular tariff is an illustration, which can easily be converted into figures, of what is happening all over. In many instances, the whole result of a tariff, particularly where it is excessive, falls on the unfortunate consumers. Unless we get some figures to prove that the exporters are bearing some portion of this tariff, there is definite evidence in, this case that almost the whole cost of putting these few men or women into work is borne by the consumer.
Are the bodies of these things being built in the country?
Yes. Deputy Bennett seems to be suffering from a lapse of memory. He has forgotten that his Party has changed its policy since he last spoke in the same strain. He is likely to move east, like certain other members of his Party, unless he remembers that they have a new policy now and that they are in favour of tariffs. All that free trade jargon which Deputy Bennett has given us is now out of date with members of his Party.
Are you sure?
Unless they have run away from the new policy published a fortnight ago and have changed again.
I spoke of excessive tariffs.
Will the Deputy read the policy of his Party?
I did.
The Deputy does not seem to have understood it.
This is a tariff on babies.
I have often warned Deputy Mulcahy to keep as far away as he can from statistics. They are a source of perpetual danger to him.
The Minister has done his best to keep me far away from them.
Without success. He has managed to escape my care and has consumed statistics to an extent that is causing him considerable indigestion.
I do not blame the Minister for it.
I want to tell the Deputy that he must never be certain of the accuracy of his deductions from a limited number of statistics. I said already that a possible interpretation of the yield from the Customs duty on perambulators is that the exporters of these goods were subsidising their sale in this country to the extent of paying the duty. I do not say that that is the whole explanation, but I know, from investigations made otherwise, that, to some extent, that must be an explanation, because considerable reductions in price were being offered to importers by those formerly engaged in supplying the markets here. It was that situation, in which the ad valorem duty did not appear to be effective, that led us to deal with the problem by Order under the Control of Imports Act. If that situation were not present, if the Customs duty were effective, as we intended it to be, this Order would not be required. Secondly, I told Deputy Mulcahy that there were no statistics as to the imports in any period of the classes of perambulators covered by this Order. The figures which he got from the Trade and Shipping Statistics relate to a much wider range of articles. The articles covered by the Order represent much less than half the total import figure for baby carriages generally. The great majority of imported baby carriages are of the folding type which, I understand, are also the cheapest and sold in greatest quantity. The only perambulators covered by the Order are those of the fixed-body type, and they are being manufactured by a number of concerns here—and manufactured very well. I cannot tell Deputy Mulcahy what is the average employment given in their production, because that information is not available. As he mentioned, on the 1st September, 1934, there were from 70 to 80 employed, and by the 1st April, 1935, that figure had risen to 103. Presumably, the figure is now higher, because production in the industry has increased. The import quota fixed for the first quota period is, as I have said, experimental, because of the absence of definite information as to the quantities required. The experience gained in that period will enable us to fix the quota for ensuing periods with greater accuracy. It is unwise for Deputy Mulcahy to assume that if the quota for three months is fixed at 200, the quota figure over the year will be 800. That may or may not be so, but there are no grounds for the deduction the Deputy has made. The operation of the Quota Order affords effective protection for the industry and defeats certain efforts that were being made to defeat the ad valorem Customs duty which could be nullified, and was nullified, by various devices adopted by importers. The quota was placed not merely on the completed articles but on the component parts of it. Consequently, it is effective against any devices for its evasion that may be adopted.
Question put and agreed to.
I move:—
That Dáil Eireann hereby approves of Control of Imports (Quota No. 25) Order, 1935, made on the 4th day of October, 1935, by the Executive Council under the Control of Imports Act, 1934 (No. 12 of 1934).
This Quota Order deals with certain assembled parts of motor car bodies. That is, an assembly consisting of the back part of a motor car with the end part and the side or roof attached thereto. The importation of motor body shells is already prohibited under Quota Order 10, and the intention of that prohibition was to secure the greatest degree of assembly in the production of motor bodies within, the Free State. The most difficult part of the body assembly and the part which provides most employment is the joining, together of the back part and the side panels. It appears that such assemblies could be imported notwithstanding the Quota Order prohibiting the importation of body shells. In order to prevent the position being abused by extensive importation of such assemblies, this Quota Order No. 25 was made. A purely nominal quota has been fixed for the first quota period. During the preliminary period, licences for limited quantities only were issued, such licences being confined to firms who had been doing assembly work on the basis of importation of back and side parts. The intention is that these assemblies shall not be importer.
We shall agree to this Quota Order, but, on the general question of quota orders, I want to make an application to the Minister. In connection with these Control of Imports Quota Orders, would he be good enough to arrange that there be inserted in parenthesis, after the quota number, a short description of the Quota order itself?
You mean in the Resolutions.
No, documents issued to merchants in connection with them.
And also in this Resolution.
I am dealing with the point of view of the commercial community. If one is importing three or four commodities to which different Quota Orders apply it is comparatively difficult to know to which commodity a particular set of documents applies, because all the information you have is Quota Order No. 25 or Quota Order No. 14. It would be of material assistance to the commercial community if a rule was made where a quota is referred to by number in parenthesis that thereafter will appear a statement that it refers, say, to boots.
The Deputy appreciates the difficulty. Surely the difficulty is one of definition, where you might, in fact, mislead someone by putting in an entirely inadequate definition for the purpose of giving information of that kind. Take the case that we discussed. It refers not merely to baby carriages and perambulators as being the subject of the Quota Order, but to a certain class defined in the Order, so that a brief description of that class of perambulators would not be possible, The description perambulators or baby carriages would be misleading, because the Order only relates to certain classes.
I suggest that the difficulty might be overcome by describing, say, Quota Order No. 25 as referring to certain classes of perambulators. To take another instance, supposing there was an order referring to certain classes of boots, it would be practicable to state that Quota Order No. 14 applied to certain classes of boots only, thus drawing the attention of merchants to the fact that it was a very limited and a clearly inadequate description. The Minister will readily recognise that if a person is habitually importing under quotas, he must be a registered importer, and therefore would import a certain amount under every Quota Order. All the merchant wants to know is to which of the Quota Orders that he habitually uses these documents refer. I suggest that a circular might be sent to registered importers asking them to note that this description was merely for convenience and did not purport accurately to describe the Quota Order.
At the present time all the persons concerned get a copy of the Quota Order.
My suggestion is that a circular or handbill should be sent for the convenience of importers with a description of the Quota Order appended stating that it is not meant to be an exhaustive description, but merely a help to merchants to differentiate between sets of documents. I admit that if you go through these documents carefully you can get the requisite information, but it is a tedious process, and where you have to handle them in the course of business, particularly if you have not a large staff devoted exclusively to that work, it involves a good deal of unnecessary trouble. The Minister will recognise that in this country we have a very large number of very small importers who have not the highly-trained staff that large importers would have. I have had personal experience of that difficulty, and I heard it mentioned by a number of other merchants similarly circumstanced, and I suggest to the Minister that for an experimental period in any case he might try it. If he finds that misapprehension arises he can easily abandon it and revert to the original method.
I will have the suggestion considered.
The Minister will find that Section 3 of the last Quota Order that we dealt with says: "The period beginning on the 6th day of November, 1935, and ending on the 30th day of June, 1936, is hereby appointed to be the first quota period under the Control of Imports (Quota No. 24) Order, 1935, which relates to certain motor car body parts." It is the same dealing with perambulators "under the Control of Imports (Quota No. 24) Order 1935 (which relates to certain perambulators and chassis, bodies and body shells of certain perambulators." What seems to be required is that on the front of the Order there should be a parenthetical statement. Deputies are frightfully confused when they simply see Quota No. 35 Order. It should be possible to make the Orders read that Dáil Eireann had approved of Quota No. 35 Order relating to so and so, and that it was made on a certain date. It would be of considerable convenience to Deputies and to the commercial community if that could be done. If the commercial community have the same difficulty about these Quota Orders that Deputies have, I pity the commercial community.
I heard continual complaints of the same character.
Question put and agreed to.